Bfsu geograph econ lecture


Published on

My geographical economics guest lecture at the Beijing Foreign Studies University

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The core model sets up an economy: With two regions and two sectors. The consumers consist of farm and manufacturing workers. Farm workers receive the farm wage rate in return for their labour . Food is produced under constant returns to scale and perfect competition. Food is sold in region 1 or 2 and has no transport cost. Manufacturing firms produce a unique variety. Using only labour under internal economies of scale. There are transport costs involved to sell manufactures in the other region Workers earn the manufacturing wage rate by supplying labour to firms in the manufacturing sector of their region.
  • Bfsu geograph econ lecture

    1. 1. ECONOMICS AND GEOGRAPHYNATURE, EXTERNALITIES AND POLICIESGuest lecture at the Beijing Foreign Studies UniversityApril 2012byWaldo Krugell School of Economics
    2. 2. Outline 1) What, How, For Whom and WHERE? 2) Before ‘geographical economics’. 3) The core model of geographical economics. 4) Beyond the core model. 5) Evidence from South Africa. 6) The way forward.
    3. 3. 1) What, how, for whom and WHERE?• First-year students are typically taught that Economics is the study of how scarce resources are used to satisfy unlimited wants and needs – how society answers the questions of WHAT, HOW and FOR WHOM to produce.• The question of WHERE production and consumption takes place receives little attention.• But can a South African come to BFSU and tell anyone anything interesting about economics and geography?• We need a quick comparison between South Africa and China.
    4. 4. 1) WHERE: Population South Africa = Zhejiang with 50 million people
    5. 5. 1) WHERE: Cities • 93 Chinese cities have a population >5 million • Johannesburg + East Rand + Pretoria = 6.8m • Durban = 2.8 million • Cape Town = 2.6 million
    6. 6. 1) WHERE: GDP per capita South Africa = Inner Mongolia With GDP pc of $13 000
    7. 7. 1) WHERE: Why South Africa? Development started at the coast through trade between West and East But then minerals fueled industrialization inland REFERENCE Industrial Development Points Deconcentration Points Grand Apartheid left many people in peripheral homelands and the economy was closed to trade
    8. 8. 1) WHERE: Why South Africa• So why study geographical economics in South Africa? • It could be part of a bigger development debate of geography vs. institutions. • SA has a unique history and spatial distribution of economic activity. • Since the opening up of the economy spatial inequality has increased, benefitting open places with better human capital. • The transformation of government has resulted in local authorities that are Constitutionally responsible for development of their areas.• The academic literature is made up of divergent contributions from urban and regional planners, geographers and economists, but few mention ‘economic geography’.
    9. 9. 1) What, how, for whom and WHERE?• Development has dimensions of density and distance.• The stylized facts show: • Economic production is concentrated. • Living standards diverge before converging. • Agglomeration forces shape the spatial economy. • People migrate to profit from proximity to density. • As transport costs fall, specialisation and trade increases.• Thus the question arises, how can we explain the unequal distribution of economic activity?
    10. 10. 2) Before ‘geographical economics’ • Before Krugman (1991) and the development of ‘geographical economics’, economists tried to explain the location of economic activity in: • Urban economics. • Regional economics. • Growth theory. • Development economics. • Trade theory. • A detailed discussion of each is not necessary, but it is possible to give each theory’s view of the forces that draw economic activity together and those that drive it apart.
    11. 11. 2) Before ‘geographical economics’Agglomeration forces Dispersion forces Urban economicsExternal economies due to Transport costsspillovers associated with: Land rents Information sharing Pooled labour market Existence of specialised suppliers Regional economicsInternal economies of scale Transport costsLarge demand Distance
    12. 12. 2) Before ‘geographical economics’Agglomeration forces Dispersion forces Development economics Large market offers economies ofscale (Rosenstein-Rodan favours a“big push”) External economies of scale dueto spillovers (Myrdal emphasisescumulative causation) Backward and forward linkagesbetween firms (Hirschman)
    13. 13. 2) Before ‘geographical economics’Agglomeration forces Dispersion forces Neo-classical growth theoryDifferences in the determinants of Differences in the determinants ofgrowth can be location-specific: growth can be location-specific:First-nature geography gives a cost First-nature geography gives a costadvantage e.g. proximity to a large disadvantage e.g. being land-lockedmarket or access to the ocean thatlower transport costs New growth theoryExternal economies due to localisedspillovers associated withendogenous determinants ofgrowth: Human capital, R&D,Infrastructure
    14. 14. 2) Before ‘geographical economics’Agglomeration forces Dispersion forces Neo-classical trade theoryFirst-nature geography: unevendistribution of endowmentsdetermines comparative advantage New trade theoryMarket size and consumers’ love Transport costsfor variety allow manufacturers toachieve internal economies of scale
    15. 15. 2) Before ‘geographical economics’ • Initially the term ‘new economic geography’ was popular, but this was replaced by ‘geographical economics’. • As the overview showed, Krugman’s explanation of the location of economic activity was not that new. • But the contribution was to incorporate economies of scale and imperfect competition that interact with some form of local advantages and to then endogenously determine the size of economic activity in different locations in a general equilibrium framework.
    16. 16. 3) The core model Consumers in 1 g Consumers in 2 Mobility (λi) Farm Manufacturing Manufacturing Farm workers in 1 workers in 1 workers in 2 workers in 2 Income Income (labor) (labor) c Spending (goods) Spending (goods) Income Income N1 manufacturing firms N2 manufacturing firms N1 varieties (elasticity ε) N2 varieties (elasticity ε) internal returns to scale internal returns to scale monopolistic competition monopolistic competition a e d δ Spending on T (farm labor) (farm labor) manufactures Spending on δ 1-δ 1-δ manufactures Spending Spending on food on food b f Farms in 1 Farms in 2 Direction of Direction of (goods and services flows) money flows Source: Brakman, Garretsen & Van Marrewijk, 2009
    17. 17. 3) The core model• Solving the model means finding an equilibrium where the world demand for food and each variety of manufactures is equal to the world supply and no producer is earning excess profits.• The key features are: • δ the fraction of income spent on manufactures. • ρ the love-of-variety effect – an increase in the number of varieties more than proportionally increases utility. • Production in manufacturing is characterised by internal economies of scale. • There is constant mark-up of price over marginal cost. • The core model uses iceberg transport costs where T≥1 indicates the number of goods that need to be shipped to ensure that one unit of a variety of manufactures arrives per unit of distance.
    18. 18. 3) The core model• The spatial distribution of economic activity is determined by the initial distribution of manufacturing workers and the mobility of these workers and firms.• The result is that the attractiveness of a region is related to the purchasing power in all regions and relative to the distance from the market.• Analytically there are three short-run equilibria. c. agglomerate in region 2 a. spreading b. agglomerate in region 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 region 1 region 2 region 1 region 2 region 1 region 2 Source: Brakman, Garretsen & Van Marrewijk, 2009
    19. 19. 3) The core model • The mobile manufacturing work force implies that the short-run equilibrium can change. • If the real wages in the manufacturing sector is higher in region 1 than in region 2, manufacturing workers will leave region 2 and settle in region 1. • Modeling the dynamic forces requires numerical simulation, varying the possible distributions of the mobile manufacturing workers. • The following figure shows how the relative real wage in region 1 varies as the share of the mobile workforce in region 1 varies.
    20. 20. 3) The core model 1,03 relative real wage (w1/w2) E F C D 1 B A 0,97 0 0,5 1 share of manufacturing workers in region 1 (lambda1) Source: Brakman, Garretsen & Van Marrewijk, 2009
    21. 21. 3) The core model • One of the key parameters of the core model, that identifies the regions, is the transport cost. • Varying the level of transport costs gives a number of interesting solutions: • If transport costs are large, the spreading equilibrium is the only stable equilibrium. • If transport costs are small, the two agglomerating equilibria are stable. • For a range of intermediate values of transport costs, there are five possible equilibria.
