Abstract
This chapter details the role of industrial agglomeration in regional economies, and discusses the issues found in existing empirical studies. The role industrial agglomeration plays in regional economies has been discussed and empirically studied for a long time. Agglomerations include several related industries, and an abundance of specialized workers. Therefore, it is possible for firms to achieve high productivity through input sharing, labor market pooling, and knowledge spillovers. Such effects can generally be found in two cases: The first case is where an agglomeration of similar industries results in an increase in productivity. The second case is where an agglomeration of different industries results in an increase in productivity. Traditionally, these effects have been measured by external economies of scale, but an analytical approach has recently been proposed that uses spatial density to seek the source of external economies. This chapter reviews these research trends.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For more on the spatial impossibility theorem, refer to Fujita and Thisse (2002).
- 2.
According to Ricardo’s theory, division of labor between regions is explained through the difference in comparative production cost using labor as a measurement, and in the end, is determined by the unique climate of the region, or the regional differences in production technologies. Furthermore, according to the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, even in cases where there are no differences in production technology between regions, the regional differences in early endowment of factors of production are used to explain the comparative advantage.
- 3.
In international trade theory, the “increasing returns” approach is understood as the ability for nations to conduct trade due to the advantage provided by specialization, even when endowment of production factors is similar. The reason this approach was not adopted for a long time is because it was difficult to determine whether the increasing returns were something exogenous or endogenous to firms (Krugman 1991a). That is, in the case of the former, the perfect competition model could be applied, but if it were the latter, an imperfect competition model would be necessary. Therefore, to adopt the latter approach, it was necessary to wait until industrial organizational theories advanced in the 1970s and the theory of imperfect competition model was formulated.
- 4.
Kaldor (1970) attempted to formalize the model of cumulative causation, which was later refined by Dixon and Thirlwall (1975). According to Kaldor (1970), regions that experience faster growth than other regions will start to specialize in exportation due to its competitive advantage. As a result, the growth process of that area will take on a cumulative character. Dixon and Thirlwall (1975) considered the feedback effect of a region’s growth against the increased competitiveness of the export departments to formulate the process of cumulative causation. “Verdoorn’s law” plays a central role in determining the region’s productivity growth rate. This law states that the rising output rate y improves the labor productivity rate q. This law is expressed in the following formula,
$$ q=a+\lambda {y}_{-1}\kern0.5em \left(\lambda >0\right) $$where, a is the constant term representing autogenous growth of productivity, and λ is the Verdoorn coefficient.
- 5.
In the field of business administration, this type of knowledge is called “tacit knowledge” and it is discussed in contrast to “codified knowledge.”
- 6.
Detail can be found in Rosenthal and Strange (2004).
- 7.
The size of the urban area is nothing but a proxy variable, assuming there is a high correlation between the range of economic activity and size of the urban area (Parr 2002).
- 8.
According to the micro-foundation by Ciccone and Hall (1996), with the density effect, in addition to the influence of agglomeration and congestion that final goods manufacturing firms would receive, intermediate goods supplying firms’ markup ratio in relation to marginal cost is included.
- 9.
However, there may also be an aspect in which productivity growth may invite more workers to flood in, and as a result employment density may increase. The method of instrumental variables was employed in the estimation to consider this endogenous problem.
- 10.
Particularly, Henderson (2003) conducted a panel analysis using the plant data to increase the number of observations. He analyzed the effect of industrial agglomeration at the plant level by considering the observable characteristics of the plant (i.e., the size and scale of the plant, its age, and organizational structure) in addition to regional characteristics.
- 11.
Originally, the supply and demand linkage effect for goods included not only the improvement of productivity but also an increase in consumers’ real income. According to spatial economics, firms try to produce differentiated goods at a single location to satisfy both the consumer’s desire for variety and economies of scale, but as they consider transportation cost to the market, they will try to build their plant near a large market to save on these costs. For this reason, firms will build in an area that has easy access to a large-scale market. At this point, there will be more specialized consumer goods suppliers moving into the area that start to supply a variety of consumer goods and the utility level for the consumers who prefer variety will increase. This increase in real income brings an influx of consumers from other areas, and because of expanding regional demand, the location of the firms in that area progresses. However, to the best of my knowledge, there have been few empirical studies that have attempted to find the influence of industrial agglomeration effects on a consumer market.
- 12.
References
Abdel-Rahman HM. Product differentiation, monopolistic competition and city size. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 1988;18(1):69–86.
Armstrong H, Taylor J. Regional economics and policy. 3rd ed. Malden: Blackwell; 2000.
Beeson PE, Husted S. Patterns and determinants of productive efficiency in state manufacturing. J Reg Sci. 1989;29(1):15–28.
Carlino GA. Increasing returns to scale in metropolitan manufacturing. J Reg Sci. 1979;19(3):363–72.
Chipman JS. External economies of scale and competitive equilibrium. Q J Econ. 1970;84(3):347–85.
Ciccone A. Agglomeration effects in Europe. Eur Econ Rev. 2002;46(2):213–27.
Ciccone A, Hall RE. Productivity and the density of economic activity. Am Econ Rev. 1996;86(1):54–70.
Combes PP. Economic structure and local growth: France, 1984–1993. J Urban Econ. 2000;47(3):329–55.
Combes PP, Gobillon L. The empirics of agglomeration economies. In: Duranton G, Henderson J, Strange W, editors. Handbook of regional and urban economics, volume 5A. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. p. 247–348.
Davis DR, Weinstein DE. Economic geography and regional production structure: an empirical investigation. Eur Econ Rev. 1999;43(2):379–407.
Dekle R. Industrial concentration and regional growth: evidence from the prefectures. Rev Econ Stat. 2002;84(2):310–5.
