BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Karavidas Dionysios (University of Limerick, Ireland)
Title
Market Access and Home Market Effect
Source
Open Economics, 2020, vol. 3, iss. 1, s. 42-49, rys., bibliogr. 24 poz.
Keyword
Swoboda przepływu kapitału w UE, Rynki międzynarodowe, Inwestycje zagraniczne
Free flow of capital in the EU, International market, Foreign investment
Note
JEL Classification: F2, F22, F6, R12
summ.
Abstract
Based on the standard Footloose Capital model developed by Martin and Rogers (1995), I consider an integrated model that consists of a system of two regions and a third external region, in order to study the impact of improved market access on the Home Market Effect within the system of the two regions. The concept of the Home Market Effect is well known in the literature, but once we extend the number of regions, many are unknown. The main finding of the model suggests that improved market access with respect to an external market enhances the Home Market Effect within the system of the two regions. Interestingly, I show that this finding comes from the fact that improved market access increases the Market Access Effect, while it has no impact on the Market Crowding Effect. (original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Armington, P. (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Papers 16, 159-176.
  2. Behrens, K., Gaigné, C., Ottaviano, G.I.P., & Thisse, J.F. (2006). Is Remoteness a Locational Disadvantage? Journal of Economic Geography 6, 347-368.
  3. Brülhart, M., Crozet, M., & Koenig, P. (2004). Enlargement and the EU periphery: The Impact of Changing Market Potential. World Economy 27 (6), 853-875.
  4. Busch, B., & Matthes, J. (2016). Brexit - the economic impact: A meta-analysis. IW-Report No.10.
  5. Castro, S. B., Correia-da Silva, J., & Mossay, P. (2012). The core-periphery model with three regions and more. Papers in Regional Science 91, 401-418.
  6. Davis, R. D. (1998). The home market effect, trade, and industrial structure. American Economic Review 88, 1264-1276.
  7. Dhingra, S., Huang, H., Ottaviano, G., Pessoa, J., Sampson, T., & Reenen, J. V. (2017). The costs and benefit of leaving the EU: trade effects. Economic Policy, 651-705.
  8. Dixit, A., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity. American Economic Review 67, 297- 308.
  9. Feenstra, R. C., Markusen, J. R., & Rose, A. K. (1998). Understanding the home market effect and the gravity equation: the role of differentiated goods. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2035.
  10. Forslid, R., & Okubo, T. (2012). On the development strategy of countries of intermediate size - an analysis of heterogeneous firms in a multi-region framework. European Economic Review 56, 747-756.
  11. Gaspar, J., Castro, S., & Correia-da Silva, J. (2018). Agglomeration patterns in a multi-regional economy without income effects. Economic Theory 66, 863-899.
  12. Gaspar, J., Castro, S., & Correia-da Silva, J. (2019). The footloose entrepreneur model with a finite number of equidistant regions. International Journal of Economic Theory.
  13. Head, K., Mayer, T., & Ries, J. (2002). On the pervasiveness of the home market effect. Economica 69, 371-390.
  14. Helpman, E. (1990). Monopolistic competition in trade theory. Special Paper in International Economics 16, Princeton University, International Finance Section.
  15. Karavidas, D. (2018). Globalization, Regonal Productivity, Taste Bias and Internal Spatial Distribution. Theoretical Economics Letters 8, 626-648.
  16. Kato, H., & Okubo, T. (2018). Market size in globalization. Journal of International Economics 111, 34-60.
  17. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy 99, 483-499.
  18. Krugman, P.,&Livas-Elizondo, R. (1996). Trade police and Third World metropolis. Journal of Development Economics 49, 137-150.
  19. Krugman, P. R. (1980). Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review 70, 950- 959.
  20. Martin, P., & Rogers, C. (1995). Industrial location and public infrastructure. Journal of International Economics 39, 335-351.
  21. Monfort, P., & Nicolini, R. (2000). Regional Convergence and International Integration. Journal of Urban Economics 48, 286-306.
  22. Monfort, P., & van Ypersele, T. (2003). Integration, Regional Agglomeration and International Trade. CEPR Discussion paper 3752.
  23. Ottaviano, G. I. P. (2001). Home market effects and the (in)efficiency of international specialization. GIIS, mimeo.
  24. Saito, H., Gopinath, M., & Wu, J. (2011). Heterogeneous firms, trade liberalization and agglomeration. Canadian Journal of Economics 44, 541-560.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2451-3458
Language
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/openec-2020-0003
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu