Geographical Economics and Policy

  • Henry G. OvermanEmail author
Living reference work entry


This chapter is concerned with the process by which geographical economics influences policy. It considers several barriers that limit this influence focusing specifically on the availability of data, the limitations of spatial analysis, and the role of the evaluation of government policy. It considers why these problems present such significant barriers and proposes some solutions. In terms of the availability of data, the chapter explains why problems concerning the correct unit of analysis and measurement error may be particularly acute for spatial data (especially at smaller spatial scales). Resulting concerns about the representativeness of data and the mismatch between functional and administrative units may further hamper interaction with policy makers. For spatial analysis, the major problem concerns the extent to which empirical work identifies the causal factors driving spatial economic phenomena. It is suggested that greater focus on evaluating the impact of policies may provide one solution to this general identification problem.


Policy maker Geographical information system Causal effect Policy evaluation Geographical economics 


  1. Angrist J, Pischke JS (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin R, Forslid R, Martin P, Ottaviano GM, Robert-Nicoud F (2003) Economic geography and public policy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum-Snow N, Marion J (2009) The effects of low income housing tax credit developments on neighbourhoods. J Public Econ 93:654–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busso M, Gregory J, Kline P (2013) Assessing the incidence and efficiency of a prominent place-based policy. Am Econ Assoc 103(2):897–947Google Scholar
  5. Cheshire P, Magrini S (2009) Urban growth drivers in a Europe of sticky people and implicit boundaries. J Econ Geogr 9:85–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Combes PP, Duranton G, Overman HG (2005) Agglomeration and the adjustment of the spatial economy. Pap Reg Sci 84:311–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dachis B, Duranton G, Turner M (2011) The effects of land transfer taxes on real estate markets: evidence from a natural experiment in Toronto. J Econ Geogr 12:327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DiNardo J, Lee DS (2010) Program evaluation and research designs. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 4. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Duranton G, Overman HG (2005) Testing for localisation using micro geographic data. Rev Econ Stud 72:1077–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duranton G, Gobillon L, Overman HG (2011) Assessing the effects of local taxation using microgeographic data. Econ J 121:1017–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbons S, Overman HG, Patacchini E (2015) Spatial methods. Handb Reg Urban Econ 5:115–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee DS, Lemieux T (2010) Regression discontinuity designs in economics. J Econ Lit 48:281–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin R, Sunley PJ (2011) The new economic geography and policy relevance. J Econ Geogr 11:357–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neumark D, Simpson H (2015) Place based policies. Handb Reg Urban Econ 5:1197–1287Google Scholar
  15. Overman H (2010) “GIS a job”: what use geographical information systems in spatial economics. J Reg Sci 50:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sacerdote B (2001) Peer effects with random assignment: results for Dartmouth roommates. Q J Econ 116:681–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations