Economic Geography and the Spatial Evolution of Wages in the United States
- 677 Downloads
Questions pertaining to the location of economic activity, to the relative sizes of cities in different countries, and to changing roles for different geographical areas in the process of economic growth have attracted considerable interest recently. Work by several theorists who developed the so-called new economic geography, including recent contributions by several researchers, but in particular by Masahisa Fujita, Paul Krugman and Anthony Venables have added important new spatial insight to the established system of cities literature, represented most notably by research by Henderson (1974, 1988). The system of cities approach features powerful models of the intrametropolitan spatial structure, but lacks an explicit model of intermetropolitan spatial structure. Certain aspects of the intermetropolitan spatial structure have played a key role in the new economic geography literature, as, for example, in Krugman (199 lb). Krugman (1998) provides an excellent overview of this literature. Tabuchi (1998) proposes a step towards a synthesis of the older system of cities literature with the newer economic geography based theories by incorporating intrametropolitan commuting costs in addition to intermetropolitan transport costs.
KeywordsPrice Index Wage Rate Census Bureau Housing Market Real Wage
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.This section draws extensively from Dobkins and Ioannides (1998).Google Scholar
- 3.This finding is similar to Quah (1996) for European regions.Google Scholar
- 4.The so-called population boom of the 1950s is, of course, relative and modern. The 19 percent increase in population would have rated as the smallest increase in the period from 1790 up through the first decade of this century.Google Scholar
- 5.We recognize that distance need not be time-invariant, as the urban system may realign itself over time. However, our attempts to treat it as time-varying did not produce any significant differences.Google Scholar
- 6.We eschew here an analysis of the endogeneity of sample separation and refer instead to Dobkins and Ioannides (1998).Google Scholar