Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

(De)Industrialization, Technology and Transportation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Open Economies Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The transition from a traditional, constant returns technology to modern, increasing returns methods of production in manufacturing not only widens the scale of production but more crucially, it enhances product quality. Such a quality improvement consists mainly in a much higher level of transportability. The fact that products become “lighter” and easier to carry opens foreign markets to manufacturers thereby supporting larger scales of production. We model this situation through a one-stage game where firms distributed across two countries select technologies and fob mill prices. Contrasting with the Big Push approach, such a game is never a coordination game. In addition to cases where all firms adopt either modern or traditional technologies, the standard outcome is an asymmetric situation, where the modern firms in a country eliminate traditional units in the other country. Starting from a situation where all productive activity is traditional, deindustrialization can be viewed as a situation where firms in a country switch to more modern technologies while industrial units in the other country are unable to participate in this movement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For empirical evidence, see for instance Singh (1977), Crafts (1996), Saeger (1997), Kucera and Milberg (2003), Dasgupta and Singh (2006), Nickell et al. (2008), Buera and Kaboski (2009), Lawrence and Edwards (2013), Brakman et al. (2015), Rodrik (2016), Bernard et al. (2017) and Kang (2017).

  2. Our inquiry is also related with “export-led growth” theories, starting with Pred (1966). It introduces in addition an endogenous determination of the size of the exporting sector within the overall economy.

References

  • Autor D, Dorn D (2013) The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. Am Econ Rev 103(5):1553–1597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G (2013) The China syndrome: local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. Am Econ Rev 103(6):2121–2168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G, Song J (2014) Trade adjustment: worker level evidence. Q J Econ 129(4):1799–1860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrens K, Brown M, Bougna T (2018) The world is not yet flat: transport costs matter! Rev Econ Stat 100(4):712–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard A, Smeets V, Warzynski F (2017) Rethinking deindustrialization. Econ Policy 32(89):5–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brakman S, Marrewijk C, Partridge M (2015) Local consequences of global production processes. J Reg Sci 55(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buera F, Kaboski J (2009) Can traditional theories of structural change fit the data? J Eur Econ Assoc 7(2–3):469–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corden M, Neary J (1982) Booming sector and deindustrialization in a small open economy. Econ J 92(368):825–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crafts N (1996) De-industrialization and economic growth. Econ J 106(434):172–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daido K, Tabata K (2013) Public infrastructure, production organization and economic development. J Macroecon 38:330–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta S, Singh A (2006) Manufacturing, services and premature deindustrialization in developing countries: A Kaldorian analysis, United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER) Research Paper No. 2006/49, Helsinki, Finland: UNU

  • Dos Santos Ferreira R, Thisse J-F (1996) Horizontal and vertical differentiation – The Launhardt model. Int J Ind Organ 14:485–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser EL, Kohlhase JE (2004) Cities, regions and the decline of transport costs. Pap Reg Sci 83(1):197–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan J (2010) Airplanes and comparative advantage. J Int Econ 82(2):181–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horstmann I, Markusen J (1992) Endogenous market structure in international trade. J Int Econ 32(1–2):109–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummels D (2007) Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization. J Econ Perspect 21(3):131–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummels D, Skiba A (2004) Shipping the good apples out: an empirical confirmation of the Alchian–Allen conjecture. J Polit Econ 112(6):1384–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang Y (2017) Job destruction and the impact of imports on wages in U.S. manufacturing. Open Econ Rev 28(4):711–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman P, Venables A (1995) Globalization and the inequality of nations. Q J Econ 110:857–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucera D, Milberg W (2003) Deindustrialization and changes in manufacturing trade: factor content calculations for 1978–1995. Rev World Econ 139(4):601–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Launhardt W (1885) Mathematical principles of economics. Edward Elgar, London (English translation in 1993 of the first German edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence R, Edwards L (2013) US employment deindustrialization: insights from history and the international experience. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Brief No. PB13–27

