| In the section | Articles |
| Title of the article | Spatial Concentration of Industrial Production in Russia: Testing the Home Market Effectынка |
| Pages | 19–42 |
| Author | Natalya Gennadievna Dzhurka Candidate of Economics, Senior Research Fellow Research Institute FEB RAS 153 Tikhookeanskaya Street, Khabarovsk, Russia, 680042 Institute of Economics RAS 32 Nakhimovsky Prospect, Moscow, Russia, 117218 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0001-9242-5636 |
| Abstract | The article studies the influence of internal demand on the spatial distribution of processing industries in Russia. According to the models of trade theory, the increasing returns to scale give rise to the home market effect, meaning a more than proportional relationship between the share of the region in demand for the goods and the share of the region in production of those goods. Davis and Weinstein suggested the equations for empirical testing of the home market effect taking into account alternative mechanisms of spatial concentration of industrial production (with or without increasing returns). The specifics of these equations are the following. First, they simultaneously test the influence that comparative advantages of the regions and the scale of territorial markets have on industrial production. Second, they represent a system of nested dependencies that combine the data of different levels of aggregation, which allows building the suggestions on the reproducibility of the results if using detailed information. Third, they characterize the scale of the markets based on the data on intraregional consumption (absorption) and consequently contribute to the development of the results received as part of estimations of market potentials with the help of proxy-variables – income and GRP. The estimations of Davis and Weinstein equations received for ten branches of processing industry of Russia have confirmed the significance of influence that idiosyncratic demand has on the concentration of industrial production. Spatial distribution of branches groups formed by homogeneity of factor expenses structure is on average 67.5% caused by comparative advantages of the regions, but for the majority of the branches this percentage is significantly lower due to home market effect. More than proportional relation between production and demand is seen in three branches out of ten: oil processing and chemical production, wood processing, electric equipment production. The conclusion is that there is no home market effect in branches such as transport production, textile production, which does not match the studies in other countries. This is explained by the structure of demand that in this case stimulates import in the region rather than output |
| Code | 332.1+330.4 |
| JEL | C53, C82, R12 |
| DOI | 10.14530/se.2018.3.019-042 |
| Keywords | processing industry ♦ spatial concentration ♦ home market effect ♦ production factors ♦ regions of Russia |
| Download | |
| For citation | Dzhurka N.G. Spatial Concentration of Industrial Production in Russia: Testing the Home Market Effect. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2018, no. 3, pp. 19–42. DOI: 10.14530/se.2018.3.019-042. (In Russian). |
| References | 1. Gnidchenko A.A. Structural Transformation in International Trade (2001–2015): Towards a New Classification. Zhurnal Novoy Ekoomicheskoy Assotsiatsii = Journal of the New Economic Association, 2018, no. 1, pp. 62–86. (In Russian). 2. Golovanova S.V. Endogenous Change of Concentration and Territorial Location of Production in Russia. Preprint WP1/2008/1. Moscow: State University HSE, 2008, 40 p. (In Russian). 3. Granberg A.G., Suspitsin S.A. Introduction to System Modeling of National Economy. Novosibirsk, 1988, 304 p. (In Russian). 4. Kolomak E.A. Uneven Spatial Development in Russia: Explanations of New Economic Geography. Voprosy Ekonomiki [Economic Issues], 2013, no. 2, pp. 132–150. (In Russian). 5. Mikheeva N.N. Structural Factors of Regional Dynamics: Measuring and Assessment. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2013, no. 1, pp. 11–32. DOI: 10.14530/se.2013.1.011-032. (In Russian). 6. Rusanovskiy V.A., Markov V.A. Employment and Labor Productivity in Macro-Regions of Russia: Spatial Interdependence. Problemy Prognozirovaniya = Studies on Russian Economic Development, 2018, no. 2, pp. 36–48. (In Russian). 7. Aiginger K., Rossi-Hansberg E. Specialization and Concentration: A Note on Theory and Evidence. Empirica, 2006, vol. 33, issue 4, pp. 255–266. DOI: 10.1007/s10663-006-9023-y 8. Brulhart M. Economic Geography, Industry Location and Trade: The Evidence. The World Economy, 1998, vol. 21, issue 6, pp. 775–801. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9701.00163 9. Ceapraz I.L. The Concepts of Specialization and Spatial Concentration and the Process of Economic Integration: Theoretical Relevance and Statistical Measures. The Case of Romania’s Regions. Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 2008, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 68–93. 