nach oben

Erschienen in:

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Neoclassical and Post-Keynesian Theories of Regional Growth and Convergence/Divergence

verfasst von : Dr. Stilianos Alexiadis

Erschienen in: Convergence Clubs and Spatial Externalities

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The study of regional growth has been dominated by two broad and contrasting theoretical approaches regarding regional convergence. According to the first, market forces will lead to a general convergence of per-capita incomes across an integrated space economy over time. This approach is labelled as ‘neoclassical regional growth theory’ and its premises are based upon the standard growth model, as outlined by the pioneering work of Solow (1956) and Swan (1956). Using a general equilibrium framework these models predict that disparities in per-capita incomes across regions are unlikely to occur or, at least, to be persistent, thus creating a pattern of convergence towards a unique level of per-capita income. By contrast, there is a large body of theoretical and empirical work, known as the ‘post-Keynesian approach’, which supports the argument that regional disparities in per-capita incomes are permanent and self-perpetuating and therefore divergence in per-capita incomes is the most likely outcome. Representative models can be found in the work of Myrdal (1957), Perroux (1950, 1955) and Kaldor (1967, 1970 and 1972). This chapter outlines the major approaches to regional growth, as put forward by the neoclassical and post-Keynesian schools of thought. Throughout this and subsequent chapters more emphasis is placed upon the neoclassical model, for two reasons. First, the neoclassical model offers both a theoretical explanation and testable predictions concerning the possibility of convergence in per-capita incomes across regions. Indeed, most of the conceptual definitions of regional convergence used in empirical studies derive directly from the neoclassical model. Second, the vast majority of empirical literature has in fact tested the neoclassical model rather than alternative models.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction

Nächstes Kapitel ‘Endogenous Growth Theory’ and ‘New Economic Geography’

Meade (1961), Cass (1965) and Koopmans (1965), based on Ramsey (1928), extend Solow’s model with refinements on optimal growth.

Income and output are used interchangeably. Nevertheless, throughout this and subsequent chapters output instead of income is used. Moreover, the hypothesis of regional convergence in a neoclassical context is related to output per-worker rather than income per-capita.

Nevertheless, this is valid only in the short-run, since reproduction can and does change in the long-run in response to changes in income levels. However, the neoclassical model does not include a theory of population change. See also McCombie (1988a).

A dot over a variable indicates its rate of change with respect to time.

For a more detailed analysis of savings behaviour in the neoclassical model, see Cesaratto (1999).

In a closed economy, saving equal investment, namely the only use of investment is to accumulate physical capital. This assumption might be considered as unrealistic in a regional context, where regions are by definitions open economies. Feldstein and Horioka (1980), however, have shown that the coincidence of investments and savings is empirically valid across regions.

Solow (1957) suggested that gross output per man hour in the US manufacturing doubled between 1909 and 1949. However, only 12.5 % of this trend is attributable to increases in capital per worker while the remaining 87.5 % was the outcome of improvements in technology. Solow’s model implies that in the absence of any improvements in technology, output per worker in the long-run will be constant while total output increases at the same rate as the growth of population.

The properties of the neoclassical model can be shown using the theory of optimal control (Novales et al., 2010). Consider the production function:$ {{y}_{{i,t}}} = f({{k}_{{i,t}}}) $, where $ {{y}_{{i,t}}} = {{Y}_{{i,t}}}/{{A}_{{i,t}}}{{L}_{{i,t}}} $and $ {{k}_{{i,t}}} = {{K}_{{i,t}}}/{{A}_{{i,t}}}{{L}_{{i,t}}} $. Let $ {{L}_{{i,t}}} = {{L}_{{i,0}}}{{e}^{{nt}}} $, $ {{A}_{{i,t}}} = {{A}_{{i,0}}}{{e}^{{gt}}} $, $ {{\dot{L}}_{{i,t}}}/{{L}_{{i,t}}} = n $ and $ {{\dot{A}}_{{i,t}}}/{{A}_{{i,t}}} = g $, then $ A{{\dot{L}}_{{i,t}}}/A{{L}_{{i,t}}} = n + g $. Given that$ {{Y}_{{i,t}}} = {{C}_{{i,t}}} + {{S}_{{i,t}}} \Rightarrow {{S}_{{i,t}}} = {{Y}_{{i,t}}} - {{C}_{{i,t}}} $, $ {{\dot{K}}_{{i,t}}} = {{I}_{{i,t}}} - \delta {{K}_{{i,t}}} $, where $ {{I}_{{i,t}}} $ is net investment, and $ {{S}_{{i,t}}} = s{{Y}_{{i,t}}} {{S}_{{i,t}}} \equiv {{I}_{{i,t}}} $, then $ {{\dot{K}}_{{i,t}}} = {{S}_{{i,t}}} - \delta {{K}_{{i,t}}} \Rightarrow {{\dot{K}}_{{i,t}}} = {{Y}_{{i,t}}} - {{C}_{{i,t}}} - \delta {{K}_{{i,t}}} $. Dividing by $ {{A}_{{i,t}}}{{L}_{{i,t}}} $ yields: $ {{\dot{K}}_{{i,t}}}/{{A}_{{i,t}}}{{L}_{{i,t}}} = {{y}_{{i,t}}} - {{c}_{{i,t}}} - \delta {{k}_{{i,t}}} \Rightarrow {{\dot{K}}_{{i,t}}}/{{A}_{{i,t}}}{{L}_{{i,t}}} = f({{k}_{{i,t}}}) - {{c}_{{i,t}}} - \delta k $, where $ {{c}_{{i,t}}} = {{C}_{{i,t}}}/{{A}_{{i,t}}}{{L}_{{i,t}}} $ and $ {{\dot{k}}_{{i,t}}}/{{k}_{{i,t}}} = {{\dot{K}}_{{i,t}}}/{{K}_{{i,t}}} - A{{\dot{L}}_{{i,t}}}/A{{L}_{{i,t}}} $. Therefore, $ {{\dot{k}}_{{i,t}}} = {{\dot{K}}_{{i,t}}}/A{{L}_{{i,t}}} - (n + g){{\dot{k}}_{{i,t}}} $or $ {{\dot{k}}_{{i,t}}} = f({{k}_{{i,t}}}) - {{c}_{{i,t}}} - (n + g + \delta ){{\dot{k}}_{{i,t}}} $. The representative household is assumed to maximize total utility, which in each period is weighted by the size of population and the rate of time preferences, ρ, thus, $ Max\int_0^T {{{e}^{{ - \rho t}}}u(c)dt} $, subject to $ {{\dot{k}}_i} = f({{k}_i}) - {{c}_i} - (n + g + \delta ){{\dot{k}}_i} $, with $ {{k}_i}(0) = {{k}_{{i,0}}} $, $ {{k}_i}(T) = {{k}_{{i,T}}} $. The Hamiltonian associated with the problem is: $ H = {{e}^{{ - \rho }}}u(c) + \mu [\;f({{k}_i}) - {{c}_i} - (n + g + \delta ){{k}_i}] $, with the necessary conditions $ \partial H/\partial {{c}_i} = 0 \Rightarrow {{e}^{{ - \rho t}}}{{u\prime}_{{{{c}_i}}}} - \mu = 0 $ and $ \partial H/\partial {{k}_i} = - \dot{\mu } \Rightarrow - \mu [\;f({{k}_i}) - (n + g + \delta )] $. Given that $ \mu = {{e}^{{ - \rho t}}}{{u\prime}_{{{{c}_i}}}} $, the shadow price of capital equals the present value of the marginal utility of consumption. This condition must hold at all time t: $ \dot{\mu } = - \rho {{e}^{{ - \rho t}}}{{u\prime}_{{{{c}_i}}}} + {{e}^{{ - \rho t}}}{{u\prime\prime}_{{{{c}_i}{{c}_i}}}}\dot{c} $. The equation of motion for $ {{\dot{c}}_i} $ is $ {{\dot{c}}_i} = (\rho + n + g + \delta - {{f\prime}_{{{{k}_i}}}})({{u\prime}_{{{{c}_i}}}}/{{u\prime\prime}_{{{{c}_i}{{c}_i}}}}) $. Given that $ {{u}_{{{{c}_i}}}} > 0 $, then $ {{\dot{c}}_i} = 0 $only when $ {{f}_{{{{k}_i}}}} = \rho + n + g + \delta $. Under the neoclassical conditions for the marginal productivity of $ {{k}_i} $ ($ {{f}_{{{{k}_i}}}} \;>\; 0 $, $ \;{{f}_{{{{k}_i}{{k}_i}}}} \;<\; 0 $ and $ f(0) \to \infty $) there is a unique value of capital per-worker ($ {{\hat{k}}_i} $), such that $ {{f}_{{{{k}_i}}}}({{\hat{k}}_i}) = \rho + n + g + \delta $.

Sometimes referred to as the ‘output-technology’ ratio since technological progress is assumed to be of the labour-augmented form, i.e. labour becomes more productive when the level of technology is higher, and AL is the ‘effective’ amount of labour used in production. For a more detailed discussion see Hahn and Matthews (1964).

For a more detailed analysis see Appendix I.

Equation (2.15) can be derived by taking a first order Taylor expansion of the right hand side of equation (2.13) around the steady-state value of the effective capital-labour ratio.

If a = 1, then the property of convergence is not apparent. This is an outcome implied by the various models of Endogenous Growth Theory, which will be examined in more detailed in Chapter 3.

Richardson (1973c) notes that it is often permissible, if incomplete, to treat a national economy as closed. This assumption, however, can never be made for regional economies.

Tselios (2009) examines empirically the relation between income convergence and regional inequalities across the European regions.

Muth (1965), Rowthorn (2008, 2009) developed formal models of regional migration while some empirical evidence is provided by Faini et al. (1997), Faini (1999), Kirdar and Saracoğlu (2008), Hierro and Maza (2010).

For a more detailed description of the ‘two-sector’ neoclassical model see Uzawa (1962, 1963).

North (1955) initially articulated the idea of regional growth propelled by exports. See also Tiebout (1956a).

The concept of ‘human capital’ developed initially by Becker (1964) and Schultz (1961, 1981), embodies education, skills and the on-the-job training of workers. This is the feature that distinguishes skilled labour from unskilled or crude labour.

The concept of ‘broad capital’ includes both physical and human capital, following the intuition proposed by Knight (1921, 1944). This concept forms the basis for several models of the ‘New-Endogenous Growth Theory’, as will be seen in Chapter 3.

