Agency Fact Sheet, Department of Economic Development, FY2005

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Agency Fact Sheet, Department of Economic Development, FY2006

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011

Report on applying agreed-upon procedures of Kossuth Connections, Algona, Iowa, and the Iowa Commission on Volunteer Services within the Iowa Department of Economic Development, now known as the Iowa Economic Development Authority, for the period October 2010 through June 2011

Report on applying agreed-upon procedures of Kossuth Connections, Algona, Iowa, and the Iowa Commission on Volunteer Services within the Iowa Department of Economic Development, now known as the Iowa Economic Development Authority, for the period October 2010 through June 2011

Report on the Iowa Department of Economic Development for the year ended June 30, 2011

Report on the Iowa Department of Economic Development for the year ended June 30, 2011

Agreed-upon procedures report of the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the quarter ended March 31, 2012

Agreed-upon procedures report of the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the quarter ended March 31, 2012

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2012

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2012

Report on the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2012

Report on the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2012

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2013

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2013

Report on the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2013

Report on the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2013

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2014

Report on the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2014

Report on the Iowa Economic Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Cedar County Economic Development Commission for the year ended June 30, 2015

Economic Development under Alternative Trade Regimes

How does openness affect economic development? This question is answered in the context of a dynamic general equilibrium model of the world economy, where countries have technological differences that are both sector-neutral and specific to the investment goods sector. Relative to a benchmark case of trade in credit markets only, consider (i) a complete restriction of trade, and (ii) a full liberalization of trade. The first change decreases the cross-sectional dispersion of incomes only slightly, and produces a relatively small welfare loss. The second change, instead, decreases dispersion by a significant amount, and produces a very large welfare gain.

The implications of embodiment and Putty-Clay to economic development

In this paper we construct and analyze a growth model with the following three ingredients. (i) Technological progress is embodied. (ii) The production function of a firm is such that the firm makes both technology upgrade as well as capital and labor decisions. (iii) The firm’s production technology is putty-clay. We assume that there are disincentives to the accumulation of capital, resulting in a divergence between the social and the private cost of investment. We solve a single firm’s problem in this environment. Then we determine general equilibrium prices of capital goods of different vintages. Using these prices we aggregate firms’ decisions and construct the theoretical analogues of National Income statistics. This generates a relationship between disincentives and per capita incomes. We analyze this relationship and show the quantitative and qualitative roles of embodiment and putty-clay. We also show how the model is taken to data, quantified and used to determine to what extent income gaps across countries can be attributed to disincentives.