Measuring the Localization of Economic Activity: A Parametric Approach

The index proposed by Ellison and Glaeser (1997) is now well established as the preferred method for measuring the localization of economic activity. In this paper we develop an alternative localization measure that is consistent with the theoretical framework originally proposed by Ellison and Glaeser. Our measure follows directly from the Random Utility (Profit) Maximization (RUM) location decision model. Because the distributional assumptions in our model are fully compatible with RUM, we are able to offer a more efficient measure of industry clustering.

[1]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[2]  Paulo Guimaraes,et al.  Dartboard Tests for the Location Quotient , 2008 .

[3]  Edgar M. Hoover,et al.  Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries. , 1937 .

[4]  K. Liang,et al.  Asymptotic Properties of Maximum Likelihood Estimators and Likelihood Ratio Tests under Nonstandard Conditions , 1987 .

[5]  Edward L. Glaeser,et al.  Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: A Dartboard Approach , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  Douglas P. Woodward,et al.  Localization Economies and Establishment Scale: A Dartboard Approach , 2007 .

[7]  Luís M. B. Cabral,et al.  On the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution: Facts and Theory , 2001 .

[8]  Paulo Guimaraes,et al.  Industrial Location Modeling: Extending the Random Utility Framework , 2004 .

[9]  J. Mosimann.  On the compound multinomial distribution, the multivariate β-distribution, and correlations among proportions , 1962 .

[10]  O. Alonso‐Villar,et al.  What are we assuming when using inequality measures to quantify geographic concentration? An axiomatic approach , 2008 .

[11]  Daniel A. Gerlowski,et al.  WHAT ATTRACTS FOREIGN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS? EVIDENCE FROM BRANCH PLANT LOCATION IN THE UNITED STATES , 1992 .

[12]  Timothy J. Bartik,et al.  Business Location Decisions in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Unionization, Taxes, and Other Characteristics of States , 1985 .

[13]  Edward L. Glaeser,et al.  The Review of Economics and Statistics , 2002 .

[14]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[15]  O. Vorobyev,et al.  Discrete multivariate distributions , 2008, 0811.0406.

[16]  M. Houdebine.  CONCENTRATION GEOGRAPHIQUE DES ACTIVITES ET SPECIALISATION DES DEPARTEMENTS FRANCAIS , 1999 .

[17]  D. Carlton,et al.  The Location and Employment Choices of New Firms: An Econometric Model with Discrete and Continuous Endogenous Variables , 1983 .

[18]  Henry G. Overman,et al.  Testing for Localisation Using Micro-Geographic Data , 2002 .

[19]  Françoise Maurel,et al.  A measure of the geographic concentration in french manufacturing industries , 1999 .

[20]  K. Head,et al.  Agglomeration Benefits and Location Choice: Evidence from Japanese Manufacturing Investment in the United States , 1994 .

[21]  Salvador Barrios,et al.  Geographic Concentration and Establishment Scale: An Extension Using Panel Data , 2006 .

[22]  Luisito Bertinelli,et al.  Geographical agglomeration: the Case of Belgian manufacturing industry , 2002 .

[23]  Thomas J. Holmes,et al.  Geographic Concentration and Establishment Scale , 2002, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[24]  Helen Simpson,et al.  The geographic distribution of production activity in the UK , 2004 .

[25]  Octávio Figueiredo,et al.  Agglomeration and the Location of Foreign Direct Investment in Portugal , 2000 .

[26]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  Discrete Multivariate Distributions , 1998 .

[27]  Jordi Jofre-Monseny,et al.  Which Communities Should Be Afraid of Mobility? The Effects of Agglomeration Economies on the Sensitivity of Firm Location to Local Taxes , 2008 .