Social optimality in the constructed-capital model

  • Stefan WrzaczekEmail author
Original Paper


In the constructed-capital model, the steady state is derived under the assumption that each individual behaves optimally. Contrasting to this decentralized approach, in this paper we derive the first-best outcome a central planner would choose. The results show that agglomeration is socially not optimal, irrespective of the level of trade barriers. Furthermore, the differences in the explicit solutions of both approaches are highlighted.


Maximum principle Optimal control Economic geography Constructed-capital model social planner 


  1. Baldwin RE (1999) Agglomeration and endogenous capital. Eur Econ Rev 43:253–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin RE, Forslid R, Martin P, Ottaviano G, Robert-Nicoud F (2003) Economic geography & public policy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1998) Economic growth. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brakman S, Garretsen H, van Marrewijk C (2008) Agglomeration and government spending. In: Brakman S, Garretsen H (eds) Foreign direct investment and the multinational enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 89–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brülhart M, Trionfetti F (2004) Public expenditure, specialisation and agglomeration. Eur Econ Rev 48: 851–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Commendatore P, Kubin I, Petraglia C (2008) Productive public expenditure in a new economic geography model. Int Econ 114:133–160Google Scholar
  7. Grafeneder-Weissteiner T, Prettner K (2008) Agglomeration and population aging in a two region model of exogenous growth. WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics Working PapersGoogle Scholar
  8. Feichtinger F, Hartl R (1986) Optimale Kontrolle ökonomischer Prozesse. Anwendungen des Maximumprinzips in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krugman P, Venables AJ (1995) Globalization and the inequality of nations. Q J Econ 110:857–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin P, Ottaviano G (1999) Growing locations: industry location in a model of endogenous growth. Eur Econ Rev 43:281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin P, Rogers CA (1995) Industrial location and public infrastructure. J Int Econ 39:335–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Puga D (1999) The rise and fall of regional inequalities. Eur Econ Rev 43:303–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith A (1776) The wealth of nations. Various reprints, e.g. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
  16. Tafenau E (2008) Can welfare be improved by relocating firms? The case of the constructed capital model. Working Paper No. 64–2008, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of TartuGoogle Scholar
  17. Trionfetti F (1997) Public expenditure and economic geography. Annales dconomie et de Statistique 47: 101–120Google Scholar
  18. Trionfetti F (2001) Public procurement, market integration, and income inequalities. Rev Int Econ 9(1): 29–41Google Scholar
  19. Venables AJ (1996) Equilibrium locations of vertically linked industries. Int Econ Rev 37:341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. von Thünen JH (1826) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landschaft und Nationalökonomie. F Perthes, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  21. Wrzaczek S (2010) Social optimality in the constructed-capital model, mathematical methods in economics, Research Unit ORCOS, Vienna University of Technology, Research, Report 2010–2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Wittgenstein Center (IIASA, VID/ÖAW, WU), VID/ÖAWViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations