The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 811–831 | Cite as

A normative analysis of transport policies in a footloose capital model with interregional and intraregional transportation costs

Original Paper


We introduce a distinction between interregional and intraregional transportation costs in a footloose capital model. This allows assessing more precisely the effects of different types of transport policies on the spatial distribution of activities. From a normative point of view, we find that, in the absence of regulation, the concentration of industrial activity is too high in the center. We show what set of interregional and intraregional transport policies improves the equilibrium.

JEL Classification

R11 R12 R13 R42 R48 R58 



Paul Chiambaretto would like to thank Thierry Mayer for his useful comments on the first draft of this paper. Jacques Thisse also provided useful comments on the topic treated here. We also benefited from the comments of Elijah DePalma. André De Palma and Stef Proost acknowledge the support of the French PREDIT research programme no 09 MT CV 14 and of the Sustaincity project (FP7- EU). The third author thanks also FWO Flanders.


  1. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bairoch P (1997) Victoires et déboires. Histoire économique et sociale du monde du XVIe siècle à nos jours. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin R, Forslid R, Martin P, Ottaviano G, Robert-Nicoud F (2003) Economic geography and public policy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrens K, Gaigné C, Ottaviano G, Thisse J-F (2006) How density economies in international transportation link the internal geography of trading partners. J Urban Econ 60(2):248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrens K, Thisse J-F (2007) Regional economics: a new economic geography perspective. Reg Sci Urban Econ 37(4):457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brülhart M, Crozet M, Koenig P (2004) Enlargement and the EU periphery: the impact of changing market potential. World Econ 27(6):853–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlot S, Gaigné C, Robert-Nicoud F, Thisse J-F (2006) Agglomeration and welfare: the core-periphery model in the light of Bentham, Kaldor, and Rawls. J Public Econ 90(1):325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crozet M, Koenig-Soubeyran P (2004) Trade liberalization and the internal geography of countries. In: Mucchielli J-L, Mayer T (eds) Multinational firms’ location and the new economic geography. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  9. Fratesi U (2008) Regional policy from a supra-regional perspective. Ann Reg Sci 42(3):681–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris C (1954) The market as a factor in the localization of industry in the United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 44:315–348Google Scholar
  11. Head K, Mayer T (2004) Market potential and the location of Japanese firms in the European Union. Rev Econ Stat 86(4):959–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helpman E, Krugman P (1985) Market structure and foreign trade. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Krugman P (1980) Scale economies, product differentiation and the pattern of trade. Am Econ Rev 70(5):950–959Google Scholar
  14. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99(3):493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lafourcade M, Thisse J-F (2011) New economic geography: the role of transport costs. In: de Palma A, Lindsey R, Quinet E, Vickerman R (eds) Handbook in transport economics. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin P (1998) Can regional policies affect growth and geography in Europe. World Econ 21(6):757–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin P (1999) Public policies, regional equalities and growth. J Public Econ 73(1):85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin P (2000) The role of public policy in the process of regional convergence. EIB PapersGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin P, Rogers C (1995) Industrial location and public infrastructure. J Int Econ 39(3):335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Puga D (1999) The rise and fall of regional inequalities. Eur Econ Rev 43(2):303–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tabuchi T (1998) Urban agglomeration and dispersion: a synthesis of Alonso and Krugman. J Urban Econ 44(3):333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Unctad (2004) World Trade Report 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Chiambaretto
    • 1
  • André De Palma
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stef Proost
    • 4
  1. 1.PREG-CRGEcole PolytechniquePalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.ENS CachanCachanFrance
  3. 3.Centre d’Economie de la SorbonneUniversity Paris IParisFrance
  4. 4.Center for Economic StudiesKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations