Skip Navigation


Oxford Economic Papers Advance Access originally published online on April 3, 2006
Oxford Economic Papers 2006 58(3):501-530; doi:10.1093/oep/gpl006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
58/3/501    most recent
gpl006v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fingleton, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow C21 - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
Right arrow C52 - Model Evaluation and Selection
Right arrow J30 - General
Right arrow J31 - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
Right arrow O18 - Regional, Urban, and Rural Analyses
Right arrow R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, and Changes
Right arrow R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity
Right arrow R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2006

The new economic geography versus urban economics: an evaluation using local wage rates in Great Britain

Bernard Fingleton

Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 9EP

Correspondence: e-mail: bf100{at}cam.ac.uk

This paper tests two major competing theories explaining the spatial concentration of economic activity, namely new economic geography theory (NEG) which emphasizes varying market potential, and urban economics theory (UE) in which the main emphasis is on producer service linkages. Using wage rate variations across small regions of Great Britain, the paper finds that it is UE theory rather than NEG theory that has most explanatory power. Evidence for this comes from encompassing both models within an artificial nesting model. Despite the popularity of NEG theory, this paper shows that although NEG works well using regional data, there is evidence that it does not necessarily provide the best explanation of local wage variations, since producer services inputs associated with UE theory and labour efficiency variations are important effects at a local level, and these are excluded from the formal NEG model.

Key Words: JEL classification: C21 • C52 • J30 • O18 • R11 • R12


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Urban StudHome page
B. Fingleton
Housing Supply, Housing Demand, and Affordability
Urban Stud, July 1, 2008; 45(8): 1545 - 1563.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.