Advertisement

Spatial Agglomeration and Firm Performance in Korean Manufacturing Industry, 2012

  • Ayoung Kim
  • Euijune KimEmail author
Chapter
  • 430 Downloads
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 25)

Abstract

This study tries to answer whether agglomeration economies lead to better firm performance or not. By adopting the random-intercept-multilevel model for 2012 Korean manufacturing data, we suggest an econometric specification strategy of the constant returns to scale (CRS) Cobb-Douglas production function in the multilevel structure, estimate the specified model, and analyze the results. Adopting two types of agglomeration economies represented by specialization and diversification, the results discussed in this paper can be summarized into three policy implications. First, specialization and diversification show the opposite effects on firm performances in most regions except the regions in some large metropolitan areas. In an ideal situation, both effects are not a trade-off phenomenon, and highly agglomerated cities are expected to have synergies from both effects. In the 2012 manufacturing sector in Korea, however, the offset between the two factors is observed. This means before the central and local governments implement industrial policy, they need to consider the existing mix of manufacturing sectors to not lose one of the agglomeration economies. Second, the specialization effect is relatively weaker than the diversification effect across regions. Even though there is no rule of proper effect size on both factors, these weak specialization effects can be seen as a big threat to the current economic growth strategies in Korea. If this specialization fails at a region level due to the weak specialization economies, the policy goal may not be achieved. Last, spatial heterogeneity in intercepts of the regional level dominates both specialization and diversification effects. In addition, diversification follows the trend of spatial heterogeneity. In 2012, the production performance of manufacturing firms leaned heavily on the region-specific factors not explained by the two agglomeration variables. Considering the fact that there have been many policy concerns to resolve regional imbalance in economic growth, this questions the effectiveness of the previous efforts. From this standpoint, the strong spatial heterogeneity and the following trend of diversification emphasize that the local or central government, which tries to boost the economy in a lagging region and to achieve a well-balanced regional economy in a county, may want to think about the human capital or the other factors to increase productivity rather than just industry allocation strategy.

Keywords

Agglomeration economies Firm productivity Multilevel model Industrial location policy 

References

  1. Alker Jr., H. 1969. A typology of ecological fallacies. In Quantitative ecological analysis in the social sciences, ed. M. Dogan and S. Rokkan. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M., and H. Lööf. 2011. Agglomeration and productivity: Evidence from firm-level data. The Annals of Regional Science 46: 601–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J., D. Beckstead, W. Mark Brown, and D. Rigby. 2008. Agglomeration and the geography of localization economies in Canada. Regional Studies 42: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaudry, C., and A. Schiffauerova. 2009. Who’s right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Research Policy 39: 318–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corrado, L., and B. Fingleton. 2012. Where is the economics in spatial econometrics? Journal of Regional Science 52: 210–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Groot, H., H. Poot, and M. Smit. 2009. Agglomeration externalities, innovation and regional growth: Theoretical perspectives and meta-analysis. In Handbook of regional growth and development theories, ed. P. Nijkamp and R. Capello. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Duranton, G., and D. Puga. 2000. Diversity and specialization in cities: Why, where and when does it matter. Urban Studies 37(3): 533–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duranton, G., and D. Puga. 2004. Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol. 4, ed. J. Henderson and J. Thisse. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Florence, P. 1939. Political and economic planning. Report on the location of industry. A survey of present trends in Great Britain affecting industrial location and regional economic development with proposals for future policy. London: PEP.Google Scholar
  10. Goldstein, H. 1998. Multilevel models for analysing social data. Technical report. Encyclopedia of Social Research Methods.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, H. 2011. Multilevel statistical models, vol. 922. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Graham, D. 2000. International review of applied economics. Journal of Regional Science 14: 323–340.Google Scholar
  13. Graham, D., and H. Kim. 2008. An empirical analytical framework for agglomeration economies. The Annals of Regional Science 42: 267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henderson, J. 1986. Efficiency of resource usage and city size. Journal of Urban Economics 19: 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson, J. 2003. Marshalls scale economies. Journal of Urban Economics 53: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kreft, I., and J. de Leeuw. 2002. Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Lall, S., Z. Shalizi, and U. Deichmann. 2004. Agglomeration economies and productivity in Indian industry. Journal of Development Economics 73: 643–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marshall, A. 1890. Principal of economics. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Melo, P., D. Graham, and R. Noland. 2009. A meta-analysis of estimates of urban agglomeration economies. Regional Science and Urban Economics 39: 332–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mion, G., and P. Naticchioni. 2005. Urbanization externalities, market potential and spatial sorting of skills and firms, Technical report, CEPR, Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
  21. Moomaw, R. 1981. Productivity and city size? A critique of the evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 96: 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moomaw, R. 1983. Is population scale a worthless surrogate for business agglomeration economies? Regional Science Urban Economics 13: 525–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moomaw, R. 1985. Firm location and city size: Reduced productivity advantages as a factor in the decline of manufacturing in urban areas. Journal of Urban Economics 17: 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakamura, R. 1985. Agglomeration economies in urban manufacturing industries: A case of Japanese cities. Journal of Urban Economics 17: 108–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Puga, D. 2010. The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies. Journal of Regional Science 50: 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robinson, W.S. 1950. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review 15: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenthal, S., and W. Strange. 2001. The determinants of agglomeration. Journal of Urban Economics 50: 191–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenthal, S.S., and W.C. Strange. 2004. Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol. 4, ed. J. Henderson and J. Thisse. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. Sveikauskas, L., J. Gowdy, and M. Funk. 1988. Urban productivity: City size or industry size. Journal of Regional Science 28: 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tabuchi, T. 1986. Urban agglomeration, capital augmenting technology, and labor market equilibrium. Journal of Urban Economics 20: 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van der Panne, G. 2004. Agglomeration externalities: Marshall versus Jacobs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14: 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Oort, F.G., M.J. Burger, J. Knoben, and O. Raspe. 2012. Multilevel approaches and the firm-agglomeration ambiguity in economic growth studies. Journal of Economic Surveys 26: 468–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wheeler, C. 2001. Search, sorting, and urban agglomeration. Journal of Labor Economic 19: 879–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development and Research Institute of Agricultural and Life ScienceSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations