A Three-Region New Economic Geography Model in Discrete Time: Preliminary Results on Global Dynamics

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper, we deal with a three-region new economic geography model. The dynamic law which governs the migration of the mobile factor – in our context, “footloose” entrepreneurs (Commendatore et al. (Spat Econ Anal 3(1):115–141, 2008); Forslid and Ottaviano (J Econ Geogr 3:229–240, 2003)) – across three identical regions is formulated in discrete time. The resulting dynamical model belongs to the class of two-dimensional noninvertible maps (Mira et al. (1996) Chaotic dynamics in two-dimensional noninverible maps. World Scientific, Singapore). We present the local stability analysis of the map’s fixed points, corresponding to long term stationary equilibria of the economic system, and a preliminary study of its global stability properties. Our results show that the presence of a third region matters and that there are crucial differences with respect to the symmetric two-region footloose entrepreneurs model: firstly, when the manufacturing sector is absent in one of the three regions, stable asymmetric equilibria may emerge; secondly, we detect complex/strange two-dimensional attractors that cannot exist in two-region new economic geography models, which are typically one-dimensional; finally, we highlight the complex self-similar structure of the basins of attraction of some of the two-dimensional attractors.

Keywords

Multiregional economic models New economic geography Footloose entrepreneurs Two-dimensional noninvertible maps Complex dynamics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Castro, S. B. S. D., Correia-da-Silva, J., & Mossay, P. (2012). Papers in Regional Science, 91(2), 401–418.Google Scholar
  2. Commendatore, P., Currie, M., & Kubin, I. (2008). Footloose entrepreneurs, taxes and subsidies. Spatial Economic Analysis, 3(1), 115–141.Google Scholar
  3. Currie, M., & Kubin, I. (2006). Chaos in the core-periphery model. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60, 252–275.Google Scholar
  4. Forslid, R. (2004). Regional policy, integration and the location of industry (Technical report, Discussion Papers No. 4630), CEPR.Google Scholar
  5. Forslid, R., & Ottaviano, G. I. P. (2003). An analytically solvable core-periphery model. Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 229–240.Google Scholar
  6. Fujita, M., Krugman, P. R., & Venables, J. V. (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions, and international trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fujita, M., & Thisse, J.-F. (2009). New economic geography: An appraisal on the occasion of paul krugman’s 2008 nobel prize in economic sciences. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39, 109–119.Google Scholar
  8. Krugman, P. (1993). The hub effect: Or, threeness in interregional trade. In W. Ethier, E. Helpman, & J. Neary (Eds.), Theory, policy, and dynamics in international trade (pp. 29–37). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Krugman, P. R. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499.Google Scholar
  10. Mira, C., Gardini, L., Barugola, A., & Cathala, J. C. (1996). Chaotic dynamics in two-dimensional noninverible maps. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  11. Sheard, N. (2011). Regional policy in a multiregional setting: When the poorest are hurt by subsidies (Research papers in economics). Department of Economics, Stockholm University No. 2011:11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Naples ‘Federico II’NapoliItaly
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsVienna University of Economics and BusinessWienAustria

Personalised recommendations