2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00168-014-0589-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Agglomeration, inequality and economic growth

Abstract: Agglomeration and income inequality at country level can be both understood as concentration of physical and human capital in the process of economic development. As such, it seems pertinent to analyse their impact on economic growth considering both phenomena together. By estimating a dynamic panel specification at country level, this paper analyses how agglomeration and inequality (both their levels and their evolution) influence long-run economic growth. In line with previous findings, our results suggest t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
43
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
3
43
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The focus of these studies has been mainly on assessing whether more concentrated urban structures, as measured by urban primacy, are growth inducing as opposed to testing the growth effect of the size of cities—the topic with which we are concerned in this study. Brülhart and Sbergami () and Castells‐Quintana and Royuela (), however, also use the percentage of the urban population living in cities above 750,000 or 1 million inhabitants as an alternative indicator for urban concentration and thus generate city size related empirical evidence as an interesting “side product.” Both studies find support for the big‐city‐growth‐relationship: the larger the percentage of the population living in cities above these thresholds, the better the economic performance of countries, particularly at low levels of economic development. One drawback of this literature is, however, that it ignores the vast differences in the sizes of cities beyond the selected population threshold—i.e., over 750,000 or 1 million inhabitants.…”
Section: City Size and Economic Growthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The focus of these studies has been mainly on assessing whether more concentrated urban structures, as measured by urban primacy, are growth inducing as opposed to testing the growth effect of the size of cities—the topic with which we are concerned in this study. Brülhart and Sbergami () and Castells‐Quintana and Royuela (), however, also use the percentage of the urban population living in cities above 750,000 or 1 million inhabitants as an alternative indicator for urban concentration and thus generate city size related empirical evidence as an interesting “side product.” Both studies find support for the big‐city‐growth‐relationship: the larger the percentage of the population living in cities above these thresholds, the better the economic performance of countries, particularly at low levels of economic development. One drawback of this literature is, however, that it ignores the vast differences in the sizes of cities beyond the selected population threshold—i.e., over 750,000 or 1 million inhabitants.…”
Section: City Size and Economic Growthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differences in estimation methods, data quality, sample coverage, and the initial level of income are some of the factors that could affect the estimated impact of income inequality on economic growth (Castells-Quintana and Royuela, 2014).…”
Section: Income Inequality and Economic Growthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent studies added a further dimension to classical convergence studies by including the questions of income distribution and the growth rates of income (Tselios, V. 2009;Amarante, V. 2014;Castells-Quintana, D. and Royuela, V. 2014). For example, as Tselios (2009) suggested, there is a convergence not just in the growth rate of income, but also in growth rates of income inequalities.…”
Section: New Approaches To Unequal Development and Growthmentioning
confidence: 99%