Given that $ \ln \frac{{{{Y}_{{i,t}}}}}{{{{A}_{{i,t}}}{{L}_{{i,t}}}}} = \ln \frac{{{{Y}_{{i,t}}}}}{{{{L}_{{i,t}}}}} - \ln {{A}_{{i,t}}} $and $ {{A}_{{i,t}}} = {{A}_0}{{e}^{{gt}}} \Rightarrow \ln {{A}_{{i,t}}} = \ln {{A}_0} + gt $, then substituting equation (2.23) into (2.19) yields:

$$ \ln \left[ {\frac{{{{Y}_{{i,t}}}}}{{{{L}_{{i,t}}}}}} \right] = \ln {{A}_0} + gt - \frac{{\alpha + \beta }}{{1 - \alpha - \beta }}\ln (n + g + \delta ) + \frac{\alpha }{{1 - \alpha - \beta }}\ln ({{s}_k}) + \frac{\beta }{{1 - \alpha - \beta }}\ln ({{s}_h}). $$

It is not uncommon, however, in most empirical studies for the rates of depreciation and technological progress to be considered as being constant for all the economies included. Indeed several authors (e.g. Yao, 1999; Zhang and Yao, 2001; Fingleton and Fischer. 2010) assume that$ (g + \delta ) = 0.05 $.

A cumulative process in can be generated by the demand–supply interaction on the markets for goods and labour in advanced-core regions. Investment in core regions causes further expansion, increasing in-migration and local demand, which in turn brings new investment and further development.

The concept of cumulative causation was first introduced in Myrdal’s book: An American Dilemma (1944). See Streeten (1998) for further details.

Prebisch (1962) and Seers (1962) argue that a similar mechanism operates across the world’s economies. An initial advantage, even a small one, can be compounded several times by the free play of market forces.

Friedmann (1969, 1972) provides a broader version of the cumulative causation model by introducing ‘core-periphery’ relations in the context of a ‘colonial’ system.

Perroux’s theory of growth poles has been used extensively in regional economics and economic geography (Hayter, 1997). However, the transmission of the ‘growth pole’ concept into geographical rather than abstract economic space is attributed to Boudeville (1966) who has defined a regional ‘growth pole’ as ‘a set of expanding industries located in an urban area and inducing further development of economic activity throughout its zone of influence’ (p. 11). For a more detailed review on the concept of ‘growth poles’ see Lasuen (1969), Parr (1999a,b).

Similar is the theory of ‘development blocks’ elaborated by Dahmén (1950), developed in order to describe the Swedish industries prior to World War II. See also Dahmén (1988).

For a conceptual discussion of the regional multipliers see Weiss and Gooding (1968), Richardson (1985) and Mulligan (2008).

For a more detailed discussion see Richardson (1976) and Gaile (1980).

Spatial externalities is one of the earliest concepts and is extensively used in economics and economic geography, e.g. Weber (1929), Lösch (1938, 1954), Harris (1954), Lampard (1955), Leser (1948), Isard (1954, 1956), Nicholson (1956), Moses (1958), Tiebout (1961), Winnick (1961), Marcus (1965), Moses and Williamson (1967), Alonso (1968), Webber (1972), Henderson (1974, 1982), Richardson (1969), Mulligan (1984), Weiss (1972), Carlton (1983), Dicken and Lloyd (1990), Phelps (1992). More recently theoretical aspect of agglomeration are suggested by Glaeser (1999), Netzer (1992), Crampton and Evans (1992), McCann (1995), Dekle and Eaton (1999), Quigley (1998).

Empirical studies on spatial externalities are extensive and usually pay attention to industry-specific models without considering regional growth and convergence explicitly. The majority of empirical literature is concentrated on the US experience, e.g. Duffy (1987), Henderson (1994, 2003), Henderson et al. (1995), Ellison and Glaeser (1997, 1999), Pascal and McCall (1980), Carlino and Voith (1992), Desmet and Fafchamps (2005) while similar studies were conducted for Sweden (Åberg, 1973; Braunerhjelm and Borgman, 2004), Germany (Gross, 1997), Japan (Kawashima, 1975; Nakamura, 1985), Malaysia (Bhattacharya, 2002), Nepal (Fafchamps and Shilpi, 2005), Canada (Soroka, 1994; Baldwin et al., 2008), Korea (Henderson et al., 2001a); Poland (Bivand, 1999), India (Mitra, 1999), Italy (Mion, 2004), the UK (Graham, 2001), Spain (Viladecans-Marsal, 2004; Alonso-Villar et al., 2004), Mexico (Hanson, 1996), Holland (de Vor and de Groot, 2010) and Finland (Mukkala, 2004).

The Heckscher-Ohlin (factor endowment) theory predicts that an economy with abundance in skilled labour relative to unskilled labour will expand production and exports of goods that are relatively skill-intensive in their production, when trade between economies is allowed. Increased specialisation in the comparative advantages sectors would eventually become an increased agglomeration through space. Indeed, ‘[…] international trade theory cannot be understood except in relation to and as a part of the general location theory’ (Ohlin, 1993, p. 97).

This leads to formation of ‘clusters’; a notion that emphasises synergy, a creative milieu, innovation and quality of life and urban environment for attracting highly skilled labour.

For a more detailed review see Evans (1986), Norton (1992).

