Spatial Dependence Structure of Total Factor Productivity in Polish Local Administrative Districts

Dorota Ciołek; Tomasz Brodzicki

doi:10.18778/0208-6018.329.06

Authors

Dorota Ciołek University of Gdansk, Faculty of Management, Department of Econometrics
Tomasz Brodzicki University of Gdansk, Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics of European Integration

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6018.329.06

Keywords:

TFP, regional development, determinants of productivity, regional economics, spatial econometrics

Abstract

The interaction between space (location) and the processes of accumulation (growth) is one of the most interesting and at the same time the most difficult areas of modern economic theory. The up till now empirical research on determinants of regional productivity in the case of Poland is however relatively scarce. Most studies focus on explaining the variation in regional income per capita mostly at NUTS–2 and NUTS–3 levels, and only a few take into account a highly spatially disaggregated NUTS–4 level. We aim to fill this important gap. The present article has several objectives. We try to explain the spatial patterns of productivity, to identify the spatial range of productivity spillovers empirically and to identify the determinants of the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth in Poland with the use of spatial econometric modeling and the extended version of the Nelson‑Phelps (1966) model. The study adopts an NUTS-4 level of local administrative districts (powiats) which we find superior on both theoretical (market closing) and empirical grounds (spatial modeling). TFP in Poland assumes the highest values in the metropolitan centers and spreads out on their nearest surroundings with the maximum value for Warsaw. The secondary local hills in TFP are located in cities or towns with county rights. TFP, in general, shows a downward trend as one moves from the west to the east with the lowest values observed in the south‑eastern part of Poland. The range of TFP spillover is found to be of roughly 175–200 km and is nonlinearly decreasing from the local productivity hills. Furthermore, the rate of growth of TFP shows spatial autocorrelation and is found to depend positively on the rate of increase in human capital endowment and on the gap from the leader under certain assumptions. We find no evidence of the channel through imports. However, the FDI channel is found to be robust and strong.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abreu M., Groot H. de, Florax R. (2004), Spatial Patterns of Technology Diffusion: An Empirical Analysis Using TFP, “Tinbergen Institute Working Paper”, no. 04–079/3.
Google Scholar

Acemoglu D., Zilibotti F. (2001), Productivity Differences, “Quarterly Journal of Economics”, vol. 116, pp. 563–606.
Google Scholar

Aghion P., Howitt P. (2009), The Economics of Growth, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Google Scholar

Baldwin R.E., Forslid R. (2000), The core‑periphery model and endogenous growth: stabilizing and destabilizing integration, “Economica”, vol. 67, pp. 307–324.
Google Scholar

Barro R.J., Sala‑i‑Martin X . (2004), Economic Growth, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Google Scholar

Benhabib J., Spiegel M. (1994), The role of human capital in economic development: evidence from aggregate cross‑country data, “Journal of Monetary Economics”, vol. 34, pp. 143–173.
Google Scholar

Bottazzi L., Peri G. (2003), Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data, “European Economic Review”, vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 687–710.
Google Scholar

Bronzini R., Piselli P. (2009), Determinants of long‑run regional productivity with geographical spillovers: The role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure, “Regional Science and Urban Economics”, vol. 39, pp. 187–199.
Google Scholar

Capello R. (2009), Spatial spillovers and regional growth: a cognitive approach, “European Planning Studies”, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 639–658.
Google Scholar

Caselli F., Coleman W.J. (2001), Cross‑Country Technology Diffusion: The Case of Computers, “The American Economic Review”, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 328–335.
Google Scholar

Ciołek D., Brodzicki T. (2016), Determinanty produktywności polskich powiatów, “Bank i Kredyt” (in print).
Google Scholar

Coe D.T., Helpman E. (1995), International R&D spillovers, “European Economic Review”, vol. 39, pp. 859–887.
Google Scholar

Coe D.T., Helpman E., Hoffmaister A.W. (2009), International R&D spillovers and institutions, “European Economic Review”, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 723–741.
Google Scholar

Eaton J., Kortum S. (2001), Technology, trade, and growth: A unified framework, “European Economic Review”, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 742–755.
Google Scholar

Eaton J., Kortum S. (2002), Technology, geography and trade, “Econometrica”, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 1741–1779.
Google Scholar

Fagerberg J. (1988), International competitiveness, “The Economic Journal”, vol. 98, pp. 355–374.
Google Scholar

Hejazi W., Safarian E. (1999), Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and R&D Spillovers, “Journal of International Business Studies”, vol. 30, pp. 491–511.
Google Scholar

Howitt P. (2000), Endogenous growth and cross‑country income differences, “American Economic Review”, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 829–846.
Google Scholar

Howitt P., Mayer‑Foulkes D. (2005), R&D, implementation, and stagnation: a Schumpeterian theory of convergence clubs, “Journal of Money, Credit & Banking”, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 147–178.
Google Scholar

Iammarino S. (2005), An evolutionary integrated view of regional systems of innovation: concepts, measures and historical perspectives, “European Planning Studies”, vol. 13, pp. 497–519.
Google Scholar

Keller W. (2000), Geographic localization of international technology diffusion, “National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper”, No. W7509.
Google Scholar

Keller W. (2004), International Technology Diffusion, “Journal of Economic Literature”, vol. 42, pp. 752–782.
Google Scholar

Krugman P. (1991), Geography and Trade, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Lucas R.E. (1988), On the mechanics of economic development, “Journal of Monetary Economics”, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3–42.
Google Scholar

Maurseth P.B., Verspagen B. (2002), Knowledge spillovers in Europe: a patent citations analysis, “The Scandinavian Journal of Economics”, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 531–545.
Google Scholar

Moreno R., Paci R., Usai S. (2005), Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in European regions, “Environment and Planning”, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1793–1812.
Google Scholar

Nelson R., Phelps E. (1966), Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth, “American Economic Review”, vol. 56, no. 1/2, pp. 65–75.
Google Scholar

PAIiIZ (2015), List of Major Foreign Investors in Poland – December 2015, Warsaw.
Google Scholar

Romer P.M. (1990), Endogenous Technological Change, “Journal of Political Economy”, vol. 98, pp. 71–102.
Google Scholar

Solow R.M. (1956), A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, “The Quarterly Journal of Economics”, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 65–94.
Google Scholar

Sterlacchini A. (2008), R&D, higher education and regional growth: Uneven linkages among European regions, “Research Policy”, vol. 37, pp. 1096–1107.
Google Scholar

Tokarski T. (2010), Przestrzenne zróżnicowanie łącznej produkcyjności czynników produkcji w Polsce, “Gospodarka Narodowa”, no. 3, pp. 24–39.
Google Scholar

Tokarski T., Roszkowska S., Gajewski P. (2005). Regionalne zróżnicowanie łącznej produktywności czynników produkcji w Polsce, “Ekonomista”, no. 2, pp. 215–244.
Google Scholar

Xu B. (2000), Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth, “Journal of Development Economics”, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 477–493.
Google Scholar