  • List F (1841) Das Nationale System der Politischen Okonomie. English translation, National system of political economy, volume 2: The theory, New York, Cosimo, 2005

  • Matsuyama K (1992) The market size, entrepreneurship and the big push. J Japan Int Econ 6:347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuyama K (2009) Structural change in an interdependent world: a global view of manufacturing decline. J Eur Econ Assoc 7(2–3):478–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee A (2019) More from less: The surprising story of how we learned to prosper using fewer resources—and what happens next. Scribner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy KM, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1989) Industrialization and the big push. J Polit Econ 97(5):1003–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickell S, Redding S, Swaffield J (2008) The uneven pace of deindustrialization in the OECD. World Econ 31(9):1154–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palma J (2014) Industrialization, “Premature” deindustrialization and the dutch disease. Revista NECAT 3(5):7–23

  • Pierce J, Schott P (2016) The surprisingly swift decline of U.S. manufacturing employment. Am Econ Rev 106(7):1632–1662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pred A (1966) The spatial dynamic of U.S. urban-industrial growth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik D (1996) Coordination failures and government policy. J Int Econ 40:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik D (2016) Premature deindustrialization. J Econ Growth 21(1):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosentein-Rodan P (1943) Problems of industrialisation of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. Econ J 53(210/211):202–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowthorn R, Coutts K (2004) Deindustrialisation and the balance of payments in advanced economies. Camb J Econ 28(5):767–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowthorn R, Ramaswamy R (1997) Deindustrialization: its causes and implications, economic issues no. 10. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowthorn R, Ramaswamy R (1999) Growth, trade and deindustrialization. IMF Staff Papers 46:18–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowthorn R, Wells J (1987) De-industrialization and foreign trade. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeger S (1997) Globalization and deindustrialization: myth and reality in the OECD. Rev World Econ 133(4):579–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schott P (2004) Across-product versus within-product specialization in international trade. Q J Econ 119(2):647–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafaeddin S (2005) Trade liberalization and economic reform in developing countries: structural change or deindustrialization? United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Discussion Paper no. 179, Geneva, Switzerland: UNCTAD

  • Singh A (1977) UK industry and the world economy: A case of de-industrialization? Camb J Econ 1(2):113–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smil V (2014) Making the modern world: materials and dematerialization. Wiley, Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Spilimbergo J (1998) Deindustrialization and trade. Rev Int Econ 6(3):450–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang L (2006) Communication costs and trade of differentiated goods. Rev Int Econ 14(1):54–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2019) Can business tread more lightly on the planet? October 17th 2019

  • Tregenna F (2011) Manufacturing productivity, deindustrialization and reindustrialization. United Nations University World Institute for DevelopmentEconomics Research (UNU-WIDER) Research Paper No. 2011/57, Helsinki, Finland: UNU

  • Von Thünen JH (1826) Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalokonomie, Hamburg, Perthes. English translation by Carla M. Wartenberg (1966), Von Thunen’s isolated state. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang P, Xie D (2004) Activation of a modern industry. J Dev Econ 74:393–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull J (1997) Evolutionary game theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

José Pedro Pontes is a member of UECE (Research Unit on Complexity and Economics), which sponsored the research contained in this article. In turn, UECE is financially supported by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), Portugal. This article is part of the Strategic Project (UID/ECO/00436/2019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Research at NHH (SNF), Helleveien 30, 5045, Bergen, Norway

    Armando J. Garcia Pires

  2. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão, University of Lisbon, Rua Miguel Lupi 20, 1249-078, Lisbon, Portugal

    José Pedro Pontes

Authors
  1. Armando J. Garcia Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Pedro Pontes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armando J. Garcia Pires.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garcia Pires, A.J., Pontes, J.P. (De)Industrialization, Technology and Transportation. Open Econ Rev 32, 527–538 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-020-09600-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-020-09600-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation