Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1095–1131 | Cite as

The role of centrality and market size in a four-region asymmetric new economic geography model

  • Pasquale Commendatore
  • Ingrid Kubin
  • Pascal Mossay
  • Iryna Sushko
Regular Article
  • 146 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we put forward a four-region new economic geography footloose entrepreneur model in which regions are differentiated by their size and their geographical position along a line. There are two distinct trade blocs, each of them consisting of a pair of regions. Direct and indirect trade between all regions is allowed, whereas factor mobility can occur only between regions of the same bloc. Given this more general geographical structure, as compared to previous studies, we are able to disentangle two manifestations of the market access effect: firms can take advantage of locating both in a more central region (centrality effect) and/or in a bigger region (local market size effect). The model is able to generate a plethora of long-term outcomes, including four equilibria with full agglomeration in each trade bloc that can be ranked by factor owners. Equilibria where industry is dispersed or agglomerated in a bloc and dispersed in the other one, are also possible as well as more complex attractors. Finally, by allowing direct and indirect trade between regions, we are able to look at the effect of trade integration on transit traffic by evaluating in a preliminary analysis the consequences of policies aiming at limiting transport volumes in a model with shifting industry.

Keywords

New economic geography Market access Centrality Transit traffic Industrial agglomeration Two-dimensional piecewise smooth map Local and global dynamics 

JEL Classification

C62 F12 F2 R12 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been prepared within the activities of the EU project COST Action IS1104 “The EU in the new complex geography of economic systems: models, tools and policy evaluation”. The authors are grateful for financial support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agliari A, Commendatore P, Kubin I, Foroni I (2011) Border collision bifurcations in a footloose capital model with first nature firms. Comput Econ 38 (3):349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agliari A, Commendatore P, Foroni I, Kubin I (2015) Agglomeration dynamics and first nature asymmetries. Mathematics and computer in simulation 108, February, 81–98Google Scholar
  3. Ago T, Isono I, Tabuchi T (2006) Locational disadvantage of the hub. Ann Reg Sci 40(4):819–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin RE, Forslid R, Martin P, Ottaviano GIP, Robert-Nicoud F (2003) Economic geography and public policy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrens K, Gaigné C, Ottaviano GIP, Thisse J-F (2007) Countries, regions and trade: on the welfare impacts of economic integration. Eur Econ Rev 51:1277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednar-Friedl B, Koland O, Steininger KW (2011) Urban sprawl and policy responses: a general equilibrium analysis of residential choice. J Environ Plan Manag 54(1):145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Böhringer C, Löschel A (2006) Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: Status quo and prospects. Ecol Econ 60(1):49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro S, Correia-da-Silva J, Mossay P (2012) The core-periphery model with three regions and more. Pap Reg Sci 91(2):401–418Google Scholar
  9. Commendatore P, Filoso V, Kubin I, Grafeneder-Weissteiner T (2015a) Towards a multiregional NEG framework: comparing alternative modeling strategies. In: Commendatore P, Kayam SS, Kubin I (eds) Complexity and geographical economics: Topics and tools. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Commendatore P, Kubin I, Mossay P, Sushko I (2015b) Dynamic agglomeration patterns in a two-country new economic geography model with four regions. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 79:2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enchelmaier S (2013) Alpine transport restrictions reconsidered: Commission v. Austria. Common Market Law Review 50(1):183–202Google Scholar
  12. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables A (1999) The spatial economy, cities, regions, and international trade. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Fujita M, Mori T (1996) The role of ports in the making of major cities: Self-agglomeration and hub-effect. J Dev Econ 49:93–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grazi F, Van den Bergh JCJM (2008) Spatial organization, transport, and climate change: Comparing instruments of spatial planning and policy. Ecol Econ 67(4):630–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ikeda K, Akamatsu T, Kono T (2012) Spatial period-doubling agglomeration of a core-periphery model with a system of cities. J Econ Dyn Control 36(5):754–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99(3):483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krugman P (1993a) First nature, second nature, and metropolitan location. J Reg Sci 33:129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krugman P (1993b) The hub effect: or, threeness in international trade. In: Eithier WJ, Helpman E, Neary JP (eds) Trade policy and dynamics in international trade. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Marletto G (2010) Transalpine transport policies: towards a shared approach. Int J Transp Econ 37(3):353–370Google Scholar
  20. Matsuyama K, Takahashi T (1998) Self-defeating regional concentration. Rev Econ Stud 65:211–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milnor J (1985) On the concept of attractor. Commun Math Phys 99:177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mira C, Gardini L, Barugola A, Cathala JC (1996) Chaotic dynamics in two-dimensional noninvertible maps. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monfort P, Nicolini R (2000) Regional convergence and international integration. J Urban Econ 48(2):286–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostbye S (2010) Regional policy analysis in a simple general equilibrium model with vertical linkages. J Reg Sci 50:756–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roos M (2005) How important is geography for agglomeration? J Econ Geogr 5(5):605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steininger KW (1999) General models of environmental policy and foreign trade. In: van den Bergh JCJM (ed) Handbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, pp 416–432Google Scholar
  27. Steininger KW (2002) The foreign trade and sectoral impact of truck road pricing for cross-border trade - a CGE analysis for a small open economy. Environ Resour Econ 23:213–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sutton K (2013) Le conflit autour du Lyon-Turin dans le Val de Suse. Vers une necessaire reconsideration des basses vallees alpines. Revue d’Economie Regionale et Urbaine: 179–201Google Scholar
  29. Venables AJ (2006) Shifts in economic geography and their causes. Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City QIV:61–85Google Scholar
  30. Wiggins S (2003) Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pasquale Commendatore
    • 1
  • Ingrid Kubin
    • 2
  • Pascal Mossay
    • 3
  • Iryna Sushko
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of Naples ‘Federico II’NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsVienna University of Economics and Business AdministrationViennaAustria
  3. 3.Business SchoolNewcastle University, UK, and CORE, BelgiumNewcastle upon TyneUK
  4. 4.Institute of MathematicsNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineKyivUkraine
  5. 5.Kyiv School of EconomicsKyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations