Advertisement

Market-Size and Employment

Separating Scale and Diversity Effects
  • Martin AnderssonEmail author
  • Johan Klaesson
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

What drives the relation between market-size and employment? There is a relationship between the size of an agglomeration and its diversity; in terms of number of sectors present and in terms of number of firms within each sector. There is also a relationship between the size of different agglomerations and the average size of firms located in them. Total employment in a region may be expressed as the product of number of sectors, number of firms in each sector and average firm size in each sector.

In the literature it is emphasized that diversity may be important for aggregate productivity and growth. The scale of operations in individual firms may also be important for productivity. Thus, the productivity in a region depends on both external and internal economies of scale. Looking at the relationship between regional size and employment it is possible to reveal the relative importance of each of the three factors.

The applied technique allows us to untangle the overall elasticity of employment with respect to market-size and estimate the contribution of each component to the overall elasticity. Using data on Swedish regions over the time period 1990–2004 we show that there are marked differences between manufacturing and service sectors in terms of the contribution of the different components to the overall elasticity. The contribution of the respective component is also different for regional and extra-regional market-size.

Keywords

Market potential Market size Scale economies Employment Diversity 

References

  1. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson Gråsjö (2008) Andersson M and Gråsjö U (2008) Spatial dependence and the representation of space. Annal Reg Sci (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin RE, Okubo T (2006) Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography: spatial selection and sorting. J Econ Geogr 6:323–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chinitz B (1961) Contrasts in agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh. Am Econ Rev 51:279–289Google Scholar
  5. Christaller W (1933) Die Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Baskin CW (1966) Central places in southern Germany (trans: Baskin CW)Google Scholar
  6. Either WJ (1982) National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade. Am Econ Rev 72(3):389–405Google Scholar
  7. Fujita M, Thisse J-F (2002) Economics of agglomeration. Cities, industrial location, and regional growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables AJ (1999) The spatial economy: cities, regions and international trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirschman A (1958) The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  10. Johansson B, Klaesson J, Olsson M (2003) Commuters’ non-linear response to time distances. J Geogr Syst 5(3):315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krugman P (1991) Geography and trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Lösch A (1954) The economics of location. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  13. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Matsuyama K (1995) Complementarities and cumulative processes in models of monopolistic competition. J Econ Lit 33:701–729Google Scholar
  15. Moses L (1958) Location and the theory of production. Q J Econ 78:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ohlin B (1933) Interregional and international trade. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Palander T (1935) Beiträge zur Standortstheorie. Almqvist and Wicksell, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  18. Rey S, Montouri BD (1999) U.S. regional income convergence: a spatial econometric perspective. Reg Stud 33:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. von Thunen JH (1826) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationaloekonomie, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  20. Weber A (1909) Uber den Standort der Industrien. Friedrich CJ (1929) Alfred Weber’s theory of the location of industries (trans: Friedrich CJ). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics, Jönköping International Business School (JIBS)JönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations