Public Choice

, Volume 127, Issue 3–4, pp 321–343 | Cite as

Political geography

  • Federico Etro


I study a model of geopolitical organization endogenizing the size of nations, their public spending and their degree of openness. The optimal geography may not be a stable equilibrium and a bias toward too many countries tends to emerge. An exogenous increase in openness tends to reduce the size of countries but also to increase the size of their public sectors. When openness is endogenous there can be multiple equilibria, some with globalization backlash associated with large nations and small governments and others with smaller countries, bigger governments and high openness. However, stable equilibria may imply excessive globalization, too many countries and too much government spending.


Public Good Stable Equilibrium Optimal Size Public Spending Multiple Equilibrium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alesina, A., Angeloni, I., & Etro, F. (2005). International unions. The American Economic Review, 95, 3(June), 602–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Spolaore, E. (1997). On the number and size of nations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1027–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., & Spolaore, E. (2003). The Size of Nations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alesina, A. Spolaore, E., & Wacziarg, R. (2000). Economic integration and political disintegration. American Economic Review, 90 (5), 1276–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alesina, A., & Wacziarg, R. (1998). Openness, country size and the government. Journal of Public Economics, 69 (3), 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J., & Faith, R. L. (1987). Secession and the limits of taxation: Toward a theory of internal exit. The American Economic Review, 77, 1023–1031.Google Scholar
  7. Chiang, S. & Mahmud, A. (2005). Federations, Coalitions and Risk Diversification, mimeo, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  8. Desai, S. (2005). Parties, preferences and lock-in: Explaining patterns of governance in the european union, mimeo, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  9. Dur, R., & Roelfsema, H. (2005). Why does centralization fail to internalize policy externalities? Public Choice, 122(3–4), 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etro, F. (2002a). International policy coordination with economic unions. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 110 (2), 187–211.Google Scholar
  11. Etro, F. (2002b). Strategic Export Promotion, mimeo, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. Etro, F. (2003). Globalization and political geography. CESifo wp N. 986, Munich.Google Scholar
  13. Etro, F. (2004). The political economy of fiscal and monetary unions. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 63 (3/4), 289–328.Google Scholar
  14. Etro, F. (2005). The Engine of Growth, mimeo, Intertic.Google Scholar
  15. Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. (1999). The Spatial Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grieben, W.-H. (2004). Globalization, Labor Market Rigidities and Multiple Equilibria, mimeo, Dortmund.Google Scholar
  17. Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation in the Global Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Haimanko, O., Le Breton, M., & Weber, S. (2005). Transfers in a polarized country: Bridging the gap between efficiency and stability. Journal of Public Economics, 89(7), 1277–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartsad, B. (2005). Flexible Integration, mimeo, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  20. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability and competition. The Economic Journal, 39(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kessler, A., Lulfesmann, C. & Myers, G. (2005). Federations, Constitutions and Bargaining, mimeo, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  22. Kothenburger, M. (2005). On the benefits of (de)centralization, mimeo, University of Munich.Google Scholar
  23. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lockwood, B. (2005). Fiscal decentralization: A political economy perspective, forthcoming. In E. Ahamad, & G. Brosio (Eds.), Handbook of Fiscal Federalism, Edward Elgar Press.Google Scholar
  25. Loeper, A. (2005). Heterogeneity and coordination externalities in federal systems: Unitarian centralisation versus non-cooperative decentralisation, mimeo, Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse.Google Scholar
  26. Lorz, O., & Willmann, G. (2005). On the endogenous allocation of decision power in federal structures. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(2), 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pouget, F. (2004a). Economie Politique de la Taille des Nations, mimeo, Université Paris-Dauphine.Google Scholar
  28. Pouget, F. (2004b). What's wrong with Delegation? International Unions and the Determinants of Success of Special Interest Politics, mimeo, University of Paris Dauphine.Google Scholar
  29. Rector, C. (2002). Federations in International Politics, PhD Dissertation, University of San Diego.Google Scholar
  30. Rivera-Batiz, L., & P. Romer, (1990). Economic integration and endogenous growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 531–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open countries have larger governments? Journal of Political Economy, 106(5).Google Scholar
  32. Ruta, M. (2005). Economic theories of political (dis)Integration. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuelson, P. (1955). Diagrammatic exposition of a theory of public expenditure. Review of Economic and Statistics, 37(4), 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Staal, K. (2004). Country size and public good provision, Tinbergen Institute dp N. 26, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  35. Stegarescu, D. (2004). Economic integration and fiscal decentralization: Evidence from OECD countries, dp N. 86, ZEW.Google Scholar
  36. Subacchi, P. (2005). Reforming economic governance in Europe: exploring the road to effective coordination, International Affairs, 81(4), 741–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tabellini, G. (2004). The allocation of tasks, in Institutional Reforms in the European Union, Memorandum for the Convention, pp. 20–33, EuropEos.Google Scholar
  38. Ward, G. (2005). Better Never Than Late? How Timing, Trade, Demography and Institutions Affect the Trade and Productivity Growth of Countries that join the European Union, mimeo, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  39. Wrede, M. (2004). Small states, large unitary sates and federations. Public Choice, 119, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Catholic University of Milan and E.C.G.Milan

Personalised recommendations