The impact of urban concentration on countries’ competitiveness and entrepreneurial performance

KOMLÓSI, ÉVA and PÁGER, BALÁZS (2016): The impact of urban concentration on countries’ competitiveness and entrepreneurial performance. Published in: Regional Statistics , Vol. 5, No. 1 (July 2016): pp. 97-120.

Abstract

This paper aims to elaborate the role of Jacobs-type of agglomeration effects on countries’ competitiveness and entrepreneurial performance. Our research allows for a better understanding of the relationship that exists between a country’s urban system, characterized by spatial agglomeration (concentration) or deglomeration (deconcentration) processes, and its competitiveness and entrepreneurial performance. Urbanization economies refer to considerable cost savings generated through the locating together of people, firms and organizations across different industries. It has recently become an axiom that the better performance of global cities (as they are important nodes of innovation and creativity) is derived from agglomeration effects. This general assumption follows that the more concentrated an urban system of a country, the more competitive and better its entrepreneurial performance. Even though this notion has gained quick and ardent acceptance from practitioners, the related literature shows contradictory results;this has induced a heated debate in academic circles, because it has raised serious doubts about the “bigger is better” theory. We hope to contribute to this debate with our detailed analysis. To understand the impact of urban concentration, we selected 70 countries and calculated the so-called ROXY Index measuring the degree of agglomeration or deglomeration in their urban systems. To exemplify country-level competitiveness, we applied the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) while the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI) was used to demonstrate country level entrepreneurial performance. Using these indexes correlation and cluster analysis were designed to obtain understanding of the relationship between them. Our analysis indicates that as urban concentration initially increases competitiveness, entrepreneurial performance also increases, but at a decreasing rate. Both of them eventually reaches a maximum, and then after a certain point decrease with further concentration. Therefore, the curve for this relationship is non-linear and folds back. This indicates that over- or under-concentration of the population within an urban system does not necessarily result in a better outcome. However, we should consider that a high concentration of population is only one important factor for competitiveness and entrepreneurial performance while other effects may exist.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: urbanization economies, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, spatial cycles, ROXY Index
• Subjects: R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R0 - General > R00 - General; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R10 - General; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity

References

Acs, Z. J.–Armington, C. (2004): Employment growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities Regional Studies 38 (8): 911–927.

Acs, Z.–Autio, E.–Szerb, L. (2014): National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications Research Policy 43 (3): 476–494.

Acs, Z.–Varga, A. (2002): Geography, Endogenous Growth, and Innovation International Regional Science Review 25 (1): 132–148.

Annoni, P.–Kozovska, K. (2010): EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2010 JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Security and Protection of the Citizens, Luxemburg.

Castells, M. (1996): The rise of the network society Blackwell, Oxford.

Castells-Quintana, D.–Royuela, V. (2014): Agglomeration, inequality and economic growth Annual Regional Science 52 (2): 343–366.

Chinitz, B. (1961): Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh. American Economic Review 51 (2): 279–289.

Ciccone, A. (2002): Agglomeration Effects in Europe. European Economic Review 46 (2): 213–227.

Ciccone, A. –Hall, R. (1996): Productivity and the density of economic activity American Economic Review 86 (1): 54–70.

Czaller, L. (2012): A Zipf-törvény érvényesülése a világ országaiban Területi Statisztika 52 (5): 461–478.

David, Q.–Peeters, D.–Van Hamme, G.–Vandermotten, C. (2013): Is bigger better? Economic performances of European cities, 1960-2009 Cities 35: 237–254.

Duranton, G.–Puga, D. (2004): Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In: Henderson, J. V. –Thisse, J. F. (eds.): Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Edition1, Chapter 48, pp. 2063–2117., Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Duranton, G.–Puga, D. (2001): Nursery Cities American Economic Review 91 (5): 1457–1477.

Eeckhout, J. (2004): Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities The American Economic Review 94 (5): 1429–1451.

Ellison, G –Glaeser, E. L. (1997): Geographic concentration in US manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach Journal of Political Economy 105 (5): 889–927.

Gabaix, X. (1999): Zipf’s Law for Cities: An Explanation The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (3): 739–767.

Glaeser, E. L.–Kallal, H.–Scheinkman, J.–Shleiter, A. (1992): Growth in the Cities. Journal of Political Economy 100 (6): 1126–1152.

Henderson, J. V. (2003a): Marshall’s Scale Economies Journal of Urban Economies 53 (1): 1–28.

