Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations?

Anthony Briant (), Pierre-Philippe Combes and Miren Lafourcade
Additional contact information
Anthony Briant: PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PSE - Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: This paper evaluates, in the context of economic geography estimates, the magnitude of the distortions arising from the choice of a specific zoning system, which is also known as the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). We undertake three standard economic geography exercises (the analysis of spatial concentration, agglomeration economies, and trade determinants), using various French zoning systems differentiated according to the size and shape of their spatial units. While size might matter, especially when the dependent variable of a regression is not aggregated in the same way as the explanatory variables and/or the zoning system involves large spatial units, shape does so much less. In any case, both dimensions are of secondary importance compared to specification issues.

Keywords: Concentration; Agglomeration; Wage equations; Gravity; MAUP (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010-05
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (187)

Published in Journal of Urban Economics, 2010, 67 (3), pp.287-302. ⟨10.1016/j.jue.2009.09.014⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Journal Article: Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations? (2010)
Working Paper: Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations? (2010)
Working Paper: Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations? (2010)
Working Paper: Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations? (2010)
Working Paper: Dots to Boxes: Do the Size and Shape of Spatial Units Jeopardize Economic Geography Estimations? (2008)
Working Paper: DOTS TO BOXES: DO THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF SPATIAL UNITS JEOPARDIZE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY ESTIMATIONS? (2008)
Working Paper: Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations? (2008)
Working Paper: DOTS TO BOXES: DO THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF SPATIAL UNITS JEOPARDIZE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY ESTIMATIONS? (2008)
Working Paper: Dots to boxes: Do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations? (2008)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00754452

DOI: 10.1016/j.jue.2009.09.014

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().