Estimating the agglomeration benefits of transport investments: some tests for stability

The case for including agglomeration benefits within transport appraisal rests on an assumed causality between access to economic mass and productivity. Such causality is justified by the theory of agglomeration, but is difficult to establish empirically because estimates may be subject to sources of bias from endogeneity and confounding. The paper shows that conventional panel methods used to address these problems are unreliable due to the highly persistent nature of accessibility measures. Adopting an alternative approach, by applying semiparametric techniques to restricted sub-samples of the data, we find considerable nonlinearity in the relationship between accessibility and productivity with no positive effect to be discerned over broad ranges of the data. A key conclusion is that we are unable to distinguish the role of accessibility from other potential explanations for productivity increases. For transport appraisal, this implies that the use of conventional point elasticity estimates could be highly misleading.

[1]  D. Rubin.  Using Propensity Scores to Help Design Observational Studies: Application to the Tobacco Litigation , 2001, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[2]  Laurent Gobillon,et al.  Estimating Agglomeration Economies with History, Geology, and Worker Effects , 2008 .

[3]  G. Duranton,et al.  Micro-Foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies , 2003 .

[4]  Bent E. Sørensen,et al.  GMM Estimation of a Stochastic Volatility Model: A Monte Carlo Study , 1996 .

[5]  Stephen Bond,et al.  Estimation in dynamic panel data models: Improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator , 2000 .

[6]  Jacques-François Thisse,et al.  Economics of Agglomeration: Cities, Industrial Location, and Regional Growth , 2002 .

[7]  D. Graham,et al.  Agglomeration economies and labour productivity: evidence from longitudinal worker data for GB's travel-to-work areas , 2009 .

[8]  M. Arellano,et al.  Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models , 1995 .

[9]  Gordon H. Hanson.  Market Potential, Increasing Returns, and Geographic Concentration , 1998 .

[10]  Brian T. Bayliss,et al.  Foreword by the Chair of the Editorial Board , 2007 .

[11]  R. Noland,et al.  Testing for Causality between Productivity and Agglomeration Economies , 2010 .

[12]  A. Venables.  Evaluating Urban Transport Improvements: Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Presence of Agglomeration and Income Taxation , 2004 .

[13]  A. Venables,et al.  Spatial Determinants of Productivity: Analysis for the Regions of Great Britain , 2004 .

[14]  Rod Eddington,et al.  The Eddington Transport Study: Main Report - Transport's Role in Sustaining the UK's Productivity and Competitiveness , 2006 .

[15]  R. Eberts,et al.  Agglomeration Economies and Urban Public Infrastructure , 1999 .

[16]  Gilles Duranton,et al.  From Sectoral to Functional Urban Specialization , 2001 .

[17]  P. Combes,et al.  The Identification of Agglomeration Economies , 2010 .

[18]  David C. Maré,et al.  Agglomeration elasticities and firm heterogeneity , 2013 .

[19]  A. Venables,et al.  The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade , 2000 .

[20]  Clive G. Bowsher.  On testing overidentifying restrictions in dynamic panel data models , 2002 .

[21]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[22]  David A. Jaeger,et al.  Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation when the Correlation between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variable is Weak , 1995 .

[23]  R. Blundell,et al.  Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models , 1998 .

[24]  Paolo Naticchioni,et al.  Urbanization Externalities, Market Potential and Spatial Sorting of Skills and Firms , 2005 .

[25]  S. Rosenthal,et al.  Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies , 2004 .

[26]  Bo E. Honoré,et al.  Panel Data Models: Some Recent Developments , 2001 .

[27]  S. Rosenthal,et al.  The Attentuation of Human Capital Spillovers: A Manhattan Skyline Approach , 2006 .

[28]  Badi H. Baltagi,et al.  UNEQUALLY SPACED PANEL DATA REGRESSIONS WITH AR(1) DISTURBANCES , 1999, Econometric Theory.

[29]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  A meta-analysis of estimates of urban agglomeration economies , 2009 .

[30]  William R Shadish,et al.  Propensity Scores , 2005, Evaluation review.

[31]  B. Ripley,et al.  Semiparametric Regression: Preface , 2003 .

[32]  B. Baltagi,et al.  Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels , 2001 .

[33]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Weak Instruments: Diagnosis and Cures in Empirical Econometrics , 2003 .

[34]  P. Combes,et al.  Spatial Wage Disparities: Sorting Matters! , 2004 .

[35]  Giordano Mion,et al.  Spatial externalities and empirical analysis: the case of Italy , 2004 .

[36]  R. Hall,et al.  Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity , 1993 .

[37]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  Invited commentary: propensity scores. , 1999, American journal of epidemiology.

[38]  Stephen Bond,et al.  GMM Estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions , 1999 .

[39]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  Variable returns to agglomeration and the effect of road traffic congestion , 2007 .

[40]  A. Ciccone,et al.  Agglomeration-Effects in Europe , 1999 .

[41]  D. Graham.  Agglomeration, Productivity and Transport Investment , 2007 .

[42]  G. Duranton,et al.  From Sectoral to Functional Urban Specialisation , 2001 .