Institutions and Urban Concentration: The Role of State Capacity

U. Kelekar, S. Turner
{"title":"Institutions and Urban Concentration: The Role of State Capacity","authors":"U. Kelekar, S. Turner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3552951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research has argued that non-democratic institutions tend to facilitate high levels of urban concentration due to government policies that favor primate cities. However, the mechanisms by which governments favor their large cities are still unclear, and whether favoritism predominately takes the form of lower extraction rates or more public goods. Differences in mechanism are important because disparities in public goods have different consequences for country-level growth than differences in extraction rates. We present a simple model where non-democratic governments are incentivized by rents to provide public goods. In this model, government favoritism to a specific region will take the form of superior public goods, when government coercive capacity is generally low and lower extraction rates when coercive capacity is high. Consequently, the model predicts that cities which are small/less productive will be favored in low capacity countries, but these results will be attenuated as capacity increases. Results from a panel data analysis of urban concentration for most of the large cities in the world for the period 1955-2010 are consistent with the model’s predictions. A calibrated version of our model implies that the effect of favoritism on urban concentration is negative for most countries of the world due to most countries having low capacity, resulting in favoritism towards small cities. Our results imply that under non-democratic governments, primate capital cities tend to grow faster than other large cities due to an increase in the provision of public goods. Using city level estimates of developed land per capita as a measure of public goods, we find evidence consistent with this public goods channel.","PeriodicalId":300478,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Comparative Political Institutions & Development (Topic)","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Comparative Political Institutions & Development (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3552951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Previous research has argued that non-democratic institutions tend to facilitate high levels of urban concentration due to government policies that favor primate cities. However, the mechanisms by which governments favor their large cities are still unclear, and whether favoritism predominately takes the form of lower extraction rates or more public goods. Differences in mechanism are important because disparities in public goods have different consequences for country-level growth than differences in extraction rates. We present a simple model where non-democratic governments are incentivized by rents to provide public goods. In this model, government favoritism to a specific region will take the form of superior public goods, when government coercive capacity is generally low and lower extraction rates when coercive capacity is high. Consequently, the model predicts that cities which are small/less productive will be favored in low capacity countries, but these results will be attenuated as capacity increases. Results from a panel data analysis of urban concentration for most of the large cities in the world for the period 1955-2010 are consistent with the model’s predictions. A calibrated version of our model implies that the effect of favoritism on urban concentration is negative for most countries of the world due to most countries having low capacity, resulting in favoritism towards small cities. Our results imply that under non-democratic governments, primate capital cities tend to grow faster than other large cities due to an increase in the provision of public goods. Using city level estimates of developed land per capita as a measure of public goods, we find evidence consistent with this public goods channel.
制度与城市集中:国家能力的作用
先前的研究认为,由于政府政策倾向于灵长类城市,非民主制度往往会促进城市的高度集中。然而,政府偏袒大城市的机制仍然不清楚,偏袒是否主要以较低的采收率或更多的公共产品的形式出现。机制上的差异很重要,因为公共产品的差异对国家一级增长的影响不同于采掘率的差异。我们提出了一个简单的模型,其中非民主政府受到租金的激励而提供公共产品。在该模型中,当政府强制能力普遍较低时,政府对特定地区的偏袒将以优质公共产品的形式出现;当政府强制能力较高时,政府对特定地区的偏袒将以较低的提取率的形式出现。因此,该模型预测,小城市/生产力较低的城市将受到低产能国家的青睐,但这些结果将随着产能的增加而减弱。对1955-2010年期间世界上大多数大城市的城市集中度进行的面板数据分析的结果与该模型的预测一致。我们的模型的校准版本表明,由于大多数国家的产能较低,偏袒对世界上大多数国家的城市集中度的影响是负面的,从而导致对小城市的偏袒。我们的研究结果表明,在非民主政府下,灵长类首都城市往往比其他大城市发展得更快,这是由于公共产品供应的增加。使用城市水平的人均发达土地估计作为公共产品的衡量标准,我们发现了与这种公共产品渠道一致的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书