Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP15807
Authors: David Cuberes; Klaus Desmet; Jordan Rappaport
Abstract: Does a location's growth benefit or suffer from being geographically close to large economic centers? Spatial proximity may lead to competition and hurt growth, but it may also improve market access and enhance growth. Using data on U.S. counties and metro areas for the period 1840-2017, we document this tradeoff between urban shadows and urban access. Proximity to large urban centers was negatively associated with growth between 1840 and 1920, and positively associated with growth after 1920. Using a two-city spatial model, we show that the secular evolution of inter-city and intra-city commuting costs can account for this. Alternatively, the long-run decline in inter-city shipping costs relative to intra-city commuting costs is also consistent with these observed patterns.
Keywords: urban shadows; urban access; commuting; spatial economics; urban systems; city growth; united states; 1840-2017
JEL Codes: R11; R12; N91; N92
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| proximity to large urban centers (R53) | local population growth (1840-1920) (J11) |
| proximity to large urban centers (R53) | local population growth (after 1920) (J11) |
| decline in commuting costs (R48) | local population growth (after 1920) (J11) |
| decline in intercity shipping costs relative to intracity commuting costs (L91) | local population growth (after 1920) (J11) |