Advertisement

Returns to Communication in Specialised and Diversified US Cities

  • Suzanne KokEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

A key factor in today’s urban wealth is the means by which cities reduce costs of communication. Rapid progress in transport, information and communication technologies lowered the costs of production at distance. Still, in 2009 metropolitan areas were responsible for 85 % of US employment, income and production. The significance of personal communication for innovation is a fundamental aspect of the current economic success of cities. The economic structure of cities varies; diversified cities focusing on producing ideas and specialised cities focusing on producing products successfully coexist in the US. Is communication equally important and valued within both city types?

Keywords

Work Activity Specialisation Level Knowledge Spillover Current Population Survey City Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I thank Steven Brakman, Harry Garretsen, Andrea Jaeger, Jasper de Jong, Bas ter Weel, two anonymous referees and seminar participants at the SOM conference and the Tinbergen Workshop for many insightful comments.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Autor D (2011) Skills, tasks and technologies: implications for employment and earnings. In handbook for labour economics, vol Part B, 4th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1043–1171Google Scholar
  2. Autor D, Dorn D (2010) The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. MIT working paperGoogle Scholar
  3. Autor D, Levy F, Murnane R (2003) The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration. Q J Econ 118(4):1279–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacolod M, Blum B, Strange W (2009) Skills in the city. J Urban Econ 65(2):136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borghans L, Ter Weel B, Weinberg B (2006) People people: social capital and the labor-market outcomes of underrepresented groups. NBER working paper, no 11985Google Scholar
  6. Bresnahan T (1999) Computerisation and wage dispersion: an analytical reinterpretation. Econ J 109(456):390–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlot S, Duranton G (2004) Communication externalities in cities. J Urban Econ 56(3):581–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciccone A, Hall R (1996) Productivity and the density of economic activity. Am Econ Rev 86(1):54–70Google Scholar
  9. Combes P, Duranton G, Gobillon L (2008) Spatial wage disparities: sorting matters! J Urban Econ 63(2):723–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Combes P, Duranton G, Gobillon L (2009) The economics of agglomeration. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, pp 15–65, chapter Estimating agglomeration economics with historyGoogle Scholar
  11. Desmet K, Rossi-Hansberg E (2009) Spatial growth and industrial age. J Econ Theory 144(6):2477–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duranton G, Puga D (2000) Diversity and specialisation in cities: Why, where and when does it matter? Urban Stud 37(3):533–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duranton G, Puga D (2001) Nursery cities: urban diversity, process innovation, and the life cycle of products. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1454–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellison G, Glaeser E (1999) The geographic concentration of industry: Does natural advantage explain agglomeration? Am Econ Rev 89(2):311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 42(2):409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Florida R, Mellander C, Stolarick K, Ross A (2012) Cities, skills and wages. J Econ Geogr 12(2):355–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaspar J, Glaeser E (1998) Information technology and the future of cities. J Urban Econ 43(1):136–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaeser EL, Gottlieb JD (2009) The wealth of cities: agglomeration economies and spatial equilibrium in the United States. J Econ Literat 47(4):983–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaeser E, Maré D (2001) Cities and skills. J Labor Econ 19(2):316–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glaeser E, Ponzetto A (2007) Did the death of distance hurt detroit and help New York?. NBER working paper, no 13710Google Scholar
  21. Glaeser E, Schienkman J, Shleifer A (1995) Economic growth in a cross-section of cities. J Monet Econ 36(1):117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaeser E, Kolko J, Saiz A (2001) Consumer city. J Econ Geogr 1(1):27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison B, Kelley M, Gant J (1996) Specialization versus diversity in local economies: the implications for innovative private-secotr behavior. Cityscape J Polit Dev Res 54:201–242Google Scholar
  24. Ioannides YM, Overman HG, Rossi-Hansberg E, Schmidheiny K (2008) The effect of information and communication technologies on urban structure. Econ Policy 23(54):201–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidence by patent citations. Q J Econ 108(3):577–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelley M, Helper S (1999) Firm size and capabilities, regional agglomeration, and the adoption of new technology. Econ Innov New Technol 8(2):79–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemieux T (2006) Increasing residual wage inequality: Composition effects, noisy data, or rising demand for skill? Am Econ Rev 96(3):461–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis E (2011) Immigrant-native substitutability: the role of language ability. NBER working paper, no 17609Google Scholar
  30. Lucas RE Jr (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J Monet Econ 22(1):3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moulton B (1990) An Illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro-units. Rev Econ Stat 72(2):334–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mouw T, Kallenberg AL (2010) Occupations and the structure of wage inequality in the United States, 1980 to 2000s. Am Sociol Rev 75(3):402–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rauch J (1993) Does history matter only when it matters little? Q J Econ 108(3):843–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Storper M, Venables A (2004) Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. J Econ Geogr 4(4):351–370Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Groningen and CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy AnalysisDen HaagThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations