Advertisement

Input–Output Linkages, Proximity to Final Demand and the Location of Manufacturing Industries

  • Giordano MionEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

In this chapter I develop an empirical framework to estimate the role of agglomeration externalities, especially those stemming from input–output linkages, in the location process of US manufacturing plants. Furthermore, drawing on the model of Holmes and Stevens (J Econ Geogr 4: 227–250, 2004b), I propose a way to reconcile some previous puzzling results about proximity to consumers’ demand and the scope of agglomeration forces. Results suggest that flows of intermediate goods have a positive impact, especially for big plants, on local specialization. By contrast, consumers’ demand has a negative effect and this result is consistent with theory. However, the majority of both effects comes from very local interactions with spatial spill-overs being quite weak but with a very large geographical scope. This result suggests some kind of strong non-linearity in the underlying spatial process. Very close interactions are extremely important but, when considering what is beyond the limit of local markets, then distance does not matter so much.

Keywords

Manufacturing concentration Input–output linkages Agglomeration externalities Market proximity 

References

  1. Amiti M, Cameron L (2007) Economic geography and wages. Rev Econ Stat 89(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Combes P-P (2000) Economic structure and local growth: France, 1984–1993. J Urban Econ 47:329–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Combes P-P, Lafourcade M (2001) Transport costs, geography and regional inequalities: evidence from France. CEPR discussion paper, 2894Google Scholar
  4. D’Costa S, Gibbons S, Overman H, Pelkonen P (2013) Agglomeration and labour markets: the impact of transport investments on labour market outcomes. In: Crescenzi R, Percoco M (eds) Geography, institutions and regional economic performance. Springer, Berlin (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  5. Davis DR, Weinstein DE (1999) Economic geography and regional production structure: an empirical investigation. Eur Econ Rev 43:379–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellison G, Glaeser E (1999) The geographic concentration of industry: does natural advantage explain agglomeration? Am Econ Rev 89:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables AJ (1999) The spatial economy: cities, regions and international trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaigné C, Huiban JP, Schmitt B (2003) Labor market and industrial location: evidence from French data. INRA-ENESAD CESAER working paper, 2Google Scholar
  9. Hanson G (2005) Market potential, increasing returns, and geographic concentration. J Int Econ 67(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Head K, Mayer T (2004) Market potential and the location of Japanese investment in the European Union. Review of Economics and StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  11. Henderson JV (2003) Marshall’s scale economies. J Urban Econ 53:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillberry R, Hummels D (2002) Explaining home bias in consumption: the role of intermediate input trade. NBER working paper, 9020Google Scholar
  13. Holmes TJ, Stevens JJ (2004a) Spatial distribution of economic activities in North America. In: Henderson V, Thisse JF (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4. Elsevier-North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Holmes TJ, Stevens JJ (2004b) Geographic concentration and establishment size: analysis in an alternative economic geography model. J Econ Geogr 4(3):227–250Google Scholar
  15. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krugman P, Venables AJ (1995) Globalization and the inequalities of nations. Q J Econ 110:857–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lafourcade M, Mion G (2007) Concentration, agglomeration and the size of plants. Reg Sci Urban Econ 37(1):46–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mills ES, Hamilton BW (1994) Urban economics, 5th edn. Harper- Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Mion G (2004) Spatial externalities and empirical analysis: the case of Italy. J Urban Econ 56(1):97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ottaviano GIP, Tabuchi T, Thisse JF (2002) Agglomeration and trade revisited. Int Econ Rev 43:409–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Puga D (1999) The rise and fall of regional inequalities. Eur Econ Rev 43:303–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Redding S, Venables A (2004) Economic geography and international inequality. J Int Econ 62(1):53–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodríguez-Pose A, Comptour F (2013) Do clusters generate greater innovation and growth? An analysis of European regions. In: Crescenzi R, Percoco M (eds) Geography, institutions and regional economic performance. Springer, Berlin (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  24. Rosenthal S, Strange W (2001) The determinants of agglomeration. J Urban Econ 50:191–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenthal S, Strange W (2003) Geography, industrial organization, and agglomeration. Rev Econ Stat 85:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenthal S, Strange W (2004) Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In: Henderson V, Thisse JF (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4. Elsevier-North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and EnvironmentLondon School of Economics (lse), UK cep, London, UK and ceprLondonUK

Personalised recommendations