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

Is there a rural-urban divide? Location and productivity of UK manufacturing

  • Marian Rizov

    ()

  • Paul Walsh

The focus of the paper is on evaluating the productivity gap between rural and urban locations in the UK using micro data. We build a structural model of the unobservable productivity emphasising the link between productivity and spatial density of economic activity and adapt the semi-parametric estimation approach proposed in Olley and Pakes (1996) to estimate the parameters of production functions at firm level, within 4-digit UK manufacturing industries, for the period 1997 - 2001. We allow market structure to differ by endogenous export status and location choices and model productivity as a second-order Markov process which greatly enhances our ability to obtain unbiased and consistent estimates of TFP measures at firm level. We aggregate the firm TFPs by location category following the 2004 DEFRA definition of rural and find that aggregate productivity systematically differs across urban, rural less sparse and rural sparse locations as the magnitudes of the differentials are 13.2 percent and 18.0 percent, respectively. Our results are in line with several recent studies. Next, we decompose aggregate productivity into productivity index and industry composition index. The productivity index is the highest in urban locations suggesting that productivity is strongly influenced by density of economic activity and proximity to economic mass. Because industry composition index is positively correlated with productivity index it is evident that locations with high productivity are also characterised by industrial structure enhancing productivity. Further, analysing changes in the decomposition indexes over two periods, before and after implementation of the Euro by the UK main trading partners, reveals substantial heterogeneity in responses across location categories under increased competitive pressure. The main finding is that there is a tendency of rural sparse locations catching up with the urban and rural less sparse location categories in terms of aggregate productivity over the period of analysis. We also find evidence that increased competitive pressure as a result of changes in trade conditions after implementation of the Euro by the UK’s main trading partners has acted as a substitute for the role of density of economic activity in enhancing industry composition, especially in rural sparse locations.

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-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa10/ERSA2010finalpaper162.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by European Regional Science Association in its series ERSA conference papers with number ersa10p162.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa10p162
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria

Web page: http://www.ersa.org

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. Antonio Ciccone & Robert E. Hall, 1993. "Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity," NBER Working Papers 4313, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Fujita, Masahisa, 1988. "A monopolistic competition model of spatial agglomeration : Differentiated product approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 87-124, February.
  3. Abdel-Rahman, H. M., 1988. "Product differentiation, monopolistic competition and city size," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 69-86, February.
  4. Marian Rizov & Patrick Paul Walsh, 2009. "Productivity and Trade Orientation in UK Manufacturing," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 71(6), pages 821-849, December.
  5. G. Steven Olley & Ariel Pakes, 1992. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," NBER Working Papers 3977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Antonio Ciccone, 1998. "Agglomeration-effects in Europe," Economics Working Papers 499, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Aug 1999.
  7. Rivera-Batiz, Francisco L., 1988. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and agglomeration economies in consumption and production," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 125-153, February.
  8. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1975. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 64, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  9. Melitz, Marc J, 2002. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," CEPR Discussion Papers 3381, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  10. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2009. "On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 112-114, September.
  11. James Harrigan, 1996. "Technology, factor supplies, and international specialization: estimating the neoclassical model," Staff Reports 15, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  12. J.V. Henderson, 1972. "The Sizes and Types of Cities," Working Papers 75, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  13. Klette, Tor Jakob & Griliches, Zvi, 1996. "The Inconsistency of Common Scale Estimators When Output Prices Are Unobserved and Endogenous," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 343-61, July-Aug..
  14. Patricia Rice & Tony Venables, 2004. "Spatial determinants of productivity: analysis for the regions of Great Britain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 2040, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  15. Michael Spence, 1976. "Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 217-235.
  16. Haijime Katayama & Shihua Lu & James Tybout, 2003. "Why Plant-Level Productivity Studies are Often Misleading, and an Alternative Approach to Interference," NBER Working Papers 9617, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Don Webber & Nigel Curry & Anthony Plumridge, 2009. "Business Productivity and Area Productivity in Rural England," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 661-675.
  18. Bernard Fingleton, 2003. "Increasing returns: evidence from local wage rates in Great Britain," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 716-739, October.
  19. Jan Oosterhaven & Lourens Broersma, 2007. "Sector Structure and Cluster Economies: A Decomposition of Regional Labour Productivity," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 639-659.
  20. Carlino, Gerald A. & Voith, Richard, 1992. "Accounting for differences in aggregate state productivity," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 597-617, November.
  21. Rosenthal, Stuart S. & Strange, William C., 2004. "Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 49, pages 2119-2171 Elsevier.
  22. Richard Ericson & Ariel Pakes, 1995. "Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for Empirical Work," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 53-82.
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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa10p162. 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: (Gunther Maier)

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.