Change in the concentration of employment in computer services: Spatial estimation at the U.S. metro county level

Growth and Change

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 39-55

  Grimes, Donald ^a   Prime, Penelope B ^b   Walker, Mary Beth ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b MERCER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMAND ANALYSIS; EMPLOYMENT GENERATION; ESTIMATION METHOD; MEASUREMENT METHOD; METROPOLITAN AREA; MODELING; PARAMETERIZATION; SERVICE SECTOR; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33947599162     PISSN: 00174815     EISSN: 14682257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.2007.00352.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Acs, Z., F.R. FitzRoy, and I. Smith. 1998. Contrasting U.S. metropolitan systems of innovation. In Local and regional systems of innovation, ed. J. de la Mothe and G. Paquet, 111-124. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
2. Anselin, L., 1980. Estimation methods for spatial autoregressive structures. Regional Science Dissertation and Monograph, Series no. 8. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
3. Anselin, L., A. Varga, and Z. Acs. 2000. Geographical spillovers and university research: A spatial econometric perspective. Growth and Change 31: 501-515.
4. Appold, S.J. 1995. Agglomeration, interorganizational networks, and competitive performance in the U.S. metalworking sector. Economic Geography 71 (1): 27-54.
5. Audretsch, D.B. 2003. Innovation and spatial externalities. International Regional Science Review 26 (2): 167-174.
6. Audretsch, D.B., and M.P. Feldman. 1996. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review 86 (3): 630-640.
7. Audretsch, D.B., and P.E. Stephan. 1996. Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 86 (3): 641-652.
8. Beardsell, M., and V. Henderson. 1999. Spatial evolution in the computer industry in the USA. European Economic Review 43: 431-456.
9. Beckmann, M.J. 1999. Lectures on location theory. Heidelberg: Springer.
10. Cliff, A.D., and J. Ord. 1973. Spatial autocorrelation. London: Pion.
11. Crozet, M., T. Mayer, and J.-L. Mucchielli. 2003. How do firms agglomerate? A study of FDI in France. CEPR Discussion Paper no. 3873. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research. http://www.cepr.org/pubs/ dps/DP3873.asp.
12. Ellison, G., and E.L. Glaeser. 1997. Geographic concentration in U.S. manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy 105 (5): 889-927.
13. Ellison, G., and E.L. Glaeser. 1999. The geographic concentration of industry: Does natural advantage explain agglomeration? American Economic Review 89 (2): 311-316.
14. Feldman, M.P. 1999. The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8 (1-2): 5-25.
15. Feldman, M.P. 2000. Location and innovation: The new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration. In The Oxford handbook of economic geography, ed. G.L. Clark, M.P. Feldman, and M.S. Gertler, 373-394. Oxford University Press.
16. Fujita, M, P. Krugman, and A.J. Venables. 1999. The spatial economy: Cities, regions, and international trade. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Gabe, T. 2003. Local industry agglomeration and new business activity. Growth and Change 34 (1): 17-39.
18. Glaeser, E.L. 1998. Are cities dying? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (2): 139-160.
19. Glaeser, E.L. 2000. The new economics of urban and regional growth. In The Oxford handbook of economic geography, ed. G.L. Clark, M.P. Feldman, and M.S. Gertler, 83-98. Oxford University Press.
20. Glaeser, E.L., and D.C. Mare. 2001. Cities and skills. Journal of Labor Economics 19 (2): 316-342.
21. Kelejian, H.H., and I. Prucha. 1998. A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Journal of Real Estate, Finance, and Economics 17 (1): 99-121.
22. Kelejian, H.H., and I. Prucha. 1999. A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model. International Economic Review 40 (2): 509-536.
23. Le Blanc, G. 2003. Regional specialization, local externalities and clustering in information technology industries. In Knowledge economy, information technologies and growth, ed. L. Paganetto, 453-486. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
24. Lee, L. 2005. Asymptotic distributions of quasi-maximum likelihood estimators for spatial autoregressive models. Unpublished manuscript.
25. Mulligan, G.F., and C. Schmidt. 2005. A note on localization and specialization. Growth and Change 36: 565-576.
26. Quigley, J.M. 1998. Urban diversity and economic growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (2): 127-138.
27. Saxenian, A. 1998. Regional systems of innovation and the blurred firm. In Local and regional systems of innovation, ed. J. de la Mothe and G. Paquet, 29-43. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
28. Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Sivitanidou, R. 1999. The location of knowledge-based activities: The case of computer software. In Innovation, networks and localities, ed. M.M. Fischer, L. Suarez-Villa, and M. Steiner, 109-154. Berlin: Springer.
30. Stuart, T., and O. Sorenson. 2003. The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy 32: 229-253.
31. U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Library. 1997. Report C10 (18 December). http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/l-aads/ c10-96.pdf (accessed July, 2003).
32. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1999. Natural amenities scale. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/NaturalAmenities/ (accessed July, 2003).
33. U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census Bureau. 1990. Census, STF3. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen1990.html (accessed May, 2005).
34. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. U.S. gazetter place and zip code files. http://ftp.census.gov/geo/www.gazetter/ places.html (accessed February, 2003).
35. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. U.S.A. counties, 1998, Compact Disc, May.
36. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Counties within metropolitan statistical areas. http://www.census.gov/population/ estimates/metro-city/0312CBSAs_CSAs.xls (accessed May, 2005).
37. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1990. Integrated post secondary education data system. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/data.asp (accessed March, 2004).
38. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1990. Quarterly census of employment and wages. http://stats.bls.gov/cew/home.htm (accessed October, 2005).
39. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2004. Definitions of metropolitan statistical areas as of December 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ bulletins/fy04/b04-03_attachment.pdf (accessed May, 2005).
40. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1987. Standard industrial classification manual. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
41. Vias, A.C., and G.F. Mulligan. 1999. Integrating economic base theory with regional adjustment models: The non-metropolitan Rocky Mountain West. Growth and Change 30: 507-525.
42. Walcott, S.M. 1999. High tech in the deep south: Biomedical firm clusters in metropolitan Atlanta. Growth and Change 30 (1): 48-74.