Nevertheless, Setterfield (1997) argues that it is possible to extend Kaldor’s model to allow for the limits to increasing returns, the dynamic of structural change, growth reversal and relative decline. This argument has caused a considerable debate (e.g. Toner, 2001; Argyrous, 2001; Setterfield, 1998, 2001) while Alexiadis and Tsagdis (2010) attempt to examine it empirically.

There is a considerable debate regarding Verdoorn’s Law. See Kaldor (1975), Wolfe (1968), Rowthorn (1975a,b), Vaciago (1975), Boulier (1984), Cornwall (1976), Parikh (1978), McCombie (1981) and Thirlwall (1980b). For a more detailed review see McCombie (1982a,b, 1983, 1985, 1986), Bairam (1987).

However, it should be noted that Verdoorn’s Law is only one facet or form of Kaldor’s (1957) model of growth. See also Black (1962) and McCombie (1988b).

Richardson (1978a,b) attempts a formulation of cumulative causation in more narrow terms; it does not include an explicit demand function for exports nor any kind of balance of payment conditions.

Thirlwall (1980a) expressed this relationship in almost identical terms, namely that regional growth rates in balance of payments equilibrium approximates to the growth of regional exports divided by the regional income elasticity of demand for imports (‘Thirlwall’s Law). See Gibson and Thirlwall (1993).

In algebraic terms Verdoorn’s Law is specified as follows: $ {{\dot{e}}_i} = {{a}_i} + \lambda {{\dot{q}}_i} $, where $ {{\dot{e}}_i} $ is the rate of employment growth in a region, $ {{a}_i} $ is the rate of autonomous productivity growth, $ {{\dot{q}}_i} $is the rate of output growth and λ is the Verdoorn coefficient.

Verdoorn’s Law has been tested across a number of countries, e.g. for the UK (Stoneman, 1979), Australia (Whiteman, 1987), Holland (Fase and van den Heuvel, 1988; Fase and Winder, 1999), Turkey (Bairam, 1991), Greece, (Drakopoulos and Theodossiou, 1991) the US (McCombie, 1983; 1985, Atesoglu, 1993); Japan (Wulwick, 1991); China (Hansen and Zhang, 1996), Eastern Europe (Gomulka, 1983), Columbia (Rivas, 2008) and in various regional contexts, e.g. for the USA states (Casetti, 1984; Casetti and Jones, 1987; McCombie and deRidder, 1983; 1984, the EU regions (Fingelton and McCombie, 1998; Dall’erba et al., 2008; Alexiadis and Tsagdis, 2010), the UK regions (Hildreth, 1989), the regions of Japan (Casetti and Tanaka, 1992), the Greek regions (Alexiadis and Tsagdis, 2006b). In general, the majority of the empirical literature seems to confirm the validity of this relation both across countries and regions.

Åberg Y (1973) Regional productivity differences in Swedish manufacturing. Regional and Urban Economics 3(2):131–156CrossRef

Abramovitz M (1956) Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870. American Economic Review 46(1):5–23

Alexiadis S, Tsagdis D (2006a) Examining the location factors of R&D labour in the regions of Greece. Annals of Regional Science 40(1):43–54CrossRef

Alexiadis S, Tsagdis D (2010) Is cumulative growth in manufacturing productivity slowing down in the EU-12 regions? Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(6):1001–1017CrossRef

Alonso W (1968) Industrial location and regional policy in economic development. University of California

Alonso-Villar O, Chammoro-Rivas J, Gonzáles-Cerdeira X (2004) Agglomeration economies in manufacturing industry: the case of Spain. Applied Economics 36(18):2103–2116CrossRef

Argyrous G (2001) Setterfield on cumulative causation and interrelatedness: a comment. Cambridge Journal of Economics 25(1):103–106CrossRef

Armstrong H, Taylor J (1985) Regional economics and policy. Allen and Unwin

Armstrong H, Taylor J (2000) Regional economics and policy. Allen and Unwin

Atesoglu H (1993) Manufacturing and economic growth in the United States. Applied Economics 25(1):67–69CrossRef

Bairam E (1987) The Verdoorn’s law, returns to scale and industrial growth: A review of the literature. Australian Economic Papers 26:20–41CrossRef

Bairam E (1991) Economic growth and Kaldor’s law: the case of Turkey, 1925–1978. Applied Economics 23(8):277–280CrossRef

Baldwin J, Beskstead D, Brown M, Rigby D (2008) Agglomeration and the geography of localized economies in Canada. Regional Studies 42(1):117–132CrossRef

Barro R, Sala-i-Martin X (1995) Economic growth, 2nd edn. MIT Press

Barro R, Mankiw G, Sala-i-Martin X (1995) Capital mobility in neoclassical models of growth. American Economic Review 85(5):103–115

Baumol W (1967) Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis. American Economic Review 57(3):415–426

Becker G (1964) Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education., New York

Bhattacharya M (2002) Industrial concentration and competition in Malaysian manufacturing. Applied Economics 34(17):2127–2134CrossRef

Bivand R (1999) Dynamic externalities and regional manufacturing development in Poland. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90(4):347–362CrossRef

Black J (1962) The technical progress function and the production function. Economica 29(114):166–170CrossRef

Borts G (1960) The equalisation of returns and regional economic growth. American Economic Review 50(3):319–347

