Advertisement

Infrastructure and Regional Economic Growth

  • Arthur GrimesEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter outlines two models for analysing the relationship between infrastructure and regional growth, and discusses relevant empirical examples. The first model adopts a standard spatial equilibrium approach, and shows that the effect of new infrastructure on regional activity depends on its direct impacts on local productivity, local amenities and the price of non-traded goods, especially housing. These impacts are determined, in part, by how existing characteristics of the region complement the specific investment. If infrastructure contributes positively to real amenity-adjusted net wages, the local region increases its attractiveness and the result is an influx of firms and individuals to the region. In turn, this has dynamic effects that may amplify or attenuate the initial growth impetus. It is also possible that an infrastructure project contributes negatively to real amenity-adjusted net wages, thereby imparting a negative influence on equilibrium regional activity. The second model treats a major infrastructure investment as a real option that gives private sector developers the option, but not the obligation, for further development. The value of this option must be included by authorities when assessing benefits of a new infrastructure project. They need to judge the direct private sector responses to an investment plus the indirect equilibrium responses under alternative states of nature. The model shows that for a major infrastructure project, as in the case of other real options, a certainty equivalent approach is generally inadequate for investment analysis since that approach may under-estimate the benefit of a new project when future states are uncertain, learning occurs and decision-making is sequential.

Keywords

Agglomeration Amenities Housing Infrastructure Migration Population Real option Regional growth Spatial equilibrium Uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Jacques Poot, Manfred Fischer and Andrew Coleman for helpful comments while preparing this chapter, and to thank Anthony Byett for illuminating discussions on the applicability of real options theory to infrastructure investment decisions. However all views (and any errors or omissions) are solely attributable to the author.

References

  1. Aghion P, Howitt P (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschauer D (1989) Is public expenditure productive? J Monet Econ 23(2):177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belich J (2009) Replenishing the earth: the settler revolution and the rise of the Anglo-world, 1783–1939. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breeden D (1979) An intertemporal asset pricing model with stochastic consumption and investment opportunities. J Financ Econ 7(3):265–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byett A, Grimes A, Laird J, Roberts P (2017) Incorporating and assessing travel demand uncertainty in transport investment appraisals. Research report 620. New Zealand Transport Agency, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Ceh B (2001) Regional innovation potential in the United States: evidence of spatial transformation. Pap Reg Sci 80(3):297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochrane W, Grimes A, McCann P, Poot J (2017) Spatial impacts of endogenously determined infrastructure investment. In: Shibusawa H, Sakurai K, Mizunoya T, Uchida S (eds) Socioeconomic environmental policies and evaluations in regional science: essays in honor of Yoshiro Higano. Springer, Singapore, pp 227–247. Chapter 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman A (2012) The effect of transport infrastructure on home production activity: evidence from rural New York, 1825–1845. Working paper 12-01. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman A, Grimes A (2010) Betterment taxes, capital gains and benefit cost ratios. Econ Lett 109(1):54–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dixit A, Pindyck R (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duflo E, Pande R (2007) Dams. Q J Econ 122(2):601–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durlauf S (1996) A theory of persistent income inequality. J Econ Growth 1(1):75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eddington P (2006) The Eddington transport study. Main report: transport’s role in sustaining the UK’s productivity and competitiveness. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Elburz A, Nijkamp P, Pels E (2017) Public infrastructure and regional growth: lessons from meta-analysis. J Transp Geogr 58:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Florida R, Gulden T, Mellander C (2008) The rise of the mega-region. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 1(3):459–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forman C, Goldfarb A, Greenstein S (2012) The internet and local wages: a puzzle. Am Econ Rev 102(1):556–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables A (1999) The spatial economy: cities, regions and international trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaeser E, Gottlieb J (2009) The wealth of cities: agglomeration economies and spatial equilibrium in the United States. J Econ Lit 47(4):983–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaeser E, Gyourko J, Saks R (2005) Why have housing prices gone up? Am Econ Rev 95(2):329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gramlich E (1994) Infrastructure investment: a review essay. J Econ Lit 32(3):1176–1196Google Scholar
  21. Grimes A, Liang Y (2010) Bridge to somewhere: valuing Auckland’s northern motorway extensions. JTEP 44(3):287–315Google Scholar
  22. Grimes A, Matlaba V, Poot J (2017) Spatial impacts of the creation of Brasília: a natural experiment. Environ Plan A 49(4):784–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guthrie G (2009) Real options in theory and practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Haughwout A (2002) Public infrastructure investments, productivity and welfare in fixed geographic areas. J Public Econ 83(3):405–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller R, Lessard D (2008) Evolving strategy: risk management and the shaping of mega-projects, Chapter 8. In: Priemus H, Flyvbjerg B, van Wee B (eds) Decision-making on mega-projects: cost–benefit analysis, planning and innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 145–172Google Scholar
  26. Morrison C, Schwartz A (1996) State infrastructure and productive performance. Am Econ Rev 86(5):1095–1111Google Scholar
  27. Morten M, Oliveira J (2016) Paving the way to development: costly migration and labor market integration. NBER working paper 22158. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’hUallachain B (1999) Patent places: size matters. J Reg Sci 39(4):613–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Overman H, Rice P, Venables A (2010) Economic linkages across space. Reg Stud 44(1):17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Owens R, Rossi-Hansberg E, Sarte P-D (2018) Rethinking detroit. Working papers 11. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  31. Roback J (1982) Wages, rents, and the quality of life. J Polit Econ 90(6):1257–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosen S (1979) Wage-based indexes of urban quality of life. In: Mieszkowsji P, Straszheim M (eds) Current issues in urban economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/London, pp 74–104Google Scholar
  33. Siegfried J, Zimbalist A (2000) The economics of sports facilities and their communities. J Econ Perspect 14(3):95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu J, Gopinath M (2008) What causes spatial variations in economic development in the United States? Am J Agric Econ 90(2):392–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Motu Economic and Public Policy ResearchWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of GovernmentVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations