ABSTRACT
This paper develops a simple model of spatial sorting where the least productive entrepreneurs are drawn to the large core region. This is an unusual feature. The literature on spatial sorting typically shows how the most productive individuals and firms agglomerate to the core. However, our model is consistent with empirical evidence that reveals that large agglomerations also attract the low skilled.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest is reported by the authors.
Notes
1 That the poor seem to live closer to the city center than the rich has previously been noted by, for example, Margo (Citation1992), Mieszkowski and Mills (Citation1993), and Mills and Lubuele (Citation1997).
2 Only six out of 30 mega-cities are today located in high income countries (Glaeser, Citation2014).
3 For example, the slum in Ahmedabad, India, according to UN-Habitat (Citation2003), has increased from 17% in 1971 to 21% in 1982, and for 1991, 40% of households lived in slums. For Karachi, Pakistan, the share of shacks increased from 37% to 50% between 1978 and 2000.
4 Thus, migration is driven by real wage differences in both cases, but our model focuses on a different margin.
6 The first paper introducing heterogeneous firms in this literature, Baldwin and Okubo (Citation2006), shows that the most productive firms are the first to agglomerate to the core when using the ‘footloose capital’ (FC) model by Martin and Rogers (Citation1995).
7 Several other papers generate a gradual relocation pattern. Helpman (Citation1998) introduces a housing sector that dampens the agglomeration process. Tabuchi and Thisse (Citation2002), Murata (Citation2003), Zeng (Citation2008) and Picard and Okubo (Citation2012) introduce preference heterogeneity in different models, which generate a non-catastrophic relocation pattern, and there are also models with CES upper tier preferences may generate a gradual relocation pattern (Pflüger & Südekum, Citation200Citation7, Citation2011).
8 Using Second World War data from Germany, Bosker et al. (Citation2007) find instances of multiple equilibria.
9 Baldwin and Okubo (Citation2006) assume two asymmetric regions. Okubo (Citation2009) models vertical linkage in two symmetric regions.
10 Sor a sufficient condition, see Appendix A in the supplemental data online.
14 This is a difference compared with the FC model in Baldwin and Okubo (Citation2006), which has the same sustain point as in the homogeneous firms’ model by Martin and Rogers (Citation1995).
15 The break/sustain gap essentially disappears when non-negative consumption is imposed in the Pflüger (Citation2004) model, as shown by Barde and Peirson (Citation2011).
Margo, R. (1992). Explaining the postwar suburbanization of population in the United States: The role of income. Journal of Urban Economics, 31(3), 301–310. doi:10.1016/0094-1190(92)90058-S Mieszkowski, P., & Mills, E. (1993). The causes of metropolitan suburbanization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 135–147. doi:10.1257/jep.7.3.135 Mills, E., & Lubuele, L. S. (1997). Inner cities. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(2), 727–756. Glaeser, E. L. (2014). A world of cities: The causes and consequences of urbanization in poorer countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(5), 1154–1199. doi:10.1111/jeea.12100 UN-Habitat. (2003). The challenge of slums: Global report of human settlements 2003. Earthscan. Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions and international trade. MIT Press. Baldwin, R., Forslid, R., Martin, P., Ottaviano, G., & Robert-Nicoud, F. (2003). Economic geography and public policy. Princeton University Press. Combes, P.-P., Mayer, T., & Thisse, J.-F. (2008b). Economic geography. Princeton University Press. Baldwin, R., & Okubo, T. (2006). Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography: Spatial selection and sorting. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(3), 323–346. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi020 Martin, P., & Rogers, C. A. (1995). Industrial location and public infrastructure. Journal of International Economics, 39(3–4), 335–351. doi:10.1016/0022-1996(95)01376-6 Helpman, E. (1998). The size of regions. Topics in Public Economics: Theoretical and Applied Analysis, 33–54. Tabuchi, T., & Thisse, J. F. (2002). Taste heterogeneity, labor mobility and economic geography. Journal of Development Economics, 69(1), 155–177. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(02)00057-3 Murata, Y. (2003). Product diversity, taste heterogeneity, and geographic distribution of economic activities: Market vs. non-market interactions. Journal of Urban Economics, 53(1), 126–144. doi:10.1016/S0094-1190(02)00507-7 Zeng, D. Z. (2008). New economic geography with heterogeneous preferences: An explanation of segregation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(1), 306–324. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2007.02.004 Picard, P. M., & Okubo, T. (2012). Firms’ locations under demand heterogeneity. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(6), 961–974. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.05.001 Pflüger, M., & Südekum, J. (2007). A synthesis of footloose-entrepreneur new economic geography models: When is agglomeration smooth and easily reversible? Journal of Economic Geography, 8(1), 39–54. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbm046 Pflüger, M., & Südekum, J. (2007). A synthesis of footloose-entrepreneur new economic geography models: When is agglomeration smooth and easily reversible? Journal of Economic Geography, 8(1), 39–54. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbm046 Pflüger, M., & Südekum, J. (2011). On pitchforks and tomahawks. Journal of Regional Science, 51(2), 292–298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00695.x Bosker, M., Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., & Schramm, M. (2007). Looking for multiple equilibria when geography matters: German city growth and the WWII shock. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(1), 152–169. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.001 Baldwin, R., & Okubo, T. (2006). Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography: Spatial selection and sorting. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(3), 323–346. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi020 Okubo, T. (2009). Trade liberalisation and agglomeration with firm heterogeneity: Forward and backward linkages. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(5), 530–541. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.03.005 Forslid, R., & Okubo, T. (2012). On the Development Strategy of Countries of Intermediate Size-an analysis of heterogeneous firms in a multi-region framework. European Economic Review, 56(4), 747–756. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.01.006 Forslid, R., & Okubo, T. (2015). Which firms are left in the periphery? Spatial sorting of heterogeneous firms with scale economies in transportation. Journal of Regional Science, 55(1), 51–65. doi:10.1111/jors.12115 Pflüger, M. (2004). A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(5), 565–573. doi:10.1016/S0166-0462(03)00043-7 Pflüger, M. (2004). A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(5), 565–573. doi:10.1016/S0166-0462(03)00043-7 Baldwin, R., & Okubo, T. (2006). Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography: Spatial selection and sorting. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(3), 323–346. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi020 Martin, P., & Rogers, C. A. (1995). Industrial location and public infrastructure. Journal of International Economics, 39(3–4), 335–351. doi:10.1016/0022-1996(95)01376-6 Pflüger, M. (2004). A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(5), 565–573. doi:10.1016/S0166-0462(03)00043-7 Barde, S., & Peirson, J. (2011). Non-negativity and agglomeration behaviour of the quasi-linear logarithmic model of NEG. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 4(1), 91–101. doi:10.1007/s12076-010-0050-8 Barde, S., & Peirson, J. (2011). Non-negativity and agglomeration behaviour of the quasi-linear logarithmic model of NEG. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 4(1), 91–101. doi:10.1007/s12076-010-0050-8 Additional information
Funding
Rikard Forslid is grateful for financial support from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Research Foundation and from the Swedish Research Council. Okubo is financially supported by the JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) KAKENHI [grant number 19H01487] and RIETI (Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry).