The Core-Periphery Model and Endogenous Growth (original) (raw)
1997, Cepr Discussion Papers
Related papers
Is agglomeration really good for growth? Global efficiency, interregional equity and uneven growth
Journal of Urban Economics, 2014
According to NEG literature (Baldwin et al. (2004)), spatial concentration of industrial activities increases growth at the regional and aggregate level without generating regional growth differentials. This view is not supported by the data. We extend the canonical model with an additional sector producing non-tradable goods which benefits from localized knowledge spillovers coming from the R&D performing industrial sector. This view, motivated by the evidence, generates both an anti- growth and a pro-growth effect of agglomeration for both the deindustrializing and the industrializing regions and leads to two novel results - 1) when agglomeration takes place, growth is lower in the periphery; 2) agglomeration may have a negative effect on the growth rate of real income, both at the regional and at the aggregate level. In particular, the economy as a whole might suffer a dynamic loss from agglomeration when - 1) the spatial range of the technological spillovers within the R&D sector; 2) the external benefit of local and foreign knowledge capital on non-tradable sector productivity; 3) the expenditure share on non-tradable goods are all large enough. These results are consistent with the empirical evidence reporting regional real income divergence and according to which the trade-off between aggregate growth and interregional equity loses relevance in more advanced stages of development. Our conclusions have relevant policy implications - contrary to the standard view, current EU and US regional policies favouring industrial dispersion might be welfare-improving both at the regional and the aggregate level and may reduce regional income disparities.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.