Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Spatial Extent of Agglomeration Economies: Evidence from Three U.S. Manufacturing Industries

Contents:

Author Info

  • Joshua Drucker
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The spatial extent of localized agglomeration economies constitutes one of the central current questions in regional science. It is crucial for understanding firm location decisions and for assessing the influence of proximity in shaping spatial patterns of economic activity, yet clear-cut answers are difficult to come by. Theoretical work often fails to define or specify the spatial dimension of agglomeration phenomena. Existing empirical evidence is far from consistent. Most sources of data on economic performance do not supply micro-level information containing usable geographic locations. This paper provides evidence of the distances across which distinct sources of agglomeration economies generate benefits for plants belonging to three manufacturing industries in the United States. Confidential data from the Longitudinal Research Database of the United States Census Bureau are used to estimate cross-sectional production function systems at the establishment level for three contrasting industries in three different years. Along with relevant establishment, industry, and regional characteristics, the production functions include variables that indicate the local availability of potential labor and supply pools and knowledge spillovers. Information on individual plant locations at the county scale permits spatial differentiation of the agglomeration variables within geographic regions. Multiple distance decay profiles are investigated in order to explore how modifying the operationalization of proximity affects indicated patterns of agglomeration externalities and interfirm interactions. The results imply that industry characteristics are at least as important as the type of externality mechanism in determining the spatial pattern of agglomeration benefits. The research methods borrow from earlier work by the author that examines the relationships between regional industrial structure and manufacturing production.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: ftp://ftp2.census.gov/ces/wp/2012/CES-WP-12-01.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau in its series Working Papers with number 12-01.

    as in new window
    Length: 41 pages
    Date of creation: Jan 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:12-01

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233
    Phone: (301) 763-6460
    Fax: (301) 763-5935
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.census.gov/ces
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.
    2. Acs, Zoltan J. & Anselin, Luc & Varga, Attila, 2002. "Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1069-1085, September.
    3. Rosina Moreno & Raffaele Paci & Stefano Usai, 2006. "Innovation Clusters in the European Regions," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(9), pages 1235-1263, May.
    4. Wallsten, Scott J., 2001. "An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and firm-level data," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 571-599, September.
    5. Jun Koo & Lall, Somik V., 2005. "Economic geography : real or hype?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3465, The World Bank.
    6. Roderik Ponds & Frank van Oort & Koen Frenken, 2010. "Innovation, spillovers and university--industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 231-255, March.
    7. Jaffe, Adam B & Trajtenberg, Manuel & Henderson, Rebecca, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-98, August.
    8. Daniel Graham & H. Kim, 2008. "An empirical analytical framework for agglomeration economies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 267-289, June.
    9. Arauzo Carod, Josep Maria & Liviano Solís, Daniel & Manjón Antolín, Miguel C., 2008. "Empirical studies in industrial location: an assessment of their methods and results," Working Papers 2072/9257, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    10. Patricia Rice & Anthony J. Venables, 2004. "Spatial Determinants of Productivity: Analysis for the Regions of Great Britain," CEP Discussion Papers, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE dp0642, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    11. Anders Malmberg & Bo Malmberg & Per Lundequist, 2000. "Agglomeration and firm performance: economies of scale, localisation, and urbanisation among Swedish export firms," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 32(2), pages 305-321, February.
    12. Woodward, Douglas & Figueiredo, Octavio & Guimaraes, Paulo, 2006. "Beyond the Silicon Valley: University R&D and high-technology location," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 15-32, July.
    13. Anselin, Luc, 2002. "Under the hood : Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 247-267, November.
    14. Glenn Ellison & Edward L. Glaeser & William Kerr, 2007. "What Causes Industry Agglomeration? Evidence from Coagglomeration Patterns," NBER Working Papers 13068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Henry Renski, 2011. "External economies of localization, urbanization and industrial diversity and new firm survival," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(3), pages 473-502, 08.
    16. Michael Fritsch & Monika Meschede, 2001. "Product Innovation, Process Innovation, and Size," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 335-350, November.
    17. Henderson, R. & Jaffe, A.B.: Tratenberg, M., 1995. "Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting 1965-1988," Papers, Tel Aviv 09-95, Tel Aviv.
    18. Ackerberg, Daniel & Caves, Kevin & Frazer, Garth, 2006. "Structural identification of production functions," MPRA Paper 38349, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-70, December.
    20. Gerke J. Hoogstra & Jouke van Dijk, 2004. "Explaining Firm Employment Growth: Does Location Matter?," Small Business Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 22(3_4), pages 179-192, 04.
    21. Feldman, Maryann P. & Audretsch, David B., 1999. "Innovation in cities:: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 409-429, February.
    22. Rosenthal, Stuart S. & Strange, William C., 2001. "The Determinants of Agglomeration," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 191-229, September.
    23. Maryann Feldman, 1999. "The New Economics Of Innovation, Spillovers And Agglomeration: Areview Of Empirical Studies," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1-2), pages 5-25.
    24. Jun Koo, 2005. "Agglomeration and spillovers in a simultaneous framework," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 35-47, 03.
    25. Jung Won Sonn & Michael Storper, 2008. "The increasing importance of geographical proximity in knowledge production: an analysis of US patent citations, 1975 – 1997," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 40(5), pages 1020-1039, May.
    26. Philip Mccann, 2007. "Observational Equivalence? Regional Studies and Regional Science," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(9), pages 1209-1222.
    27. Daniel J Graham, 2009. "Identifying urbanisation and localisation externalities in manufacturing and service industries," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(1), pages 63-84, 03.
    28. Daan P. van Soest & Shelby Gerking & Frank G. van Oort, 2006. "Spatial Impacts Of Agglomeration Externalities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 881-899.
    29. Moomaw, Ronald L., 1998. "Agglomeration economies: Are they exaggerated by industrial aggregation?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 199-211, March.
    30. Mark Partridge & M. Rose Olfert & Alessandro Alasia, 2007. "Canadian cities as regional engines of growth: agglomeration and amenities," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 39-68, February.
    31. Anselin, Luc, 2002. "Under the hood Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models," Agricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 27(3), November.
    32. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2003. "Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1371-1390, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:12-01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fariha Kamal).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.