Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 761–791 | Cite as

The effect of capital flow on the agglomeration evolution of footloose entrepreneurs

  • Ching-mu ChenEmail author
In Honor of Shin-Kun Peng


To answer whether capital mobility exacerbates or dampens the agglomerative tendency of footloose entrepreneurs, this paper incorporates a footloose capital with a footloose-entrepreneur manufacturing industry based on a tractable analytical structure with two identical regions. The model shows that these two sectors interact with each other, and features five types of equilibrium configurations. Most interestingly, this paper finds that the mobility of physical capital plays a stabilizing role in the catastrophic agglomeration caused by footloose entrepreneurs.


Footloose capital Footloose entrepreneur Pitchfork bifurcation Agglomeration evolution New economic geography 

JEL Classification

F12 F15 F21 F22 R12 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There is no potential conflicts of interest in the study.

Ethical approval

The manuscript has not been published and has not been submitted to other journals for simultaneous consideration.

Research involving human participants

This article does not contain any studies and/or animals with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

There is no other individual participant included in the study.

Supplementary material

41685_2019_109_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (385 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 385 KB)


  1. Baldwin RE (1999) Agglomeration and endogenous capital. Eur Econ Rev 43:253–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin RE, Forslid R, Martin P, Ottaviano GIP, Robert-Nicoud F (2003) Economic geography and public policy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin RE, Martin P (2004) Agglomeration and regional growth. In: Henderson JV, Thisse J-F (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics: cities and geography, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2671–2711Google Scholar
  4. Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimal product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67:297–308Google Scholar
  5. Forslid R, Ottaviano GIP (2003) An analytically solvable core-periphery model. Journal of Economic Geography 3:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fujita M, Krugman PR, Mori T (1999a) On the evolution of hierarchical urban systems. Eur Econ Rev 43:209–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujita M, Krugman PR, Venables AJ (1999b) The spatial economy: cities, regions and international trade. MIT, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fujita M, Thisse J-F (2002) Economics of agglomeration: cities, industrial location, and regional growth. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fujita M, Thisse J-F (2003) Does geographical agglomeration foster economic growth? And who gains and loses from it? Jpn Econ Rev 54:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ikeda K, Murota K, Akamatsu T, Kono T, Takayama Y (2014) Self-organization of hexagonal agglomeration patterns in new economic geography models. J Econ Behav Org 99:32–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krugman PR (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krugman PR, Venables AJ (1996) Integration, specialization and adjustment. Eur Econ Rev 40:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin P, Rogers CA (1995) Industrial location and public infrastructure. J Int Econ 39:335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ottaviano GIP (2001) Monopolistic competition, trade, and endogenous spatial fluctuations. Reg Sci Urb Econ 31:51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ottaviano GIP, Tabuchi T, Thisse J-F (2002) Agglomeration and trade revisited. Int Econ Rev 43:409–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pflüger M (2004) A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model. Reg Sci Urb Econ 34:565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pflüger M, Südekum J (2008) A synthesis of footloose-entrepreneur new economic geography models: When is agglomeration smooth and easily reversible? J Econ Geogr 8:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robert-Nicoud F (2005) The structure of simple “New Economic Geography” models (or, on identical twins). J Econ Geogr 5:201–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J Polit Econ 98:S71–S102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tabuchi T, Thisse J-F (2006) Regional specialization, urban hierarchy, and commuting costs. Int Econ Rev 47:1295–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tabuchi T, Thisse J-F (2011) A new economic geography model of central places. J Urb Econ 69:240–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Venables AJ (1996) Equilibrium locations of vertically linked industries. Int Econ Rev 37:341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Venables AJ (1999) The international division of industries: clustering and comparative advantage in a multi-industry model. Scand J Econ 101:495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Section of the Regional Science Association International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationZhongnan University of Economics and LawWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations