A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
One size does not fit all: evaluating the impact of microenterprise measurement on policy evaluation
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3999-1916
Abstract Researchers and economic development practitioners regard microenterprises (MEs) as pivotal actors for economic development, poverty alleviation, and job creation. Notwithstanding the importance of MEs in the economy, there is no consistent definition of MEs, and thus, there is no consensus on the appropriate measurement and criteria that should be used to evaluate MEs formation. Two of the most commonly accepted standards criteria to determine MEs are the number of employees and total annual revenues. Although there is a growing body of research conducted on ME formation using the employment criteria to determine the firm size, fewer studies have used the revenue criteria. These criteria will be compared in a regional activity model at different units of geographic scale (state, county, and census tract level) using data from US businesses. Results suggest that there are no statistically significant changes in the estimated model when the criteria are changed for the same geographic unit of scale. However, for the same criteria (employment-based or revenue-based), a change in the unit of geographic aggregation produces different and sometimes contradictory results. These results imply that evaluations of MEs and their factors are more sensitive to scale than to criteria, raising awareness that for proper program evaluation, the unit of data aggregation matters.
One size does not fit all: evaluating the impact of microenterprise measurement on policy evaluation
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3999-1916
Abstract Researchers and economic development practitioners regard microenterprises (MEs) as pivotal actors for economic development, poverty alleviation, and job creation. Notwithstanding the importance of MEs in the economy, there is no consistent definition of MEs, and thus, there is no consensus on the appropriate measurement and criteria that should be used to evaluate MEs formation. Two of the most commonly accepted standards criteria to determine MEs are the number of employees and total annual revenues. Although there is a growing body of research conducted on ME formation using the employment criteria to determine the firm size, fewer studies have used the revenue criteria. These criteria will be compared in a regional activity model at different units of geographic scale (state, county, and census tract level) using data from US businesses. Results suggest that there are no statistically significant changes in the estimated model when the criteria are changed for the same geographic unit of scale. However, for the same criteria (employment-based or revenue-based), a change in the unit of geographic aggregation produces different and sometimes contradictory results. These results imply that evaluations of MEs and their factors are more sensitive to scale than to criteria, raising awareness that for proper program evaluation, the unit of data aggregation matters.
One size does not fit all: evaluating the impact of microenterprise measurement on policy evaluation
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3999-1916
Abstract Researchers and economic development practitioners regard microenterprises (MEs) as pivotal actors for economic development, poverty alleviation, and job creation. Notwithstanding the importance of MEs in the economy, there is no consistent definition of MEs, and thus, there is no consensus on the appropriate measurement and criteria that should be used to evaluate MEs formation. Two of the most commonly accepted standards criteria to determine MEs are the number of employees and total annual revenues. Although there is a growing body of research conducted on ME formation using the employment criteria to determine the firm size, fewer studies have used the revenue criteria. These criteria will be compared in a regional activity model at different units of geographic scale (state, county, and census tract level) using data from US businesses. Results suggest that there are no statistically significant changes in the estimated model when the criteria are changed for the same geographic unit of scale. However, for the same criteria (employment-based or revenue-based), a change in the unit of geographic aggregation produces different and sometimes contradictory results. These results imply that evaluations of MEs and their factors are more sensitive to scale than to criteria, raising awareness that for proper program evaluation, the unit of data aggregation matters.
One size does not fit all: evaluating the impact of microenterprise measurement on policy evaluation
Contreras, Sergio A. (author)
2022
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
BKL:
83.64$jRegionalwirtschaft
/
74.12
Stadtgeographie, Siedlungsgeographie
/
38.00$jGeowissenschaften: Allgemeines
/
38.00
Geowissenschaften: Allgemeines
/
83.64
Regionalwirtschaft
/
74.12$jStadtgeographie$jSiedlungsgeographie
RVK:
ELIB39
/
ELIB18
/
ELIB45
Local classification FBW:
oek 4450
Energy Policy Impact Evaluation
| NTIS | 1979
Energy policy impact evaluation
| TIBKAT | 1979