The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 593–620 | Cite as

Industrial configuration in an economy with low transportation costs

  • Hajime TakatsukaEmail author
  • Dao-Zhi Zeng
Original Paper


We examine how the spatial economy with multiple industries is shaped when interregional trade costs and intraregional commuting costs are low. All industries are characterized by increasing returns to scale and monopolistic competition, and they are differentiated by their trade costs and the degree of intra-industry competition measured by their firm numbers. We find some distinct rules in industrial location. First, at most, one industry disperses, while others agglomerate in a region according to their ratios of relative trade costs to firm numbers. Second, industries with stronger competition constitute a smaller region, while those with higher trade costs compose a larger region. The results are consistent with the classical Weberian location theory and suggest that the degree of intra-industry competition also becomes an essential factor to determine industrial location when transportation costs are small. Finally, the population differential between the regions monotonically decreases in the relative commuting cost.

JEL Classification

F12 R12 R30 



We are grateful to Tomoya Mori, Takatoshi Tabuchi, three anonymous reviewers, Editor Janet Kohlhase, and the seminar participants at University of Tokyo, Tohoku University, and Chuo University for helpful suggestions. Financial support from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research 24530303, 22330073, 20730183 for the first author, and 24243036, 24330072, 22330073, 21243021, and the Y.C. Tang disciplinary development fund of Zhejiang University for the second author are acknowledged.


  1. Alsleben C (2005) The downside of knowledge spillovers: an explanation for the dispersion of high-tech industries. J Econ 84:217–248Google Scholar
  2. Amiti M (1998) Inter-industry trade in manufactures: does country size matter? J Int Econ 44:231–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anas A, Xiong K (2003) Intercity trade and the industrial diversification of cities. J Urban Econ 54:258–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Combes P-P, Duranton G (2006) Labor pooling, labor poaching, and spatial clustering. Reg Sci Urban Econ 36:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Aspremont C, Gabszewicz JJ, Thisse J-F (1979) On Hotelling’s “stability in competition”. Econometrica 47:1145–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glaeser EL, Kohlhase JE (2004) Cities, regions and the decline of transport costs. Pap Reg Sci 83:197–228Google Scholar
  7. Helpman E (1998) The size of regions. In: Pines D, Sadka E, Zilcha I (eds) Topics in public economics: theoretical and applied analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–54Google Scholar
  8. Henderson JV (1988) Urban development: theory, fact, and illusion. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Hotelling H (1929) Stability in competition. Econ J 39:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krugman P (1981) Intraindustry specialization and the gains from trade. J Political Econ 89:959–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Political Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mills ES, Hamilton BW (1994) Urban economics, 5th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Murata Y (2003) Product diversity, taste heterogeneity, and geographic distribution of economic activities: Market vs. non-market interactions. J Urban Econ 53:126–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murata Y, Thisse J-F (2005) A simple model of economic geography á la Helpman-Tabuchi. J Urban Econ 58:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ottaviano G, Tabuchi T, Thisse J-F (2002) Agglomeration and trade revisited. Int Econ Rev 43:409–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ottaviano G, Thisse J-F (2004) Agglomeration and economic geography. In: Henderson JV, Thisse J-F (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2563–2608Google Scholar
  17. Pflüger M (2004) A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model. Reg Sci Urban Econ 34:565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pflüger M, Südekum J (2008) Integration, agglomeration and welfare. J Urban Econ 63:544–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Suedekum J (2006) Agglomeration and regional costs of living. J Reg Sci 46:529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tabuchi T (1998) Urban agglomeration and dispersion: a synthesis of Alonso and Krugman. J Urban Econ 44:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tabuchi T, Thisse J-F (2002) Taste heterogeneity, labor mobility and economic geography. J Dev Econ 69:155–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tabuchi T, Thisse J-F (2006) Regional specialization, urban hierarchy, and commuting costs. Int Econ Rev 47:1295–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Takatsuka H, Zeng D-Z (2009) Dispersion forms: an interaction of market access, competition, and urban costs. J Reg Sci 49:177–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weber A (1929) The theory of the location of industries. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (Translated by C.J. Friedrich)Google Scholar
  25. Zeng D-Z (2006) Redispersion is different from dispersion: spatial economy of multiple industries. Ann Reg Sci 40:229–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of ManagementKagawa UniversityKagawaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Information SciencesTohoku UniversityMiyagiJapan
  3. 3.Center for Research of Private EconomyZhejiang UniversityZhejiangChina

Personalised recommendations