Borts G, Stein J (1964) Economic growth in a free market. Columbia University Press, New York

Boudeville J (1966) Problems of regional economic planning. Edinburgh University

Boulier B (1984) What lies behind Verdoorn’s law? Oxford Economic Papers 36(2):259–267

Braunerhjelm P, Borgman B (2004) Geographical concentration, entrepreneurship and regional growth: Evidence from regional data in Sweden, 1975–99. Regional Studies 38(8):929–947CrossRef

Button K (1976) Urban economics: theory and policy. McMillan

Button K, Pentecost E (1999) Regional economic performance within the European union. Edward Elgar Publishing

Camagni R, Capello R (2010) Macroeconomic and territorial policies for regional competitiveness: an EU perspective. Regional Science Policy and Practice 2(1):1–19CrossRef

Carlberg M (1981) A neoclassical model of interregional economic growth. Regional Science and Urban Economics 11(2):191–203CrossRef

Carlino G, Voith R (1992) Accounting for differences in aggregate state productivity. Regional Science and Urban Economics 22(4):597–617CrossRef

Carlton D (1983) The location and employment choices of new firms: an econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Review of Economics and Statistics 65(3):440–449CrossRef

Casetti E (1984) Verdoorn’s law and the components of manufacturing productivity growth: a theoretical model and an analysis of US regional data. In: Anderson Å, Isard W, Puu T (eds) Regional and industrial theories: models and empirical evidence. North Holland, pp 295–308

Casetti E, Jones J (1987) Spatial Aspects of the Productivity Slowdown: an Analysis of U.S. Manufacturing Data. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):76–88CrossRef

Casetti E, Tanaka K (1992) The spatial dynamics of Japanese manufacturing productivity: an empirical analysis by expanded Verdoorn equations. Papers of Regional Science Association 71(1):1–13CrossRef

Cass D (1965) Optimum growth in an aggregative model of capital accumulation. Review of Economic Studies 32(3):233–240CrossRef

Cesaratto S (1999) Savings and economic growth in neoclassical theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23(6):771–793CrossRef

Chinitz B (1961) Contrasts in agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh. American Economic Review 51(2):279–289

Collins L, Walker D (eds) (1975) Locational dynamics of manufacturing activity. Wiley

Cornwall J (1976) Diffusion, convergence and Kaldor’s laws. The Economic Journal 86(342):307–314CrossRef

Crafts N (1996) Post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory: what are its policy implications? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 12(2):30–47CrossRef

Crampton G, Evans A (1992) The economy of an agglomeration: the case of London. Urban Studies 29(2):259–271CrossRef

Dahmén E (1950) Entrepreneurial activity and the development of Swedish industry, 1919–1939. American Economic Association Translation Series

Dahmén E (1988) “Development blocks” in industrial economics. Scandinavian Economic History Review 36(1):3–14CrossRef

Dall’erba S, Percoco M, Piras G (2008) The European regional growth process revisited. Spatial Economic Analysis 3(1):7–25CrossRef

Dekle R, Eaton J (1999) Agglomeration and land rents: evidence from the prefectures. Journal of Urban Economics 46(2):200–214CrossRef

De Vor F, de Groot H (2010) Agglomeration externalities and localized employment growth: the performance of industrial sites in Amsterdam. Annals of Regional Science 44(3):409–431CrossRef

Desmet K, Fafchamps M (2005) Changes in the spatial concentration of employment across US Counties: a sectoral analysis: 1972–2000. Journal of Economic Geography 5(3):261–284CrossRef

Dicken P, Lloyd P (1990) Location in space: theoretical perspectives in economic geography. Harper and Row

Dixon R, Thirlwall A (1975) A model of regional growth differences on Kaldorian lines. Oxford economic papers 27(2):201–214

Drakopoulos S, Theodossiou I (1991) Kaldorian approach to Greek economic growth. Applied Economics 23(10):1683–1689CrossRef

Duffy N (1987) Returns to scale behaviour and manufacturing agglomeration economies in U.S. urban areas. The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 17(1):42–54

Ellison G, Glaeser E (1997) Geographic concentration in US manufacturing industries: a dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy 105(5):889–927CrossRef

Ellison G, Glaeser E (1999) The geographic concentration of industry: does natural advantage explain agglomeration? American Economic Review 89(2):311–316CrossRef

Evans A (1986) Comparisons of agglomeration: or what Chinitz really said. Urban Studies 23(5):387–389CrossRef

Fafchamps M, Shilpi F (2005) Cities and specialisation: evidence from South Asia. The Economic Journal 115(503):477–504CrossRef

Faini R (1999) Trade unions and regional development. European Economic Review 43(2):457–474CrossRef

Faini R, Galli G, Gennari P, Rossi F (1997) An empirical puzzle: falling migration and growing unemployment differentials among Italian regions. European Economic Review 41(3–5):571–579CrossRef

Fase M, van den Heuvel P (1988) Productivity and growth: Verdoorn’s law revisited. Economic Letters 28(2):135–139CrossRef

Fase M, Winder C (1999) Baumol’s law and Verdoorn’s regularity. De Economist 147(3):277–291CrossRef

Feldstein M, Horioka C (1980) domestic saving and international capital flows. The Economic Journal 90(385):314–268CrossRef

Fingleton B, Fischer M (2010) Neoclassical theory versus new economic geography: competing expectations of cross-regional variation in economic development. Annals of Regional Science 44(3):467–491CrossRef

Fingleton B, McCombie J (1998) Increasing returns and economic growth: some evidence from the European Union regions. Oxford Economic Papers 50(1):89–105CrossRef

Gaile G (1980) The spread-backwash concept. Regional Studies 14(1):15–25CrossRef

Gibson H, Thirlwall A (1993) Balance of payments theory and the united kingdom experience. St. Martin s Press

Glaeser E (1999) Learning in cities. Journal of Urban economics 46(2):254–277CrossRef

Gomulka S (1983) Industrialisation and the rate of growth: Eastern Europe 1955–75. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 5(3):388–396

Graham D (2001) Productivity growth in British manufacturing: spatial variation in the role of scale economies, technological growth and industrial structure. Applied Economics 33(6):811–821CrossRef

Gross D (1997) Aggregate job matching and returns to scale in Germany. Economics Letters 56(2):243–248CrossRef

Guthrie J (1955) Economies of scale and regional development. Papers in Regional Science 1:1–10

Hansen J, Zhang J (1996) A Kaldorian approach to regional economic growth in China. Applied Economics 28(6):679–685CrossRef

Hanson G (1996) Agglomeration, dispersion and the pioneer firm. Journal of Urban Economics 39(3):255–281CrossRef

Harris C (1954) The market as a factor in the localisation of industry in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 44(4):315–348

Harvey J (1992) Urban land economics, 3rd edn. Macmillan

Hayter R (1997) The dynamics of industrial location. Wiley

Henderson V (1974) The sizes and types of cities. American Economic Review 64(4):640–656

Henderson V (1982) The impact of government policies on urban concentration. Journal of Urban Economics 12(3):280–303CrossRef

Henderson V (1983) Industrial bases and city sizes. American Economic Review 73(2):164–168

Henderson V (1994) Where does an industry locate? Journal of Urban Economics 35(1):83–104CrossRef

Henderson V, Kuncoro A, Turner M (1995) Industrial development in cities. Journal of Political Economy 103(5):1067–1090CrossRef

Henderson V, Zmarak S, Venables A (2001a) Geography and development. Journal of Economic Geography 1(1):81–105CrossRef

Hierro M, Maza A (2010) Per-capita income convergence and internal migration in Spain: are foreign-born migrants playing and important role? Papers in Regional Science 89(1):89–107CrossRef

Hirschman A (1957) Investment policies and ‘dualism’ in underdeveloped countries. American Economic Review 47(5):550–570

Hirschman A (1958) Strategy of economic development. Yale University Press

Hildreth A (1989) The ambiguity of Verdoorn’s Law: a case study of the British regions. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 11(2):279–294

Hoover E (1936) Location theory and the shoe and leather industry. Harvard University Press

Hoover E (1948) Location of economic activity. McGraw-Hill

Isard W (1954) Location theory and trade theory: short-run analysis. Quarterly Journal of Economics 68(2):305–320CrossRef

Isard W (1956) Location and space economy. MIT Press, Cambridge

Islam N (2003) What have we learnt from the convergence debate? Journal of Economic Surveys 17(3):309–362CrossRef

Jones C (1998) Introduction to economic growth. W. W. Norton & Company

Kaldor N (1957) A model of economic growth. Economic Journal 67(268):591–624CrossRef

Kaldor N (1967) Strategic factors in economic development., Ithaca

Kaldor N (1970) The case for regional policies. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 17(3):337–348CrossRef

Kaldor N (1972) The irrelevance of equilibrium economics. The Economic Journal 82(328):1237–1255CrossRef

Kaldor N (1975) Economic growth and the Verdoorn’s law – A comment on Mr. Rowthorn’s article, Economic Journal 85(340):891–896

Kawashima T (1975) Urban agglomeration economies in manufacturing industries. Papers in Regional Science 34(1):157–175CrossRef

Kendrick J (1956) Productivity trends: capital and labour. Review of Economics and Statistics 38(3):248–257CrossRef

King R, Rebelo S (1990) Public policy and economic growth: developing neoclassical implications. Journal of Political Economy 98(5):S126–S150CrossRef

King R, Rebelo S (1993) Transitional dynamics and economic growth in the neoclassical model. American Economic Review 83(4):908–931

Kirdar M, Saracoğlu D (2008) Migration and regional convergence: an empirical investigation for Turkey. Papers in Regional Science 87(4):545–566CrossRef

Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Harper and Row

Knight F (1944) Diminishing returns for investment. Journal of Political Economy 52(1):26–47CrossRef

Knight M, Loayza N, Villanueva D (1993) Testing the neoclassical theory of economic growth. IMF Staff Papers 40(3):512–541CrossRef

Koopmans T (1965) On the concept of optimal economic growth. In: The econometric approach to development planning. Amsterdam, North Holland, pp 225–287

Lasuen J (1969) On growth poles. Urban Studies 6(2):137–161CrossRef

Leser C (1948) Industrial specialisation in Scotland and in regions of England and Wales. Bulletin of Economic Research 1(1):19–30CrossRef

Lösch A (1938) The nature of economic regions. Southern Economic Journal 5(1):71–78CrossRef

Lösch A (1954) The economics of location. Yale University Press

Mankiw N, Romer D, Weil N (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(2):407–438CrossRef

