The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 351–364 | Cite as

Falling commuting costs, amenity advantages, and suburbanization

  • Chunhua Wang
Original Paper


The goal of this paper is to understand the direct and indirect effects (through impacting the quantity and quality of local public good in the communities) of falling commuting costs (per unit of distance) on suburbanization. A simple model for a monocentric metropolitan area with multiple communities is developed. It is found that whether decreases in commuting costs promote suburbanization or not depends on each community’s quantity and quality of local public good, distance from the central business district, and income distribution of the residents within and across communities. Sufficient conditions for decreases in commuting costs to promote residential decentralization and those for centralization are identified, respectively.


Commuting costs Local public good Amenity advantage Community Suburbanization 

JEL Classification

R14 R23 H73 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. de Bartolome CAM, Ross SL (2007) Community income distributions in a metropolitan area. J Urban Econ 61: 496–518. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum-Snow N (2007) Did highways cause suburbanization?. Q J Econ 122: 775–805. doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.2.775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch F, Zenginobuz EU (2006) Tiebout equilibria in local public good economies with spillovers. J Public Econ 90: 1745–1763. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brueckner JK, Thisse J-F, Zenou Y (1999) Why is Central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor. Eur Econ Rev 43: 91–107. doi: 10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00019-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassidy G, Epple D, Romer T (1989) Redistribution by local governments in a monocentric urban area. Reg Sci Urban Econ 19: 421–454. doi: 10.1016/0166-0462(89)90014-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collantes GO, Mokhtarian PL (2003) Telecommuting and Residential location: relationships with commute distance traveled for state of California workers. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-03-16Google Scholar
  8. Deller SC, Tsai T-H, Marcouiller DW, English DBK (2001) The role of amenities and quality of life in rural economic growth. Am J Agric Econ 83: 352–365. doi: 10.1111/0002-9092.00161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellen IG, Hempstead K (2002) Telecommuting and the demand for urban living: a preliminary look at white-collar workers. Urban Stud 39: 749–766. doi: 10.1080/00420980220119552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epple D, Romer T (1991) Mobility and redistribution. J Polit Econ 99: 828–856. doi: 10.1086/261780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez R, Rogerson R (1996) Income distribution, communities, and the quality of public education. Q J Econ 111: 135–164. doi: 10.2307/2946660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernandez R, Rogerson R (2003) Equity and resources: an analysis of education finance system. J Polit Econ 111: 858–897. doi: 10.1086/375381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaspar J, Glaeser EL (1998) Information technology and the future of cities. J Urban Econ 43: 136–156. doi: 10.1006/juec.1996.2031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaeser EL, Kahn ME (2004) Sprawl and urban growth. In: Henderson JV, Thisse J-F (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4. Elsevier Science/Elsevier North Holland, Oxford/AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaeser EL, Kahn ME, Rappaport J (2000) Why do the poor live in cities, Working Paper 7636, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaeser EL, Kolko J, Saiz A (2001) Consumer city. J Econ Geogr 1: 27–50. doi: 10.1093/jeg/1.1.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson JV, Thisse J-F (2001) On strategic community development. J Polit Econ 109: 546–569. doi: 10.1086/321017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim S-W (1997) Impacts of telecommuting policies on urban spatial structure and the environment: home-based and center-based telecommuting. Dissertation, Regional Science, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  19. Lund JR, Mokhtarian PL (1994) Telecommuting and residential location: theory and implications for commute travel in the monocentric metropolis. Transp Res Rec 1463: 10–14Google Scholar
  20. Meijers E (2005) Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts?. Urban Stud 42: 765–781. doi: 10.1080/00420980500060384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mieszkowski P, Mills ES (1993) The causes of metropolitan suburbanization. J Econ Perspect 7(3): 135–147Google Scholar
  22. Mills ES (1967) An aggregative model of resource allocation in a metropolitan area. Am Econ Rev 57: 197–210Google Scholar
  23. Muth RF (1969) Cities and housing. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Sridhar KS, Sridhar V (2003) The effect of telecommuting on suburbanization: empirical evidence. J Reg Anal Policy 33: 1–25Google Scholar
  25. Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64: 416–424. doi: 10.1086/257839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wu J (2006) Environmental amenities, urban sprawl, and community characteristics. J Environ Econ Manage 52: 527–547. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2006.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wu J (2009) Economic fundamentals and urban-suburban disparities. J Reg Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  28. Zhang WB (1993) Wages, service prices and rent—urban division of labor and amenities. Soeul J Econ 6: 97–113Google Scholar
  29. Zhang WB (1997) Economic geography with division of labor and amenity difference. In: Chatterji M (eds) Regional science—perspectives for the future. Macmillan, London, pp 207–218Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Center for Applied Geographic Information ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations