Industrial location and spatial inequality: Theory and evidence from India

被引:41
作者
Lall, SV
Chakravorty, S
机构
[1] World Bank, Dev Res Grp, Washington, DC 20433 USA
[2] Temple Univ, Dept Geog & Urban Studies, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1467-9361.2005.00263.x
中图分类号
F0 [经济学]; F1 [世界各国经济概况、经济史、经济地理]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
0201 ; 020105 ; 03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
ne authors argue that spatial inequality of industry location is a primary cause of spatial income inequality in developing nations. Their study focuses on understanding the process of spatial industrial variation: identifying the spatial factors that have cost implications for firms, and the factors that influence the location decisions of new industrial units. ne analysis has two parts. First the authors examine the contribution of economic geography factors to the cost structure of firms in eight industry sectors and show that local industrial diversity is the one factor with significant and substantial cost-reducing effects. They then show that new private sector industrial investments in India are biased toward existing industrial and coastal districts, whereas state industrial investments (in deep decline after structural reforms) are far less biased toward such districts. ne authors conclude that structural reforms lead to increased spatial inequality in industrialization, and therefore, income.
引用
收藏
页码:47 / 68
页数:22
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1969, EC CITIES
[2]  
[Anonymous], IND LOCATION PUBLIC
[3]   LOCAL INDICATORS OF SPATIAL ASSOCIATION - LISA [J].
ANSELIN, L .
GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS, 1995, 27 (02) :93-115
[4]   CONVERGENCE [J].
BARRO, RJ ;
SALAIMARTIN, X .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1992, 100 (02) :223-251
[6]   How does structural reform affect regional development? Resolving contradictory theory with evidence from India [J].
Chakravorty, S .
ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY, 2000, 76 (04) :367-394
[7]  
Chakravorty S., 2003, J INT DEV, V15, P365, DOI DOI 10.1002/JID.976
[8]  
Chapman K., 1991, IND LOCATION PRINCIP
[9]  
Chinitz B., 1961, AM ECON REV, V51, P279, DOI DOI 10.1080/00420988020080651
[10]  
Ciccone A, 1996, AM ECON REV, V86, P54