    22. 22. 3) The core model• For transport costs below the Panel a sustain point there is complete 1 S1 agglomeration. λ1• For transport costs above the breakpoint spreading across the 0.5 B two regions is stable.• There is always an intermediate level of transport costs at which 0 1 S0 Transport costs T agglomeration is sustainable, Sustain points Stable equilibria while simultaneously spreading of Break point Unstable equilibria manufacturing activity is a stable Basin of attraction for spreading equilibrium equilibrium. Basin of attraction for agglomeration in region 1 Basin of attraction for agglomeration in region 2 Source: Brakman, Garretsen & Van Marrewijk, 2009
    23. 23. 3) The core model• The way the core model is set up creates a propensity for agglomeration. • Internal economies of scale means that increasing production at a plant would lower costs and manufacturers would be inclined to produce more at a single location.• But this has to be weighed up against transport costs.• The mechanism through which agglomeration takes place is labour mobility.
    24. 24. 3) The core model• The core model has some distinctive characteristics: • There is a home-market effect similar to trade models. • Endogenous asymmetry. • Multiple equilibria. • The possibility of cumulative causation. • Self-fulfilling expectations from the cumulative causation.• It is the last two of these characteristics that take explanations of the location of economic activity beyond the core model to external economies of scale.
    25. 25. 4) Beyond the core model• Just as firms and farms deliver final and intermediate goods and services, towns and cities deliver agglomeration economies to producers and workers.• Agglomeration economies include the benefits of: • Localisation – being near other producers of the same commodity or service. There is input-sharing and competition within the industry. • Urbanisation – being close to producers of a wide range of commodities or services. There is industrial diversity that fosters innovation.
    26. 26. 4) Beyond the core model Source: WDR, 2009
    27. 27. 4) Beyond the core model• Cities facilitate scale economies of all types: • Sharing: • Broadening the market of input suppliers allows them to exploit internal economies of scale. • Sharing inputs permits suppliers to provide highly specialised goods and services. • Matching: • If there is a greater range of skills available, employers can better match to their needs. • And workers face less risk in locations with many possible employers. • Learning: • Concentration accelerates spillovers of knowledge.
    28. 28. 4) Beyond the core model• Today, research emphasises the tension between benefits from the concentration of economic activity and costs arising from that spatial concentration.• The result is not only agglomeration or spreading equilibria, but the view that there exists a portfolio of places. • Large cities tend to be more diversified and service oriented. • Smaller cities tend to be industrially specialised.• In this context, policymakers are concerned about institutions, infrastructure and interventions.
    29. 29. 5) Evidence from South Africa• Why study geographical economics in South Africa? • It could be part of a bigger development debate of geography vs. institutions. • SA has a unique history and spatial distribution of economic activity. • The transformation of government has resulted in local authorities that are Constitutionally responsible for development of their areas.• The academic literature is made up of divergent contributions from urban and regional planners, geographers and economists, but few mention ‘economic geography’.
    30. 30. 5) Evidence from South Africa• The literature: • Topics studied at sub-national level. • Agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, infrastructure, employment, poverty and inequality. • Recently: spatial aspects of the labour market. • Studies of demographics. • Rural questions and the rural-urban divide. • Cities and urban management and planning. • Fiscal decentralisation and LED issues. • Spatial development initiatives.
    31. 31. 5) Evidence from South Africa• A specific look at economic geography comes from Fedderke & Wollnick (2008): • They examined the spatial distribution of manufacturing. • Using data from the Manufacturing Census 1970-1996. • Looking at regional specialisation and industry concentration at the provincial level.• The descriptions show that: • Manufacturing value added is dominated by Gauteng. • There is no consistent trend towards regional specialisation of despecialisation – but there was specialisation between 1993 and 1996 when the economy was opened up.
    32. 32. 5) Evidence from South Africa• The most concentrated industries, apart from Iron & Steel and Motor, are smaller industries.
    33. 33. 5) Evidence from South Africa• The determinants of geographical concentration: • They examined measures of scale, linkages and technology. • Internal scale economies encourage concentration. • Industries with low labour intensity and extractive industries with high capital intensity are dispersed. • Industries with strong inter-firm-linkages are also less concentrated, possibly due to high transport costs. • Concentration of human capital intensive industries reflects SA skills shortages. • High industry-specific productivity gradients are associated with concentration.
    34. 34. 5) Evidence from South Africa• And then there is the research on the SA evidence of geographical economics that I have been involved with: • This has been part of a WorkWell research programme with colleagues at NWU-Pukke and collaborators abroad. • The work has been funded by the NRF and VW Stiftung.• Together, we have examined a range of topics: • Growth and convergence. • The role of cities. • The location of exporters. • Firm-level evidence of whether geography matters.
    35. 35. 5) Evidence from South Africa• But first a word about the data: • This research mainly made use of Global Insight’s Regional Economic Explorer database. • With magisterial districts as the spatial unit of analysis. • A number of the studies also included export data from Customs and Excise. • I have also used firm-level data from the 2000 National Enterprise Survey and 2003 and 2007 World Bank ICA surveys.
    36. 36. 5.1) Growth and convergence• β-convergence and the determinants of sub-national growth: • Naudé & Krugell (2003a, 2006) used panel data regression models and found evidence of β-convergence but it is slow. • Convergence is conditional on: • Initial capital stock • Education levels. • The share of exports in gross value added. • Distance from Johannesburg.
    37. 37. 5.1) Growth and convergence• σ-convergence: • Naudé and Krugell (2006) calculated the coefficient of variation of income per capita across the magisterial districts and found some evidence of σ-convergence. Year Standard Standard Standard Standard Deviation of Deviation of Deviation of Log Deviation of Log of Real Log of Real of Real per Log of Real per capita per capita capita Income: GGP for All Income: All Income: Poorest 20% of districts districts Richest 20% districts districts 1990 0.6147 0.3229 0.2379 1.52 1996 0.5258 0.2944 0.1063 1.51 2000 0.5466 0.3153 0.1082 1.55
    38. 38. 5.1) Growth and convergence 0.08• Distribution dynamics: 0.07 0.06 1996 2000 2004 • Krugell, Koekemoer and 0.05 Allison (2005) analysed 0.04 0.03 kernels of incomes per 0.02 magisterial districts. 0.01 0 • The results confirm a highly 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 unequal distribution. 0.0016 • Over the period 1996-2004 0.0014 0.0012 more places grew poor and a 0.001 1996 2000 2004 few places grew richer. 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230
    39. 39. 5.1) Growth and convergence• Distribution dynamics: • Bosker & Krugell (2008) used Markov chain analysis to quantify the intra-distributional movements. • The results showed: • Regions below the national GDP per capita level became poorer in relative terms. • The transition probabilities indicate that the chance of one of the poorest regions to move up in the income distribution is not significantly different from zero. • The probability of moving a group down is for all groups higher than the probability of moving up. • But regions with a GDP per capita higher than the national average are the least likely to move a group down.
    40. 40. 5.1) Growth and convergence• Distribution dynamics: • If the distribution continues to evolve as it did between 1996 and 2004, it will result in a distribution where 98% of the regions earn less than 0.36 times the national level of GDP per capita (which is only R7965 per capita). • However, calculation of mobility indices show that the number of years it will take for the distribution to be halfway towards this steady state is 58 years.
    41. 41. 5.1) Growth and convergence• Distribution dynamics: • Bosker & Krugell (2008) were also the first to use spatial econometrics in the SA context.
    42. 42. 5.3) The location of exporters• Does openness matter for local growth? • Naudé, Bosker & Matthee (2009) estimate growth regressions where openness is measured by the share of exports in a magisterial district’s GDP. • To determine whether export specialisation or diversification is better they calculate three indices: • (index 1) a Herfindahl-index which examines trends in export revenue or specialisation of the regions relative to overall South African export specialisation, • (index 2) a relative specialization index which measures the degree of specialization by the sum of each industry’s absolute deviation of that industry’s share in a district’s total exports from that industry’s share in total South African exports at the national level, • (index 3) a normalised Herfindahl index, measuring a district’s own export concentration. • About 22 magisterial districts in South Africa are responsible for 85 per cent of the country’s manufacturing exports.