Dixon RJ, Thirlwall AP. A model of regional growth-rate differences on kaldorian lines. Oxf Econ Pap. 1975;27(2):201–14.
Driffield N, Munday M. Foreign manufacturing, regional agglomeration and technical efficiency in UK industries: a stochastic production frontier approach. Reg Stud. 2001;35(5):391–9.
Fujita M. A monopolistic competition model of spatial agglomeration: differentiated product approach. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 1988;18(1):87–124.
Fujita M, Thisse J. Economics of agglomeration: cities, industrial location, and regional growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables A. The spatial economy: cities, regions, and international trade. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1999.
Glaeser EL, Kallal HD, Scheinkman JA, Shleifer A. Growth in cities. J Polit Econ. 1992;100(6):1126–52.
Graham DJ. Identifying urbanisation and localisation externalities in manufacturing and service industries. Pap Reg Sci. 2009;88(1):63–84.
Hanson GH. Localization economies, vertical organization, and trade. Am Econ Rev. 1996;86(5):1266–78.
Hanson GH. Increasing returns, trade, and the regional structure of wages. Econ J. 1997;107(440):113–33.
Hanson GH. Regional adjustment to trade liberalization. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 1998;28(4):419–44.
Hanson GH. Scale economies and the geographic concentration of industry. J Econ Geogr. 2001;1(3):255–76.
Henderson JV. Externalities and industrial development. J Urban Econ. 1997;42(3):449–70.
Henderson JV. Marshall’s scale economies. J Urban Econ. 2003;53(1):1–28.
Henderson JV. Urbanization and growth. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S, editors. Handbook of economic growth, volume 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. p. 1543–91.
Henderson JV, Kuncoro A, Turner M. Industrial development in cities. J Polit Econ. 1995;103(5):1067–90.
Henderson JV, Lee T, Lee YJ. Scale externalities in Korea. J Urban Econ. 2001;49(3):479–504.
Hoover EM. Location theory and the shoe and leather industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1937.
Jacobs J. The economy of cities. New York: Vintage Books; 1969.
Kaldor N. The case for region policies. Scott J Polit Econ. 1970;18:337–48.
Krugman P. Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press; 1991a.
Krugman P. Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ. 1991b;99(3):483–99.
Krugman P. What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxf Rev Econ Policy. 1998;14(2):7–17.
Mano Y, Otsuka K. Agglomeration economies and geographical concentration of industries: a case study of manufacturing sectors in postwar Japan. J Jpn Int Econ. 2000;14(3):189–203.
Marshall A. Principles of economics. London: Macmillan; 1890.
Mitra A. Agglomeration economies as manifested in technical efficiency at the firm level. J Urban Econ. 1999;45(3):490–500.
Mitra A. Total factor productivity growth and urbanization economies: a case of Indian industries. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud. 2000;12(2):97–108.
Moomaw RL. Productivity and city size: a critique and evidence. Q J Econ. 1981;96(4):675–88.
Moomaw RL. Is population scale a worthless surrogate for business agglomeration economies? Reg Sci Urban Econ. 1983;13(4):525–45.
Nakajima T, Nakamura M, Yoshioka K. An index number method for estimating scale economies and technical progress using time-series of cross-section data: sources of total factor productivity growth for Japanese manufacturing, 1964–1988. Jpn Econ Rev. 1998;49(3):310–34.
Nishimura K, Ohkusa Y, Ariga K. Estimating the mark-up over marginal cost: a panel analysis of Japanese firms 1971–1994. Int J Ind Organ. 1999;17(8):1077–111.
Otsuka A. Determinants of new firm formation in Japan: a comparison of the manufacturing and service sectors. Econ Bull. 2008;18(4):1–7.
Otsuka A. Regional determinants of total factor productivity in Japan: stochastic frontier analysis. Ann Reg Sci. 2017;58(3):579–96.
Otsuka A, Goto M. Regional policy and the productive efficiency of Japanese industries. Reg Stud. 2015;49(4):518–31.
Otsuka A, Goto M, Sueyoshi T. Industrial agglomeration effects in Japan: productive efficiency, market access, and public fiscal transfer. Pap Reg Sci. 2010;89(4):819–39.
Parr JB. Missing elements in the analysis of agglomeration economies. Int Reg Sci Rev. 2002;25(2):151–68.
Porter ME. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press; 1990.
Porter ME. On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.
Rivera-Batiz FL. Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and agglomeration economies in consumption and production. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 1988;18(1):125–53.
Rosenthal SS, Strange WC. The determinants of agglomeration. J Urban Econ. 2001;50(2):191–229.
Rosenthal S, Strange W. Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In: Henderson JV, Thisse JF, editors. Handbook of regional and urban economics, volume 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004.
Segal D. Are there returns of scale in city size? Rev Econ Stat. 1976;58(3):339–50.
Shefer D. Localization economies in SMSAs: a production function analysis. J Reg Sci. 1973;13(1):55–64.
Starrett D. Market allocations of location choice in a model with free mobility. J Econ Theory. 1978;17(1):21–37.
Sveikauskas L-A. The productivity of cities. Q J Econ. 1975;89(3):393–413.
Tveteras R, Battese GE. Agglomeration externalities, productivity, and technical inefficiency. J Reg Sci. 2006;46(4):605–25.
Venables AJ. Equilibrium locations of vertically linked industries. Int Econ Rev. 1996;37(2):341–59.
Weber A. Über den Standort der Industrien, 2. Tubingen: Aufl; 1922.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Otsuka, A. (2017). Empirical Knowledge of Agglomeration Economies. In: A New Perspective on Agglomeration Economies in Japan. New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives, vol 20. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6490-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6490-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6489-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6490-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)