IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea05/19229.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do Location Decisions of Firms and Households Affect Economic Development in Rural America?

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, JunJie
  • Gopinath, Munisamy

Abstract

This paper examines the causes of spatial inequalities in economic development across rural America. A theoretical model is developed to analyze interactions between location decisions of firms and households as they are affected by natural endowments, accumulated human and physical capital, and economic geography. Based on the theoretical analysis, an empirical model is specified to quantify the effect of these factors on key indicators of economic development across counties in the United States. Preliminary results suggest that households are willing to trade better amenities for lower income, and firms take advantage of this tradeoff by locating in areas with better climate and more recreational opportunities. In equilibrium, counties with better climate and more creational opportunities have lower income and more employment opportunities. Accumulated human and physical capital also significantly affect economic development across counties in the United States. Counties with more accumulated human and physical capital have higher income, more employment opportunities, and high development density. Remoteness has a negative effect on every measure of economic development indicator. It reduces income, employment, housing prices and total developed areas. Implications of the results for policy development to promote economic prosperity in rural America are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, JunJie & Gopinath, Munisamy, 2005. "How Do Location Decisions of Firms and Households Affect Economic Development in Rural America?," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19229, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19229
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/19229
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LeRoy, Stephen F. & Sonstelie, Jon, 1983. "Paradise lost and regained: Transportation innovation, income, and residential location," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 67-89, January.
    2. Steven C. Deller & Tsung-Hsiu (Sue) Tsai & David W. Marcouiller & Donald B.K. English, 2001. "The Role of Amenities and Quality of Life In Rural Economic Growth," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 352-365.
    3. Krugman, Paul, 1991. "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 483-499, June.
    4. J. Vernon Henderson, Zmarak Shalizi, and Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "Geography and development," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 81-105, January.
    5. Munisamy Gopinath & Weiyan Chen, 2004. "Foreign direct investment and wages: a cross-country analysis," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 231-231.
    6. Dennis Epple & Holger Sieg, 1999. "Estimating Equilibrium Models of Local Jurisdictions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(4), pages 645-681, August.
    7. Epple, Dennis & Romer, Thomas, 1991. "Mobility and Redistribution," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(4), pages 828-858, August.
    8. Masahisa Fujita & Paul Krugman & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561476, January.
    9. Brueckner, Jan K. & Thisse, Jacques-Francois & Zenou, Yves, 1999. "Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor?: An amenity-based theory," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 91-107, January.
    10. Raquel Fernandez & Richard Rogerson, 1996. "Income Distribution, Communities, and the Quality of Public Education," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 111(1), pages 135-164.
    11. JunJie Wu & Richard M. Adams & Andrew J. Plantinga, 2004. "Amenities in an Urban Equilibrium Model: Residential Development in Portland, Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 19-32.
    12. Munisamy Gopinath & Daniel Pick & Yonghai Li, 2004. "An empirical analysis of productivity growth and industrial concentration in us manufacturing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 1-7.
    13. Dimitrios A. Giannias & Panagiotis G. Liargovas, 2002. "Firm and household mobility in the presence of variations in regional characteristics," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 36(2), pages 299-313.
    14. JunJie Wu, 2001. "Environmental Amenities and the Spatial Pattern of Urban Sprawl," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 691-697.
    15. Paul D. Gottlieb, 1994. "Amenities as an Economic Development Tool: Is there Enough Evidence?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 8(3), pages 270-285, August.
    16. Stavins, Robert & Plantinga, Andrew & Lubowski, Ruben, 2003. "Determinants of Land-Use Change In the United States 1982-1997," Discussion Papers dp-03-47, Resources For the Future.
    17. Munisamy Gopinath & Rodrigo Echeverria, 2004. "Does Economic Development Impact the Foreign Direct Investment-Trade Relationship? A Gravity-Model Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 782-787.
    18. Geoghegan, Jacqueline & Wainger, Lisa A. & Bockstael, Nancy E., 1997. "Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 251-264, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19229. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.