Neoclassical Theory versus New Economic Geography. Competing explanations of cross-regional variation in economic development

Fingleton, Bernard and Fischer, Manfred M. (2010): Neoclassical Theory versus New Economic Geography. Competing explanations of cross-regional variation in economic development. Published in: Annals of Regional Science , Vol. 44, No. 3 (2010): pp. 467-491.

Abstract

This paper uses data for 255 NUTS-2 European regions over the period 1995-2003 to test the relative explanatory performance of two important rival theories seeking to explain variations in the level of economic development across regions, namely the neoclassical model originating from the work of Solow (1956) and the so-called Wage Equation, which is one of a set of simultaneous equations consistent with the short-run equilibrium of new economic geography (NEG) theory, as described by Fujita, Krugman and Venables (1999). The rivals are non-nested, so that testing is accomplished both by fitting the reduced form models individually and by simply combining the two rivals to create a composite model in an attempt to identify the dominant theory. We use different estimators for the resulting panel data model to account variously for interregional heterogeneity, endogeneity, and temporal and spatial dependence, including maximum likelihood with and without fixed effects, two stage least squares and feasible generalised spatial two stage least squares plus GMM; also most of these models embody a spatial autoregressive error process. These show that the estimated NEG model parameters correspond to theoretical expectation, whereas the parameter estimates derived from the neoclassical model reduced form are sometimes insignificant or take on counterintuitive signs. This casts doubt on the appropriateness of neoclassical theory as a basis for explaining cross-regional variation in economic development in Europe, whereas NEG theory seems to hold in the face of competition from its rival.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: New economic geography, augmented Solow model, panel data model, spatially correlated error components, spatial econometrics
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models ; Multiple Variables > C33 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O10 - General

References

Abdel-Rahman H and Fujita M (1990) Product variety, Marshallian externalities and city size, Journal of Regional Science 30, 165-183

Baltagi B H (2005) Econometric analysis of panel data. Third edition. John Wiley, Chichester

Baltagi B H, Bresson G and Pirotte A (2006) Panel unit root tests and spatial dependence. Center for Policy Research, Working Paper No. 88, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University

Bond S R, Hoeffler A and Temple J (2001) GMM estimation of empirical growth models. Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPRS), Discussion Paper No.

Chang Y (2002) Nonlinear IV panel unit root tests with cross-sectional dependency, Journal of Econometrics 110, 261-292

Choi I (2002) Combination unit root tests for cross-sectionally correlated panels, in Corbae D, Durlauf S N and Hansen B E (eds) Econometric Theory and Practice, pp. 311–333, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Davis D R and Weinstein D E (2003) Market access, economic geography and comparative advantage: An empirical test, Journal of International Economics 59, 1-23

Dixit A K and Stiglitz J E (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity, American Economic Review 67(3), 297-308

Elhorst J P (2003) Specification and estimation of spatial data models, International Regional Science Review 26, 244-268

Feldstein M and Horioka C (1980) Domestic saving and international capital flows, Economic Journal 90(358), 314-329

Feenstra RC (1994) New product varieties and the measurement of international prices, American Economic Review 84, 157-177

Fingleton B (2008) A generalized method of moments estimator for a spatial panel model with an endogenous spatial lag and spatial moving average errors, Spatial Economic Analysis 3, 27-44

Fingleton B (2007a) Competing models of global dynamics: Evidence from panel models with spatially correlated error components. Forthcoming, Economic Modelling (available online from 7 November 2007)

Fingleton B (2007b) New economic geography: Some preliminaries, in Fingleton B (ed) New Directions in Economic Geography, pp 11-52. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Fingleton B (2006) The new economic geography versus urban economics: An evaluation using local wage rates in Great Britain, Oxford Economic Papers 58, 501-530

Fingleton B (2005) Towards applied geographical economics: Modelling relative wage rates, incomes and prices for the regions of Great Britain, Applied Economics 37, 2417-2428

Fingleton B and McCann P (2007) Sinking the iceberg? On the treatment of transport costs in new economic geography, in Fingleton B (ed.) New directions in economic geography, pp. 168-203. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Fingleton B, J Le Gallo (2008) "Estimating spatial models with endogenous variables, a spatial lag and spatially dependent disturbances: Finite sample properties" Papers in Regional Science 87, 319-339

Fischer M M and Stirböck C (2006) Pan-European regional income growth and clubconvergence, Annals of Regional Science 40(4), 693-721

Fujita M, Krugman P and Venables A J (1999) The spatial economy. Cities, regions, and international trade. The MIT Press, Cambridge [MA] and London

Head K and Mayer T (2006) Regional wage and employment responses to market potential in the EU, Regional Science and Urban Economics 36, 573-594

Head K and Ries J (2001) Increasing returns versus national product differentiation as an explanation for the pattern of US-Canada trade, American Economic Review 91(4), 858- 876

Hendry D F (1995) Dynamic econometrics. Oxford University Press, Oxford Jones C I (1997) Convergence revisited, Journal of Economic Growth 2, 131-153

Kapoor M, Kelejian H H and Prucha I R (2007) Panel data models with spatially correlated error components, Journal of Econometrics 140, 97-130

Kelejian H H and Prucha I R (1999) A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model, International Economic Review 40, 509-533

Kennedy P (2003) A Guide to Econometrics, Fifth edition. Blackwell, Oxford Koch W. (2008) Development Accounting with Spatial Effects, Spatial Economic Analysis 3(3) (forthcoming)

LeSage J P and Fischer M M (2009) Spatial growth regressions: Model specification, estimation and interpretation, Spatial Economic Analysis 4 (forthcoming)

Mankiw N E, Romer D and Weil D N (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(2), 407-437

McCann P (2005) Transport costs and new economic geography, Journal of Economic Geography 6, 1-14

Mion G (2004) Spatial externalities and empirical analysis: The case of Italy, Journal of Urban Economics 56, 97-118

Pesaran M H (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-sectional dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics 22, 265-312

Phillips P C B and Sul D (2003) Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross-section dependence, Econometrics Journal 6, 217-259

Redding S and Venables A J (2004) Economic geography and international inequality, Journal of International Economics 62, 53-82

Rivera-Batiz F (1988) Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and agglomeration economies in consumption and production, Regional Science and Urban Economics 18(1), 125-153

Roos M (2001) Wages and market potential in Germany, Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft 21, 171-195

Solow R M (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, 65-94