Henderson, J. V. (2003b): The Urbanization Process and Economic Growth: The So-What Question. Journal of Economic Growth 8 (1): 47–71.

Hirvonen, M.–Hiraoka, N.–Kawashima, T. (1997): Long-term Urban Development of the Finnish Population: Application of the ROXY-index Analytical Method Gakushuin Economic Papers 36 (2): 243–263.

Kawashima, T. (1978): Recent Urban Evolution Processes in Japan: Analysis of Functional Urban Regions. Presented at the 25th North American Meeting of the Regional Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Kawashima, T. (1982): Recent urban trends in Japan: analysis of functional urban regions. In: Kawashima, T. –Korcelli, P. (eds.): Human settlement systems: spatial patterns and trends, pp. 21–40., International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg.

Kawashima, T. (1985): Roxy Index: An Indicative Instrument to Measure the Speed of Spatial Concentration and Deconcentration of Population Gakushuin Economic Papers 22 (2): 183–213.

Kawashima, T. (1986), People Follow Jobs in Japan?: Suburbanization of Labour and Job Markets Gakushuin Economic Papers 23 (1–2): 157–183.

Kawashima, T.–Azis, I.–Tane, M. (1997): Comparative analysis of intercity agglomeration http://www.econbiz.de/Record/comparative-analysis-of-intercity-agglomeration-kawashima-tatsuhiko/10001297129 [downloaded: 1st February 2014]

Knoben, J.–Ponds R.–van Oort, F. (2011): Employment from new firm formation in the Netherlands: Agglomeration economies and the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 23 (3-4): 135–157.

Fukatsu, A.–Kawashima, T. (1999): Urbanization, Suburbanization and Revived-urbanization: ROXY-index Analysis for the Chou-line Region of Tokyo Gakushuin Economic Papers 36 (3): 389–414.

Klaassen, L. H.–Paelinck, J. H. P. (1979): The Future of Large Towns. Environment and Planning A 11 (10): 1095–1104.

Klaassen, L. H.–Bourdrez, J. A. et al. (1981): Transport and Reurbanization, Gower, Aldershot.

Krugman, P. (1991): Increasing returns and economic geography Journal of Political Economy 99 (3): 483–499.

Krugman, P. (2009): The Increasing Returns Revolution in Trade and Geography The American Economic Review 99 (3): 561–571.

Marshall, A. (1920): Principles of Economics. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London.

McCann, P.–Acs, J. Z. (2012): Globalization: Countries, cities and multinationals Regional Studies 45 (1): 17–32.

McCann, P. (2013): Modern Urban and Regional Economics. Oxford University Press, London.

Parr, J. B. (2002): Agglomeration economies: ambiguities and confusions Environment and Planning A 34 (4): 717–731.

Puga, D. (2010): The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies Journal of Regional Science 50 (1): 203–219.

Reynolds, P.D.–Storey, D.J.–Westhead, P. (1994): Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates Regional Studies 28 (4): 443–456.

Rizov, M.–Oskamb, A.–Walshc, P. (2012): Is there a limit to agglomeration? Evidence from productivity of Dutch firms Regional Science and Urban Economics 42 (4): 595–606.

Rosenthal, S. S.–Strange, W. C. (2003): Geography, industrial organization and agglomeration. Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (2): 377–393.

Rosenthal, S. S.–Strange, W. C. (2004): Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In: Henderson, J. V., Thisse, J. F. (eds.): Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Edition 1, Chapter 49, pp. 2119–2171., Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Schwab, K. (ed.) (2013): The Global Competitiveness Report. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2013-14.pdf [downloaded: 1st March 2014]

Szerb, L–Ács, Z.–Aidis, R. (2013): A comparative analysis of Hungary’s entrepreneurial performance in the 2006–2010 time period based in the GEM and the GEDI methodologies. Pécsi Tudományegyetem Közgazdaságtudományi Kar, Pécs.

Tabuchi, T.–Thisse, J.–Zeng, D. (2005): On the number and size of cities Journal of Economic Geography 5 (4): 423–448.

Van Stel, A.–Suddle, K. (2008): The impact of new firm formation on regional development in the Netherlands Small Business Economics 30 (1): 31–47.

Vreeker, R.–Deakin, M.–Curwell, S. (eds.) (2009): Sustainable Urban Development, Volume 3: The Toolkit for Assessment. Routledge: New York.