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

A Reconsideration of the NAS Rule from an Industrial Agglomeration Perspective

Contents:

Author Info

  • Tomoya Mori

    ()
    (Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University)

  • Tony E. Smith

    ()
    (Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

An empirical regularity designated as the Number-Average Size (NAS) Rule was first identified for the case of Japan by Mori, Nishikimi and Smith [71], and has since been extended to the US by Hsu [50]. This rule asserts a negative log-linear relation between the number and average population size of cities where a given industry is present, i.e., of industry-choice cities. Hence one of its key features is to focus on the presence or absence of industries in each city, rather than the percentage distribution of industries across cities. But despite the strong empirical regularity of this rule, there still remains the statistical question of whether such location patterns could simply have occurred by chance. Indeed, chance occurrences of certain industry-choice cities may be quite likely if, for example, one includes cities where only a single industrial establishment happens to appear. An alternative approach to industry-choice cities is proposed in a companion paper, Mori and Smith [73], which is based on industrial clustering. More specifically, this approach utilizes the statistical procedure developed in Mori and Smith [72] to identify spatially explicit patterns of agglomeration for each industry. In this context, the desired industry-choice cities are taken to be those (economic) cities that constitute at least part of a significant spatial agglomeration for the industry. With respect to these cluster-based industry-choice cities, the central objective of the present paper is to reconfirm the persistence of the NAS Rule between the years 1981 and 2001, as first observed in Mori et al. [71]. Indeed the NAS Rule is in some ways stronger under this new definition of industry-choice cities in that none of outlier industries in the original analysis show any significant agglomeration, and hence can be excluded from the present analysis. A second objective is to show that there has been a substantial churning of the industry mix in individual cities between these two time periods, and hence that persistence of the NAS Rule is even more remarkable in this light. Finally, these persistence results are extended to both the Rank Size Rule and the Hierarchy Principle of Christaller [13], which were shown in Mori et al. [71] to be intimately connected to the NAS Rule.

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: http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/DP/DP669.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research in its series KIER Working Papers with number 669.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Feb 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:kyo:wpaper:669

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501
Phone: +81-75-753-7102
Fax: +81-75-753-7193
Email:
Web page: http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/eng/index.html
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. Masahisa Fujita & Jacques-François Thisse, 2006. "Globalization And The Evolution Of The Supply Chain: Who Gains And Who Loses?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(3), pages 811-836, 08.
  2. Duranton, Gilles, 2006. "Some foundations for Zipf's law: Product proliferation and local spillovers," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 542-563, July.
  3. Ellison, Glenn & Glaeser, Edward L, 1997. "Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: A Dartboard Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(5), pages 889-927, October.
  4. Parr, John B., 1985. "A note on the size distribution of cities over time," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 199-212, September.
  5. Brulhart, Marius & Traeger, Rolf, 2005. "An account of geographic concentration patterns in Europe," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 597-624, November.
  6. Córdoba, Juan-Carlos, 2008. "On the distribution of city sizes," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 177-197, January.
  7. Ioannides, Yannis M. & Overman, Henry G., 2003. "Zipf's law for cities: an empirical examination," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 127-137, March.
  8. Berliant, Marcus & Watanabe, Hiroki, 2011. "Explaining the size distribution of cities: x-treme economies," MPRA Paper 33121, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  9. Krugman, Paul, 1996. "Confronting the Mystery of Urban Hierarchy," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 399-418, December.
  10. Henry G. Overman & Yannis Menelaos Ioannides, 2001. "Cross-sectional evolution of the U.S. city size distribution," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 584, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  11. Esteban Rossi-Hansberg & Mark L.J. Wright, 2005. "Urban Structure and Growth," NBER Working Papers 11262, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. Fujita, Masahisa & Krugman, Paul & Mori, Tomoya, 1999. "On the evolution of hierarchical urban systems1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 209-251, February.
  13. Juan Carlos Córdoba, 2008. "A Generalized Gibrat'S Law," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(4), pages 1463-1468, November.
  14. Gilles Duranton & Diego Puga, 2002. "From Sectoral to Functional Urban Specialization," NBER Working Papers 9112, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Gilles Duranton & Diego Puga, 1999. "Diversity and specialisation in cities: Why, where and when does it matter?," Working Papers dpuga-99-02, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
  16. Kai Nagel & Martin Shubik & Maya Paczuski & Per Bak, 2000. "Spatial Competition and Price Formation," Working Papers 00-05-029, Santa Fe Institute.
  17. Duranton, Gilles & Puga, Diego, 2003. "Microfoundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies," CEPR Discussion Papers 4062, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  18. Henderson, Vernon & Kuncoro, Ari & Turner, Matt, 1995. "Industrial Development in Cities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(5), pages 1067-90, October.
  19. Guy Dumais & Glenn Ellison & Edward L Glaeser, 1998. "Geographic Concentration as a Dynamic Process," Working Papers 98-3, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  20. Eaton, Jonathan & Eckstein, Zvi, 1997. "Cities and growth: Theory and evidence from France and Japan," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 443-474, August.
  21. Kwok Tong Soo, 2004. "Zipfs Law for Cities: A Cross Country Investigation," CEP Discussion Papers dp0641, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  22. Fujita, Masahisa & Tabuchi, Takatoshi, 1997. "Regional growth in postwar Japan," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 643-670, November.
  23. Xavier Gabaix & Yannis M. Ioannides, 2003. "The Evolution of City Size Distributions," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0310, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
  24. Gilles Duranton & Henry G. Overman, 2006. "Exploring the detailed location patterns of UK manufacturing industries using microgeographic data," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19794, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  25. Y Ioannides & Henry Overman, 2000. "Spatial Evolution of the US Urban System," CEP Discussion Papers dp0482, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  26. Yoshihiko Nishiyama & Susumu Osada & Yasuhiro Sato, 2008. "OLS ESTIMATION AND THE "t" TEST REVISITED IN RANK-SIZE RULE REGRESSION," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 691-716.
  27. Gilles Duranton, 2007. "Urban Evolutions: The Fast, the Slow, and the Still," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 197-221, March.
  28. Eaton, B Curtis & Lipsey, Richard G, 1982. "An Economic Theory of Central Places," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(365), pages 56-72, March.
  29. TABUCHI, Takahoshi & THISSE, Jacques-François, . "Regional specialization, urban hierarchy, and commuting costs," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1967, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  30. Tomoya Mori & Koji Nishikimi & Tony E. Smith, 2004. "A Divergence Statistic for Industrial Localization," KIER Working Papers 587, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
  31. Marcus Berliant, 2005. "Central Place Theory," Urban/Regional 0505001, EconWPA.
  32. Tomoya Mori & Koji Nishikimi & Tony E. Smith, 2008. "The Number-Average Size Rule: A New Empirical Relationship Between Industrial Location And City Size," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 165-211.
  33. Xavier Gabaix & Rustam Ibragimov, 2007. "Rank-1/2: A Simple Way to Improve the OLS Estimation of Tail Exponents," NBER Technical Working Papers 0342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  34. Xavier Gabaix, 1999. "Zipf'S Law For Cities: An Explanation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(3), pages 739-767, August.
  35. Jan Eeckhout, 2004. "Gibrat's Law for (All) Cities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1429-1451, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Tomoya Mori & Tony E. Smith, 2011. "An Industrial Agglomeration Approach To Central Place And City Size Regularities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 694-731, October.

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:kyo:wpaper:669. 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: (Ryo Okui).

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.