The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 1–32 | Cite as

Optimal fragmentation in monopolistically competitive industries

Original Paper


Trade in intermediate goods necessitates the viewpoint that final goods are received through a sequential process of production. In this paper, we explore the role of vertical and horizontal complementarities in production and the effects of such complementarities on the level of fragmentation in production. We analyze the optimal level of fragmentation. Using a production chain point of view in a basic monopolistically competitive model allows us to derive analytical results regarding the level of fragmentation, both vertically and horizontally. As the economy grows, our model indicates an increasing level of roundaboutness in production. We also study forces for vertical specialization between countries by extending our framework into a two-country setting.

JEL Classification

L22 L23 R10 F12 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson JE, Wincoop E (2004) Trade costs. J Econ Lit 42(3): 691–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheng W, Yang X (2004) Inframarginal analysis of division of labor: a survey. J Econ Behav Organ 55: 137–174Google Scholar
  3. Ciccone A (2002) Input chains and industrialization. Rev Econ Stud 69(3): 565–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deardorff AV (2001) Fragmentation in simple trade models. N Am J Econ Finance 12: 121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67(3): 297–308Google Scholar
  6. Ethier WJ (1982) National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade. Am Econ Rev 72(3): 389–405Google Scholar
  7. Feenstra RC (1998) Integration of trade and disintegration of production in the global economy. J Econ Perspect 12(4): 31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fujita M, Thisse JF (2006) Globalization and the evolution of the supply chain: who gains and who loses. Int Econ Rev 47(3): 811–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables AJ (1999) The spatial economy: cities, regions, and international trade. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Hummels D, Ishii J, Yi KM (2001) The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade. J Int Econ 54: 75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones RW, Kierzkowski H (1990) The role of services in production and international trade: a theoretical framework. In: Jones RW, Krueger AO (eds) The political economy of international trade. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones RW, Kierzkowski H (2005) International trade and agglomeration: an alternative framework. J Econ 10: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kohler W (2004) International outsourcing and factor prices with multistage production. Econ J 114(494): C166–C185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matsuyama K (1995) Complementarities and cumulative processes in models of monopolistic competition. J Econ Lit 33(2): 701–729Google Scholar
  15. Puga D, Venables AJ (1996) The spread of industry: spatial agglomeration in economic development. J Jpn Int Econ 10(4): 440–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Puga D, Venables AJ (1999) Agglomeration and economic development: import substitution vs. trade liberalisation. Econ J 109(455): 292–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Samuelson PA (1954) The transfer problem and transport costs. Part II: analysis of effects of trade impediments. Econ J 64: 264–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shi H, Yang X (1995) A new theory of industrialization. J Comp Econ 20: 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sun GZ, Lio M (2003) The division of labor and roundabout production: Allyn Young revisited. Pac Econ Rev 8(3): 219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Venables AJ (1996) Equilibrium locations of vertically linked industries. Int Econ Rev 37(2): 341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yi KM (2003) Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade?. J Political Econ 111(1): 52–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Young A (1928) Increasing returns and economic progress. Econ J 38: 527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Institute of Technology, Transport and Location AnalysisStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations