Abstract
We show how spatial evolution is different between the two representative models of economic geography: [Krugman 99:483–499, 1991] and [Ottaviano et al. 43:409–436, 2002]. We analyze the impacts of falling transport costs on the spatial distribution of economic activities and welfare for a network economy consisting of three regions located on a line. It is normally considered that a hub city, i.e., a central region, always has locational advantage and manufacturing workers gain from trade. This is true in the former model, but not in the latter when markets are opened up to trade. This is because the price competition is so keen in the central region that the manufacturing sector moves to the peripheral regions, which aggravates the social welfare. We then show that when goods are close substitutes and share of manufacturing is of an intermediate level, the manufacturing activities completely disappear from the central region leading to a full agglomeration in one peripheral region.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
