Empirical studies on the determinants of industrial location typically use variables measured at the available administrative level (municipalities, counties etc.). However, this amounts to assuming that the effects that these determinants may have on the location process do not extend beyond the geographical limits of the selected site. We address the validity of this assumption by comparing results from standard count data models with those obtained by calculating the geographical scope of the spatially varying explanatory variables using a wide range of distances and alternative spatial autocorrelation measures. Our results reject the usual practice of using administrative records as covariates without making some kind of spatial correction.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
This can be seen as a particular case of the so-called modifiable area unit problem (MAUP) originally described by Openshaw and Taylor (1979).
Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain that has about 7 million inhabitants (15% of the Spanish population), covers an area of 31,895 km2, and contributes 19% of Spanish GDP. The capital of Catalonia is the city of Barcelona. Counties in Catalonia are known as comarques.
In addition to the different strands of empirical industrial location literature, some related studies have investigated the MAUP (Openshaw and Taylor 1979). However, these studies were generally not concerned with the determinants of industrial location (a recent exception is Pablo-Martí and Muñoz-Yebra 2009) but with issues such as the spatial distribution of new concerns (Duranton and Overman 2005, 2008) and the estimation of wage and gravity equations (Briant et al. 2010).
See also Jofre-Monseny (2009) for a recent application to the same Spanish region that is investigated here.
As is common in the industrial location literature, our empirical strategy implicitly assumes that the administrative unit to which variables refer is indeed the spatial unit that agents effectively use when taking location decisions. Since we are using municipality data, we believe that this is a plausible assumption. One may still argue that this assumption may not hold for large municipalities and metropolitan areas, so we performed some robustness tests that essentially meant dropping from our data set municipalities with more than 250,000 people (in our case, the city of Barcelona) and those that are part of a metropolitan area (around the cities of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, Manresa and Tarragona). Though results barely changed in the first case, we found that dropping the metropolitan areas from our sample provided different results from those reported below in terms of preferred specification and neighbourhood criterion (though not much in terms of value and significance of the marginal effects). This may be interpreted as evidence that the location processes in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas are different. However, for the sake of simplicity we do not explore this possibility here but leave it for future research.
We did not consider specification 3.B, i.e. one in which we would add (rather than replace the original variables by) the spatially lagged variables calculated as in specification 3.A, because the high correlation between the original variables and these spatially lagged variables (around 0.95 for 6 of the 18 variables) resulted in severe multicollinearity.
We use residential population as the only explanatory variable in the inflated part of the ZIPM and ZINBM. The coefficient associated with this variable was negative and statistically significant in all our specifications.
Note that, although we have experimented with alternative sets of explanatory variables (e.g. we have dropped some of the variables related to the agglomeration economies, knowledge and commuting) and computed the GoF tests using different numbers of cells (see Manjón-Antolín 2009 for details on the computation of this test), these general trends remain largely unaffected.
Although some variables were not statistically significant individually, the Wald test for their joint significance was generally well above standard critical values (results available on request). See Table 3 for an illustrative example of this general trend.
Alañón, Á., Arauzo-Carod, J. M., & Myro, R. (2007). Accessibility, agglomeration and location. In J. M. Arauzo-Carod & M. Manjón-Antolín (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, industrial location and economic growth (pp. 247–267). Chentelham: Edward Elgar.
Amrhein, C. (1995). Searching for the elusive aggregation effect: Evidence from statistical simulations. Environment and Planning A, 27, 105–119.
Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association (lisa). Geographic Analysis, 27, 93–115.
Arauzo-Carod, J. M., Liviano-Solís, D., & Manjón-Antolín, M. (2010). Empirical studies in industrial location: An assessment of their methods and results. Journal of Regional Science, 50(3), 685–711.
Autant-Bernard, C. (2006). Where do firms choose to locate their R&D? A spatial conditional logit analysis on french data. European Planning Studies, 14, 1187–1208.
Briant, A., Combes, P.-P., & Lafourcade, M. (2010). Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations? Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 287–302.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1998). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Combes, P.-P., Mayer, T., & Thisse, J.-F. (2008). Economic Geography. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Coughlin, C. C., & Segev, E. (2000). Location determinants of new foreign-owned manufacturing plants. Journal of Regional Science, 40, 323–351.
Crozet, M., Mayer, T., & Muchielli, J.-L. (2004). How do firms agglomerate? A study of FDI in France. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 27–54.
Disdier, A.-C., & Mayer, T. (2004). How different is Eastern Europe? Structure and Determinants of Locational Choices by French Firms in Eastern and Western Europe. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32, 280–296.
Duranton, G., & Overman, H. G. (2005). Testing for localization using microgeographic data. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1077–1106.
Duranton, G., & Overman, H. G. (2008). Exploring the detailed location patterns of U.K. manufacturing industries using microgeographic data. Journal of Regional Science, 48, 213–243.
Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Industry and Innovation, 11, 207–223.
Figueiredo, O., Guimarães, P., & Woodward, D. (2002). Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 341–361.
Finney, M. (1994). Property tax effects on intrametropolitan firm location: Further evidence. Applied Economic Letters, 1, 29–31.
Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (1999). The spatial economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Guimarães, P., Figueiredo, O., & Woodward, D. (2000). Agglomeration and the location of foreign direct investment in Portugal. Journal of Urban Economics, 47, 115–135.
Hayter, R. (1997). The dynamics of industrial location. The factory, the firm and the production system. New York: Wiley.
Holl, A. (2004a). Transport infrastructure, agglomeration economies, and firm birth. Empirical evidence from Portugal. Journal of Regional Science, 44, 693–712.
Holl, A. (2004b). Manufacturing location and impacts of road transport infrastructure: Empirical evidence from Spain. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 341–363.
Jofre-Monseny, J. (2009). The scope of agglomeration economies: Evidence from Catalonia. Papers in Regional Science, 88(3), 575–590.
Kitson, M., Martin, M., & Tyler, P. (2004). Regional competitiveness: An elusive yet key concept? Regional Studies, 36, 113–124.
Kittiprapas, S., & Mccann, P. (1999). Industrial location behaviour and regional restructuring within the fifth ‘tiger’ economy: evidence from the Thai electronics industry. Applied Economics, 31, 37–51.
Klier, T., & Mcmillen, D. P. (2008). Evolving agglomeration in the U.S. auto supplier industry”. Journal of Regional Science, 48, 245–267.
Lambert, D. M., Mcnamara, K. T., & Garrett, M. I. (2006). An application of spatial poisson models to manufacturing investment location analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 38, 105–121.
Lee, Y. (2008). Geographic redistribution of US manufacturing and the role of state development policy. Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 436–450.
Manjón-Antolín, M. (2009). Chi-square tests for count data models. Working Paper URV. Mimeo.
Mullahy, J. (1997). Heterogeneity, excess zeros, and the structure of count data models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 12, 337–350.
Openshaw, S., & Taylor, P. J. (1979). A million or so correlation coefficients: Three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem. In N. Wrigley (Ed.), Statistical applications in the spatial sciences (pp. 127–144). London: Pion.
Pablo-Martí, F., & Muñoz-Yebra, C. (2009). Localización empresarial y economías de aglomeración: el debate en torno a la agregación espacial. Investigaciones Regionales, 15, 139–166.
Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2003). Geography, industrial organization and agglomeration. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 377–393.
Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford.
Trullén, J., & Boix, R. (2005). Indicadors 2005. Diputació de Barcelona and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Van Dijk, J., & Pellenbarg, P. H. (2000). Firm relocation decisions in the Netherlands: an ordered logit approach. Papers in Regional Science, 79, 191–219.
Woodward, D., Figueiredo, O., & Guimarães, P. (2006). Beyond the Silicon Valley: University R&D and high-technology location. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 15–32.
Wu, F. (1999). Intrametropolitan FDI firm location in Guangzhou, China: A poisson and negative binomial analysis. Annals of Regional Science, 33, 535–555.
This research was partially funded by SEJ2007-64605/ECON, SEJ2007-65086/ECON, the “Xarxa de Referència d’R + D + I en Economia i Polítiques Públiques” of the Catalan Government and the PGIR program N-2008PGIR/05 of the Rovira i Virgili University (funded by both the Catalan and Spanish Governments). This paper has benefited from discussions with Á. Alañón, D. Liviano, F. Pablo and E. Viladecans. We would also like to acknowledge the helpful and supportive comments from seminar participants at the EEFS 2009 Conference (University of Warsaw), the Workshop on “Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness” (Max Planck Institute of Economics & ORKESTRA-Basque Institute of Competitiveness), the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science (Technical University of Košice) and the RSAI British & Irish Section 2009 Annual Conference (Limerick). Any errors are, of course, our own.
About this article
Cite this article
Arauzo-Carod, JM., Manjón-Antolín, M. (Optimal) spatial aggregation in the determinants of industrial location. Small Bus Econ 39, 645–658 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9335-6
- Industrial location
- Count data models
- Spatial statistics