10. Chipman J.S. Intra-Industry Trade, Factor Proportions, and Aggregation. Economic Theory and International Trade. Edited by W. Neuefeind, R.G. Riezman. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1992, pp. 67–92. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-77671-7_4 11. Combes P.-P., Lafourcade M., Thisse J.-F., Toutain J.-C. The Rise and Fall of Spatial Inequalities in France: A Long-Run Perspective. Explorations in Economic History, 2011, vol. 48, issue 2, pp. 243–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.eeh.2010.12.004 12. Corpataux J., Crevoisier O. Economic Theories and Spatial Transformations Clarifying the Space-Time Premises and Outcomes of Economic Theories. Journal of Economic Geography, 2007, vol. 7, issue 3, pp. 285–309. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbm013 13. Crozet M., Trionfetti F. Trade Costs and the Home Market Effect. Journal of International Economics, 2008, vol. 76, issue 2, pp. 309–321. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.07.006 14. Davis D.R., Weinstein D.E. Does Economic Geography Matter for International Specialization? NBER Working Paper 5706, 1996. Available at: (accessed July 2018). 15. Davis D.R., Weinstein D.E., Bradford S.C., Shimpo K. Using International and Japanese Regional Data to Determine When the Factor Abundance Theory of Trade Works. The American Economic Review, 1997, vol. 87, issue 3, pp. 421–446. 16. Davis D.R., Weinstein D.E. Economic Geography and Regional Production Structure: An Empirical Investigation. European Economic Review, 1999, vol. 43, pp. 379–407. DOI: 10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00063-4 17. Davis D.R., Weinstein D.E. Market Access, Economic Geography and Comparative Advantage: An Empirical Test. Journal of International Economics, 2003, vol. 59, pp. 1–23. 18. Domeque Claver N., Fillat Castejon C., Sanz Gracia F. The Home Market Effect in the Spanish Industry, 1965–1995. The Annals of Regional Science, 2011, vol. 46, issue 2, pp. 379–396. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-009-0338-z 19. Ellison G., Glaeser E.L. Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: A Dartboard Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 1997, vol. 105, issue 5, pp. 889–927. DOI: 10.1086/262098 20. Feenstra R.C., Markusen J.A., Rose A.K. Using the Gravity Equation to Differentiate among Theories of Trade. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2001, vol. 34, issue 2, pp. 430–447. DOI: 10.1111/0008-4085.00082 21. Head K., Mayer Th. The Empirics of Agglomeration and Trade. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Edited by J.V. Henderson, J.E. Thisse. Amsterdam: North Holland, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 2610–2669. DOI: 10.1016/S1574-0080(04)80016-6 22. Head K., Mayer Th., Ries J. On the Pervasiveness of Home Market Effects. Economica, 2002, vol. 69, issue 275, pp. 371–390. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0335.00289 23. Jovanovic M. Evolutionary Economic Geography: Location of Production and the European Union. London: Routledge, 2009, 486 p. 24. Kim S. Expansion of Markets and the Geographic Distribution of Economic Activities: The Trends in U.S. Regional Manufacturing Structure, 1860–1987. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995, vol. 110, issue 4, pp. 881–908. DOI: 10.2307/2946643 25. Krugman P. Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade. The American Economic Review, 1980, vol. 70, issue 5, pp. 950–959. 26. Krugman P. Space: The Final Frontier. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1998, vol. 12, issue 2, pp. 161–174. DOI: 10.1257/jep.12.2.161 27. Ochojski A., Polko A., Churski P. Theoretical Foundation of Specialization, Agglomeration and Concentration. Measuring Regional Specialization. A New Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, pp. 1–68. 28. Paluzie E., Pons J., Tirado D.A. The Geographical Concentration of Industry across Spanish Regions, 1856–1995. Review of Regional Research, 2004, vol. 24, issue 2, pp. 143–160. 29. Thisse J.-F. Toward a Unified Theory of Economic Geography and Urban Economics. Journal of Regional Science, 2010, vol. 50, issue 1, pp. 281–296. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00651.x 30. Weder R. Linking Absolute and Comparative Advantage to Intra-Industry Trade Theory. Review of International Economics, 1995, vol. 3, issue 3, pp. 342–354. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9396.1995.tb00076.x 31. Weder R. Comparative Home-Market Advantage: An Empirical Analysis of British and American Exports. Review of World Economics, 2003, vol. 139, issue 2, pp. 220–247. DOI: 10.1007/BF02659744 32. Yu Zh. Trade, Market Size, and Industrial Structure: Revisiting the Home-Market Effect. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2005, vol. 38, issue 1, pp. 255–272. DOI: 10.1111/j.0008-4085.2005.00279.x 33. Zhang X., Ning Y. Evaluation of Role of Home Market Effects in China’s Manufacturing Industries. Chinese Geographical Science, 2011, vol. 21, issue 2, pp. 211–221. DOI: 10.1007/s11769-011-0458-0 |