IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Assessing spatial equity and efficiency impacts of transport infrastructure projects

  • Bröcker, Johannes
  • Korzhenevych, Artem
  • Schürmann, Carsten

Policy decisions on transport infrastructure investments often require knowledge of welfare effects generated from using these infrastructures on a detailed regional level. This is in particular true for the EU initiative promoting the development of the trans-European transport (TEN-T) networks. As projects within this initiative affect regions in different countries, incentive compatible financing schemes cannot be designed without knowing where the benefits accrue. Furthermore, this initiative is also intended to contribute to the cohesion objective on a community scale, and only with regional impact studies one can assess to which extent these objectives are attained. As standard cost-benefit analysis is unable to assign benefits to eventual beneficiaries in the economy, we develop and apply a spatial computable general equilibrium (SCGE) model as a suitable alternative. The model has a household sector and a production sector with two industries, one producing local goods, the other producing tradables. Regions interact through costly trade, with trade costs depending, among others, on the state of the infrastructure. New links reduce trade costs, which changes trade flows, production, goods prices and factor prices and thus eventually the welfare of households in different regions. We present the formal structure of the model, the calibration procedure and the data sources for calibrating the model and estimating the trade cost reductions stemming from new transport links. As the model is only able to quantify effects related to trade in goods we also suggest a simplified approach to add effects stemming from passenger transport. We apply the methods to a policy experiment related to the TEN-T priority list of projects. We quantify project by project the social return, check whether significant benefit spillovers to countries not involved in financing might prevent realization of projects in spite of their respective profitability from European wide point of view, and finally we evaluate the contribution of each project to the spatial cohesion objective. Our results confirm sceptical views on EU involvement in infrastructure policy that have been expressed in the literature.

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.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V99-4Y34M73-2/2/ea065b127adb6a01f66b4d288105a9c1
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part B: Methodological.

Volume (Year): 44 (2010)
Issue (Month): 7 (August)
Pages: 795-811

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:44:y:2010:i:7:p:795-811
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description

Order Information: Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
Web: https://shop.elsevier.com/order?id=548&ref=548_01_ooc_1&version=01

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. Hanson, G.H., 1999. "`Market Potential, Increasing Returns, and Geographic Concentration," Working Papers 439, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
  2. Haddad, Eduardo A. & Domingues, Edson P. & Perobelli, Fernando S., 2002. "Regional effects of economic integration: the case of Brazil," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 453-482, August.
  3. M.S. Deepak & Carol Taylor West & Thomas H. Spreen, 2001. "Local Government Portfolios and Regional Growth: Some Combined Dynamic CGE/Optimal Control Results," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 219-254.
  4. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 593, Boston College Department of Economics.
  5. Francisco J. André & M. Alejandro Cardenete & Esther Velázquez Alonso, 2004. "Performing an Environmental Tax Reform in a Regional Economy. A Computable General Equilibrium Approach," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/04, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
  6. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521266550 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. Conrad, Klaus & Heng, Stefan, 2000. "Financing Road Infrastructure by Savings in Congestion Costs : A CGE Analysis," Discussion Papers 579, Institut fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Abteilung fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre.
  8. Gelan, Ayele, 2002. "Trade liberalisation and urban-rural linkages: a CGE analysis for Ethiopia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(7-8), pages 707-738, November.
  9. Melendez-Hidalgo, Jose & Rietveld, Piet & Verhoef, Erik, 2007. "On the change in surpluses equivalence: measuring benefits from transport infrastructure investments," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 36, pages 107-140.
  10. Klaus Conrad, 1997. "Traffic, transportation, infrastructure and externalities A theoretical framework for a CGE analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 369-389.
  11. Thierry Mayer & Keith Head, 2003. "The Empirics of Agglomeration and Trade," Working Papers 2003-15, CEPII research center.
  12. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-38, May.
  13. CALTHROP, Edward & DE BORGER, Bruno & PROOST, Stef, 2008. "Cost-benefit analysis of transport investments in distorted economies," Working Papers 2008011, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
  14. Annekatrin Niebuhr, 2006. "Market access and regional disparities," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-334, June.
  15. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, March.
  16. Charlotte Berg, 2007. "Household Transport Demand in a CGE-framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 573-597, July.
  17. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
  18. Brocker, Johannes & Rohweder, Herold C, 1990. "Barriers to International Trade: Methods of Measurement and Empirical Evidence," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 289-305.
  19. van Exel, Job & Rienstra, Sytze & Gommers, Michael & Pearman, Alan & Tsamboulas, Dimitrios, 2002. "EU involvement in TEN development: network effects and European value added," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 299-311, October.
  20. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521319867 is not listed on IDEAS
  21. Nicolaas Groenewold & Alfred Hagger, 2007. "The effects of fiscal equalisation in a model with endogenous regional governments: an analysis in a two-region numerical model," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 353-374, June.
  22. McCallum, John, 1995. "National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 615-23, June.
  23. David Hummels, 2007. "Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of Globalization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 131-154, Summer.
  24. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
  25. Eduardo Haddad & Geoffrey Hewings, 1999. "The short-run regional effects of new investments and technological upgrade in the Brazilian automobile industry: An interregional computable general equilibrium analysis," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 359-383.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:44:y:2010:i:7:p:795-811. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.