Global bifurcation mechanism and local stability of identical and equidistant regions

Gaspar, José M. and Ikeda, Kiyohiro and Onda, Mikihisa (2019): Global bifurcation mechanism and local stability of identical and equidistant regions.

Abstract

We provide an analytical description of possible spatial patterns in economic geography models with three identical and equidistant regions by applying results from General Bifurcation mechanisms. We then use Pflüger's (2004, Reg Sci Urb Econ) model to show what spatial patterns can be uncovered analytically. As the freeness of trade increases, a uniform distribution undergoes a direct bifurcation that leads to a state with two identical large regions and one small region. Before this bifurcation, the model encounters a minimum point above which a curve of dual equilibria with two small identical regions and one small region emerges. From further bifurcations, the equilibrium with one large region encounters agglomeration in a single region, while the equilibrium with one small region encounters a state with two evenly populated regions and one empty region. A secondary bifurcation then leads to partial agglomeration with one small region and one large region. We show that an asymmetric equilibrium with populated regions cannot be connected with other types of equilibria. Therefore, an initially asymmetric state will remain so and preserve the ordering between region sizes.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: bifurcation, economic geography, multi-regional economy, footloose entrepreneur
• Subjects: 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 > R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R2 - Household Analysis > R23 - Regional Migration ; Regional Labor Markets ; Population ; Neighborhood Characteristics

References

Ago, T., Isono, I, Tabuchi, T. (2006). Locational disadvantage of the hub. Annals of Regional Science 40(4), 819–848.

Aizawa, H., Ikeda, K., Osawa, M., Gaspar, J. (2019). Bifurcation mechanism and stability of equidistant economy. Preprint.

Akamatsu, T., Mori, T., Osawa, M., & Takayama, Y. (2017). Spatial scale of agglomeration and dispersion: Theoretical foundations and empirical implications. MPRA Paper No. 80689.

Allen, T., Arkolakis, C. (2014). Trade and the Topography of the Spatial Economy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 (3), 1085-1140.

Baldwin, R., Forslid, R., Martin, P., Ottaviano, G., Robert-Nicoud, F. (2004). Economic Geography and Public Policy. Princeton University Press.

Castro, S.B.S.D., Correia-da-Silva, J., Mossay, P. (2012). The Core-Periphery model with three regions and more. Papers in Regional Science, 91 (2), 401-418.

Commendatore, P., Kubin, I., Sushko, I. (2015). Typical bifurcation scenario in a three region identical new economic geography model. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 108, 63-80.

Elmhirst, T. (2004). S_{N}-equivariant symmetry-breaking bifurcations. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos. 14(03), 1017-1036.

Forslid, R., Ottaviano, G. (2003). An Analytically Solvable Core-Periphery Model. Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 229-240.

Fujita, M., Krugman, P., Venables, A. (1999). The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gaspar, J. M., Castro, S. B. and Correia-da-Silva, J. (2018). Agglomeration patterns in a multi-regional economy without income effects. Economic Theory, 66 (4), 863-899.

Gaspar, J. M, Castro, S.B.S.D., Correia-da-Silva, J. (2019). The Footloose Entrepreneur model with a finite number of equidistant regions", International Journal of Economic Theory, 1-27, forthcoming.

Guckenheimer, J., Holmes, P. (2002). Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields. Springer, Berlin.

Helpman, E. (1998). The size of regions, in: Pines, D., Zilcha, I., Topics in Public Economics, Cambridge University Press.

Ikeda, K., Akamatsu, T. and Kono, T. (2012). Spatial period-doubling agglomeration of a core-periphery model with a system of cities. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 36, 754–778.

Ikeda, K. and Murota, K. (2010). Imperfect Bifurcation in Structures and Materials, 2nd Ed., Springer-Verlag, New York.

Krugman, P. (1991). “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”. Journal of Political Economy, 99 (3), 483-499.

Krugman, P. (1993). First Nature, Second Nature and Metropolitan Location. Journal of Regional Science, 33, 129-44.

Murata, Y., Thisse, J.-F. (2005). A simple model of economic geography à la Helpman–Tabuchi. Journal of Urban Economics, 58 (1), 137-155.

Ottaviano, G. I. (2001). Monopolistic competition, trade, and endogenous spatial fluctuations. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31(1), 51-77.

Ottaviano, G., Tabuchi, T., Thisse, J.-F. (2002). Agglomeration and Trade Revisited. International Economic Review, 43, 409-436.

Pflüger, M. (2004). A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 565–573.

Pflüger, M., Südekum, J. (2008). Integration, agglomeration and welfare. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(2), 544-566.

Picard, P. M., T. Tabuchi (2010). Self-organized agglomerations and transport costs. Economic Theory, 43 , 565–89

Puga, D. (1999). The rise and fall of regional inequalities. European Economic Review, 1999, 43 (2), 303–334.

Redding, S. J., Sturm, D. M. (2008). The costs of remoteness: Evidence from German division and reunification. American Economic Review, 98(5), 1766-97.

Tabuchi, T. (1998). Urban agglomeration and dispersion: a synthesis of Alonso and Krugman. Journal of Urban Economics, 44(3), 333-351.

Tabuchi, T., J.-F. Thisse, D. Z. Zeng (2005). On the number and size of cities. Journal of Economic Geography, 5 , 423–48.

Zeng, D. Z., T. Uchikawa (2014). Ubiquitous inequality: the home market effect in a multicountry space. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 50 , 225–33.