    43. 43. 5.3) The location of exporters
    44. 44. 5.3) The location of exporters dependent variable: GDP growth 1996-2001Does openness matter for Manufacturing share in index1 index2 index3local growth? export indicator exports -0.013*** 1.82* 2.80** 0.88 [0.01] [0.09] [0.04] [0.35] Openness 0.014** 0.012* 0.015** 0.014** [0.02] [0.06] [0.02] [0.03]Openness, education and ln gdp 1996 -0.03 -0.05 0.10 0.05 [0.84] [0.76] [0.54] [0.79]population growth are human capital 1996 1.30*** 1.13*** 1.22** 1.21***positively associated with [0.00] [0.00] [0.00] [0.00] ln distance -0.01 0.07 -0.11 -0.001growth. avg. Annual [0.94] 0.72** [0.69] 0.79** [0.57] 0.70* [0.99] 0.69* population growth [0.05] [0.04] [0.06] [0.06] RhoThe more specialized regions (parameter on spatial -1.95*** -1.85*** -1.93***compared to the national lag) -1.83*** [0.00] [0.00] [0.00] [0.00]export portfolio, experienced No of observations log likelihood 234 -522.1 235 -526.6 235 -525.9 235 -527.7the fastest GDP growth rates.
    45. 45. 5.3) The location of exporters• What determines local exports? • Matthee & Naudé (2008), estimated the determinants of magisterial district exports in South Africa as a function of a geographical component, the home-market effect of each district and specific district features. • They find that the home-market effect and distance are significant determinants of local exports. • Internal distance and thus by implication domestic transport cost, may influence the extent to which different localities in the country can be expected to be successful in exporting.
    46. 46. 5.3) The location of exporters• Over the period 1996 to 2004, exporters seem to have located further away Predicted manufactured exports in 2004 Predicted manufactured exports in 1996 from the hub within the first 100km.• The level of manufactured exports in the second ‘band’ (originating around 400km from the hub) has increased significantly. 0 200 400 600 800 Naudé & Matthee (2007) Distance from port Manufactured exports in 1996 Manufactured Exports in 2004
    47. 47. 5. Evidence beyond growth and exports• The World Development Reports states that as countries develop, economic activities become more concentrated. • The concentration of people in cities and towns occurs quickly. • The concentration of economic activity in leading areas continues for longer.• Divergence in living standards happened quickly, but convergence is slower.
    48. 48. 5.4) Firm-level evidence • The current line of work is to find firm-level evidence that location matters for South African manufacturers. • Available data come from the 2000 National Enterprise Survey and 2003 and 2007 World Bank Investment Climate Assessment survey. • The analysis examines four sources of economic geography external economies: • Intermediate inputs, the labour market, infrastructure and access to knowledge.
    49. 49. 5.4) Firm-level evidence• The data allow one to distinguish between firms in the large South African cities, coastal vs. land-locked.• Analysis indicates that location does matter for manufacturers.• The World Bank surveys were not designed to examine agglomeration economies.• But it is possible to gather information from a number of items that can be related back to the sources of agglomeration economies per place.• Section 4 of the paper presents a number of tables with information about agglomeration gleaned from the firms’ responses to the questions in the surveys.
    50. 50. Intermediate inputs• On average, firms in Gauteng o Use more domestic inputs, o Use less imported inputs, o Are sellers of intermediate inputs, o Are more likely to subcontract production, and o Hold fewer days of inventory, when compare to firms in Cape Town, Durban and P.E.• Firms in the coastal cities tend to use more foreign inputs and imported machinery and equipment.
    51. 51. The labour market On average, firms in Gauteng o Employ greater proportions of managers and professionals, o Employ more workers with higher levels of education, o Pay higher wages to production workers and professionals, o Reported that it is only moderately difficult to recruit skilled technical staff. Firms in PE employ a larger proportion of semi- skilled production staff. And those in Durban a larger share of unskilled staff.
    52. 52. Infrastructure• Access to land, electricity supply and transportation were seen as major obstacles to doing business in 2003.• In 2007 more firms in Gauteng and Cape Town experienced electricity supply as a major obstacle and owned or shared a generator.
    53. 53. Knowledge• In the 2003 and 2007 surveys: o A greater proportion of firms in Gauteng and P.E. used foreign licensed technology. o Most firms have e-mail, but fewer use an own web site to communicate with clients.
    54. 54. 6) The way forward• There is a new push for industrial policy: • Ideas of a developmental state. • Infrastructure-driven development, with IDZs and EPZ.• Policy recommendations from the World Bank. • Policies should be spatially neutral. • But support links to agglomeration. • Support through social spending.• Recommendations for further research. • Historical analysis. • Better local data – specifically firms. • RCT for new policy initiatives.