Urban primacy, gigantism, and international trade: Evidence from Asia and the Americas

Gustavsson [1999] finds that policies that promote international trade increase the size of a country’s largest city relative to the country’s total population, which is defined here as an increase in urban gigantism. In contrast, Ades and Glaeser [1995] report urban gigantism is reduced by freer political institutions and, with less confidence, more open trade. In light of Henderson’s (2000) findings that excessive urban concentration inhibits economic growth, these conflicting results for the relationship between openness and urban gigantism (concentration), which are of great interest for the new economic geography, call for additional study. This study uses two measures of urban concentration and finds that lower international-trade costs are associated with lower primacy, but not with lower gigantism. Unlike Gustavsson, however, we find no evidence that lower trade costs increase gigantism. --

An empirical analysis of competing explanations of urban primacy: Evidence from Asia and the Americas

This paper tests the relationship between primacy and economic development for countries in Asia and the Americas. It tests explanations for primacy drawn from several social-science disciplines--demography, economics, geography, political science, and sociology. The study is one of the first to use panel-data estimators for the tests. Economic and domestic political variables are found to be important determinants of primacy. In particular, rent-seeking and dictatorial governments are associated with primacy, but the association exists independent of the level of economic development. The implication from dependency and world-system theories that current international economic interactions promote primacy is not supported. It also examines the hypothesis that primacy first increases and then decreases with GDP per capita. --

An empirical analysis of competing explanations of urban primacy evidence from Asia and the Americas

This paper tests the relationship between primacy and economic development for countries in Asia and the Americas. It tests explanations for primacy drawn from several social-science disciplines – demography, economics, geography, political science, and sociology. The study is one of the first to use panel-data estimators for the tests. Economic and domestic political variables are found to be important determinants of primacy. In particular, rent-seeking and dictatorial governments are associated with primacy, but the association exists independent of the level of economic development. The implication from dependency and world-system theories that current international economic interactions promote primacy is not supported. It also examines the hypothesis that primacy first increases and then decreases with GDP per capita. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2004R11, R12,