Marcus M (1965) Agglomeration economies: a suggested approach. Land Economics 41(3):279–284CrossRef

Marshall A (1890) Principles of economics. Macmillan

McCann P (1995) Rethinking the economics of location and agglomeration. Urban Studies 32(3):563–577CrossRef

McCombie J (1981) What still remains of Kaldor’s laws? The Economic Journal 91(361):206–216CrossRef

McCombie J (1982a) How important is the spatial diffusion of innovations in explaining regional growth rate disparities? Urban Studies 19(4):377–382CrossRef

McCombie J (1983) Kaldor’s laws in retrospect. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 5(3):414–429

McCombie J (1985) Increasing returns and the manufacturing industries: some empirical issues. Manchester School 53(1):55–75CrossRef

McCombie J (1986) On some interpretations of the relationship between productivity and output growth. Applied Economics 18(11):1215–1225CrossRef

McCombie J (1988a) A synoptic view of regional growth and unemployment Part I: the neoclassical view. Urban Studies 25(4):267–281CrossRef

McCombie J (1988b) A synoptic view of regional growth and unemployment Part II: the post Keynesian theory. Urban Studies 25(5):399–417CrossRef

McCombie J, Thirlwall A (1994) Economic growth and balance of payment constraint. St. Martins Press

McCombie J, Thirlwall A (1997) The dynamic Harrod foreign trade multiplier and the demand-oriented approach to economic growth: an evaluation. International Review of Applied Economics 11(1):5–26CrossRef

Meade J (1961) A neo-classical theory of economic growth. Allen and Unwin

Mion G (2004) Spatial externalities and empirical analysis: the case of Italy. Journal of Urban Economics 56(1):97–118CrossRef

Mitra A (1999) Agglomeration economies as manifested in technical efficiency at the firm level. Journal of Urban Economics 45(3):490–500CrossRef

Moomaw R (1982) Productive efficiency and region. Southern Economic Journal 48(2):344–358CrossRef

Moomaw R (1983) Spatial productivity variations in manufacturing: a critical survey of cross-sectional analyses. International Regional Science Review 8(1):1–22CrossRef

Moses L (1958) Location and the theory of production. Quarterly Journal of Economics 72(2):259–272CrossRef

Moses L, Williamson H (1967) The location of economic activity in cities. American Economic Review 57(2):211–222

Mukkala K (2004) Agglomeration economies in the Finnish manufacturing sector. Applied Economics 36(21):2419–2427CrossRef

Mulligan G (1984) Agglomeration and central place theory: a review of the literature. International Regional Science Review 9(1):1–42CrossRef

Mulligan G (2008) A new shortcut method for estimating economic base multipliers. Regional Science Policy and Practice 1(1):67–84CrossRef

Muth R (1965) Migration: chicken or egg? Southern Economic Journal 38(1):295–306

Myrdal G (1957) Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. Duckworth

Nakamura R (1985) Agglomeration economies in urban manufacturing industries: a case of Japanese cities. Journal of Urban Economics 17(1):108–124CrossRef

Netzer D (1992) The economy of the New York metropolitan region, then and now. Urban Studies 29(2):251–258CrossRef

Nicholson R (1956) The regional location of industry. The Economic Journal 66(263):467–481CrossRef

North D (1955) Location theory and regional economic growth. Journal of Political economy 63(3):243–258CrossRef

Norton R (1992) Agglomeration and competitiveness: from Marshal to Chinitz. Urban Studies 29(2):155–170CrossRef

Novales A, Fernández E, Ruíz J (2010) Economic growth: theory and numerical solutions. Springer

Oates W, Howrey E, Baumol W (1971) The analysis of public policy in dynamic urban models. Journal of Political Economy 79(1):142–153CrossRef

Ohlin B (1933) Interregional and international trade. Harvard University Press

Parikh A (1978) Differences in growth rates and Kaldor’s laws. Economica 45(177):83–91CrossRef

Pascal A, McCall J (1980) Agglomeration economies, search costs and industrial location. Journal of Urban Economics 8(3):383–388CrossRef

Perroux F (1950) Economic space, theory and applications. Quarterly Journal of Economics 64(1):89–104CrossRef

Perroux F (1955) Note sur la notion de pôle de croissance. Economie Appliquée 7:307–320

Phelps N (1992) External economies, agglomeration and flexible accumulation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17(1):35–46CrossRef

Pike A, Rodríguez-Pose A, Tomaney J (2006) Local and regional development. Routledge

Prebisch R (1962) The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America 7:1–22

Quigley J (1998) Urban diversity and economic growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(2):127–138CrossRef

Ramsey F (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. The Economic Journal 38(152):543–559CrossRef

Richardson H (1969) Regional economics. Praeger

Richardson H (1973b) Urban economics. Penguin

Richardson H (1976) Growth pole spillovers: the dynamics of backwash and spread. Regional Studies 10:1–9CrossRef

Richardson H (1978a) Regional and urban economics. Penguin

Richardson H (1985) Input–output and economic base multipliers: looking backward and forward. Journal of Regional Science 25(4):607–661CrossRef

Rivas A (2008) Les leyes des descarrolo economico endogeno de Kaldor. Revista de Economica Institucional 10(18):129–147

Robinson E (1931) The structure of competitive industry. University of Chicago

Romans J (1965) Capital exports and growth among U.S. regions. Wesleyan.

Romer D (1996) Advanced macroeconomics. McGraw-Hill

Rowthorn R (2008) Returns to scale and the economic impact of migration. Spatial Economic Analysis 3(2):151–158CrossRef

Rowthorn R (2009) Returns to scale and the economic impact of migration: some new considerations. Spatial Economic Analysis 4(3):329–341CrossRef

Sala-i-Martin X (1996a) Regional cohesion: evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence. European Economic Review 40(6):1325–1352CrossRef

Schaefer G (1977) The urban hierarchy and the urban area production function: a synthesis. Urban Studies 14(3):315–326CrossRef

Schaefer G (1978) Returns to scale and income distribution in urban areas in Saskatchewan. Journal of Regional Science 18(3):357–371CrossRef

Schultz T (1961) Investment in human capital. American Economic Review 51(1):1–17

Schultz T (1981) Investing in people: the economics of population quality. University of California Press, Berkley

Schumpeter J (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press

Seers D (1962) A model of comparative rates of growth in the world economy. The Economic Journal 72(285):45–78CrossRef

Setterfield M (1997) History versus equilibrium and the theory of economic growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics 21(3):365–378CrossRef

Setterfield M (1998) History versus equilibrium: Nicholas Kaldor on historical time and economic theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics 22(5):521–537CrossRef

Setterfield M (2001) Cumulative causation, interrelatedness and the theory of economic growth: a reply to Argyrous and Toner. Cambridge Journal of Economics 25(1):107–112CrossRef

Shefer D (1973) Localisation economies in SMSAs: a production function analysis. Journal of Regional Science 13(1):55–64CrossRef

Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (1982 edition). Penguin

Solow R (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 70(1):65–94CrossRef

Solow R (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics 39(3):312–320CrossRef

Soroka L (1994) Manufacturing productivity and city size in Canada, 1975 and 1985: does population matter? Urban Studies 31(6):895–911CrossRef

Streeten P (1998) The cheerful pessimist: Gunnar Myrdal the dissenter (1898–1987). World Development 26(3):539–550CrossRef

Stoneman P (1979) Kaldor’s Law and British economic growth: 1800–1970. Applied Economics 11(3):309–319CrossRef

Sveikauskas L (1975) The productivity of cities. Quarterly Journal of Economics 89(3):393–413CrossRef

Sveikauskas L (1979) Interurban differences in the innovative nature of production. Journal of Urban Economics 6(2):216–227CrossRef

Swan T (1956) Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record 32(2):334–361CrossRef

Thirlwall A (1980a) Rowthorn’s interpretation of Verdoorn’s law. The Economic Journal 90(358):386–388CrossRef

Thirlwall A (1983a) Introduction to a symposium on Kaldor’s growth laws. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 5(3):341–344

Tiebout C (1956a) Exports and regional growth. Journal of Political Economy 64(2):160–164CrossRef

Tiebout C (1961) Intra-urban location problems: an evaluation. American Economic Review 51(2):271–278

Toner P (2001) ‘History versus equilibrium’ and the theory of economic growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics 25(1):97–102CrossRef

Tselios V (2009) Growth and convergence in income per capita and income inequality in the regions of the EU. Spatial Economic Analysis 4(3):343–370CrossRef

Uzawa H (1962) On a two-sector model of economic growth I. Review of Economic Studies 29(1):40–47CrossRef

Uzawa H (1963) On a two-sector model of economic growth II. Review of Economic Studies 30(2):105–118CrossRef

Vaciago G (1975) Increasing returns and growth in advanced economies: a re-evaluation. Oxford Economic Papers 27(2):232–239

Verdoorn P (1949) Fattori che regolano lo sviluppo della productivita del lovoro. L’ Industria 1:3–10

Viladecans-Marsal E (2004) Agglomeration and industrial location: city-level evidence. Journal of Economic Geography 4(5):565–582CrossRef

Weber A (1929) Theory of the location of industries. University of Chicago Press

Webber M (1972) Impact of uncertainty on location. MIT Press, Cambridge

Weiss L (1972) The geographic size of markets in manufacturing. Review of Economic and Statistics 54(3):245–257CrossRef

Weiss L, Gooding E (1968) Estimation of differential employment multipliers in a small regional economy. Land Economics 44(2):235–244CrossRef

Whiteman J (1987) Productivity and growth in Australian manufacturing industry. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 9(4):576–592

Williamson X (1975) Regional growth: predictive power of export base theory. Growth and Change 6(1):3–10CrossRef

Winnick L (1961) Economic questions in urban redevelopment. American Economic Review 51(2):290–298

Wulwick N (1991) Did the Verdoorn’s law hang on Japan? Eastern Economics Journal 17(1):15–20

Yao S (1999) Economic growth, income inequality and poverty in China under economic reforms. Journal of Development Studies 59(2):463–496

Zhang Z, Yao S (2001) Regional inequalities in contemporary China measured by GDP and consumption. Economic Issues 6(2):13–29

Titel: Neoclassical and Post-Keynesian Theories of Regional Growth and Convergence/Divergence
verfasst von: Dr. Stilianos Alexiadis
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch: Convergence Clubs and Spatial Externalities
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31625-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-642-31626-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31626-5_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"