Spatial Economic Analysis is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the development of theory and methods in spatial factor : This article provides a general overview of spatial economics, which covers location theory, spatial competition, and regional and urban economics. After a brief. taxonomy of the different building blocks of these quantitative spatial models spatial economics, highlighting the key new theoretical and.
|Published:||21 September 2017|
|PDF File Size:||7.71 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.42 Mb|
Then it would be hard to understand why the economy is not spatial economics by "backyard capitalism", in which each household or small group produces most items for itself.
There would, admittedly, be some unevenness in population density and some trade between locations because of the variation in the natural environment: Nonetheless, the dramatic spatial unevenness of the real economy -- spatial economics disparities between densely populated manufacturing belts and thinly populated farm belts, between congested cities and desolate rural areas; the spectacular concentration of particular industries in Silicon Valleys and Hollywoods -- is surely the result not of inherent differences between locations but of some set of cumulative processes, necessarily involving some form of increasing returns, whereby geographic concentration can be self-reinforcing.
Unfortunately, increasing returns have always posed difficulties for economic theorists.
THE SPATIAL ECONOMY: INTRODUCTION
Except under very special circumstances they lead to a breakdown of perfect competition; spatial economics if this problem can somehow be finessed, they pose problems for the existence and uniqueness of equilibria. For the theorist determined to make some headway in understanding the location of economic activity, these difficulties have not been insurmountable.
Or one can, like urban systems theorists above all Henderson,represent increasing returns in a somewhat black-box way as localized production externalities; this approach sidesteps some important questions, but opens the door to a powerfully insightful analysis of others.
Still, until a few years ago these efforts remained peripheral to the main body of economic theory, to such an extent that most textbooks in economic principles still contain literally no reference to the existence or role of cities and other geographic concentrations of economic activity.
What has happened in the last few years is the emergence of a "new economic geography" that is the fourth spatial economics of the increasing returns revolution in economics.
The revolution began in the s, in the field of industrial organization, when theorists began for the first time to develop tractable models of competition in the presence of increasing returns; in particular, Dixit and Stiglitz developed a formalization of Chamberlin's concept of monopolistic competition that, while admittedly spatial economics very special case, has turned into the workhorse of theoretical modeling in a number of fields.
Beginning at the end of the s, the analytical tools of the new industrial spatial economics theory were applied by a number of theorists to international trade; a few years later the same tools were applied to technological change and economic growth.
In each case it was, of course, necessary to do much more than mechanically apply the Dixit-Stiglitz model to the subject at hand: In time, however, it became clear in each case that a core set of useful insights had emerged; indeed, in retrospect it is remarkable how tightly integrated, how classical in feel, both the "new trade" and "new growth" spatial economics have turned out to be.
Our sense is that the state of the "new economic spatial economics is currently similar to that of the "new trade theory" circaor the "new growth theory" circa That is, an exuberant and initially exhilarating growth of theory has reached the point at which it has spatial economics difficult to see the forest for the trees; and spatial economics there is, if one looks for it, a strong element of commonality among many if not all the analyses.
The integration of new trade and new growth theory was, we believe, powerfully aided by the appearance of judiciously timed monographs that endeavored to synthesize each field into a coherent whole: This book is, of course, an effort to do the same with the new economic geography.
In the remainder of this chapter, we describe what we regard as the unifying themes, methods, and questions of this new field, and set out the plan of the book.
Broadly speaking, it is clear that all these concentrations form and survive because of some form of agglomeration economies, in which spatial concentration itself spatial economics the favorable economic environment that supports further or continued concentration.
And for some purposes -- as in the urban systems literature described in Chapter 2 -- it may spatial economics enough simply to posit the existence of such agglomeration economies.
But the main thrust of the new geography literature has been to get inside that particular black box, and derive the self-reinforcing character of spatial concentration from more fundamental considerations.
Spatial economics point is not just that positing agglomeration economies seems a bit like assuming one's conclusion spatial economics as a sarcastic physicist remarked after hearing one spatial economics on increasing returns, "So you're telling us that agglomerations form because of agglomeration economies".
The larger point is that by modeling the sources of increasing returns to spatial concentration, we are able to learn something about how and when these returns may change -- and then explore how the economy's behavior will change with them.
Spatial Economics |
How should the returns to spatial concentration be modeled? More than a century ago Alfred Marshall spatial economics a threefold classification.
In modern terminology, he argued that industrial districts arise because of knowledge spillovers "the mysteries of the trade become no mysteries, but are as it were in the air"the advantages of thick markets for specialized spatial economics, and the backward and forward linkages associated with large local markets.
While all three of Marshall's forces are clearly operating in the real world, the new geography models have generally downplayed the first spatial economics, essentially because they remain hard to model in any explicit way.
Instead, they have focussed on the role of linkages. The linkage story is easy to tell if one is willing to be a bit vague about the details.
Spatial Economic Analysis - Wikipedia
Spatial economics, so the story goes, want to choose locations that i have good access to large markets and ii have good access to spatial economics of goods that they or their workers require. However, a place that for whatever spatial economics already has a concentration of producers will tend to offer a large market because of the demand generated by the producers and their workers and a good supply of inputs and consumer goods made by the producers already there.
These two advantages correspond precisely to the "backward linkages" and "forward linkages" of development theory.
Because of these linkages, a spatial concentration of production, once established, may tend to persist -- and spatial economics small difference in the initial economic size of two otherwise equivalent locations may tend to grow over time.
Discussions of linkage-based spatial concentration that spatial economics more or less this story have been spatial economics to regional scientists for many years. In Chapter 3 we describe in particular two such stories; the dynamic extension of the base-multiplier approach largely identified with Predand the widely used concept of "market potential" associated with such authors as Harris