nep-geo New Economics Papers
on Economic Geography
Issue of 2005‒08‒20
three papers chosen by
Vassilis Monastiriotis
London School of Economics

  1. Nonearnings Income Migration in the United States: Anticipating the Geographical Impacts of Baby Boom Retirement By Peter B. Nelson
  2. What Qualifies as a Cluster Theory? By Peter Maskell; Leïla Kebir
  3. National Versus Regional Financing and Management of Unemployment and Related Benefits: The Case of Canada By David Gray

  1. By: Peter B. Nelson (Middlebury College)
    Abstract: This paper highlights geographic regions gaining and losing investment and social security income (collectively referred to as nonearnings income) through migration of baby boomers and their predecessors. There is a consistent Rustbelt to Sunbelt shift in nonearnings income due to migration, as well as movement down the urban hierarchy into nonmetropolitan destinations. The analysis further indicates migration of those over age 55 contributes to greater levels of economic disparity across space. Regions like the Plains are losing a higher proportion of well- to-do migrants in this age group, as individuals move to high amenity destinations in the Rocky Mountains. Such destinations are likely to enjoy significant economic benefits as these new sources arrive. The places of origin, however, are left with less-well-off populations posing significant social and economic problems. In contrast, baby boomer migration appears to benefit nonmetropolitan territories in all regions, and baby boomers with higher levels of per capita economic resources appear to be responsible for these nonmetropolitan income gains.
    Keywords: baby boomers, migration
    JEL: R11 R23
    Date: 2004–12
  2. By: Peter Maskell; Leïla Kebir
    Abstract: This paper investigates the theoretical backgrounds of the "cluster" and proposes a framework aiming at drawing the contour of cluster theory. The profundity of the notion of "clusters" is arguably conditional on the coherence of four fundamental issues associated with the concept: 1) the economic and social benefits that may accrue to firms when clustering or co-locating (the existence argument); 2) the diseconomies encountered when clustering exceeds certain geographical and sectoral thresholds (the extension argument); 3) the advantages obtained by exploiting intra- cluster synergies rather engaging in external interaction (the exchange argument); and, finally, 4) the possible erosion of economies and onset of diseconomies over the lifecycle of the cluster (the exhaustion argument). Each of these four issues is examined in terms of three relevant major theoretical frameworks that can be brought to bear on the cluster concept. The paper considers approaches based on the idea of externalities (illustrated by the Marshall's work on "Industrial districts"); on competitiveness issue (illustrated by Michael Porter’s theory of cluster growth); on a territorial perspective (illustrated by the GREMI approach). The analysis acknowledges the general shift in explanatory emphasis from considerations of static cost efficiency towards more dynamic interpretations that highlight the creation and use of knowledge as their pivotal theoretical element. By placing these changes within a common conceptual framework the paper shows how different theoretical solutions provide distinct points of departure for subsequent policy recommendations. Three distinctive groups of solutions are identified focussing respectively on local spillovers, on competitiveness and on the region and its development. The paper concludes by identifying areas of particular ambiguity where further theoretical work is most urgently needed.
    Keywords: Cluster; cluster theory; industrial district; innovtive milieu; regional policy
    JEL: L22 R10 R58
    Date: 2005
  3. By: David Gray
    Abstract: <P>Decentralization looms large in any analysis of Canadian economic and social policy. This trend has been especially pronounced in the area of unemployment insurance (UI) and social assistance (SA) programmes. Provinces now manage SA programmes and retain 100% of any cost savings that they achieve, while the Federal government maintains full responsibility for the passive component of UI. Under a series of provincial-federal Labour Market Development Agreements, since 1997 most of Canada's provinces have taken over administrative responsibility for the employment benefit and support measures (EBSMs) targeted on UI beneficiaries. A number of articles have examined the implications for provincial SA systems of restrictive measures in the UI programme. This paper examines the possibility that provinces may shift actual and potential SA clients onto the insurance system (now called employment insurance, EI). It concludes that within the context of EBSMs, any cost-shifting of this ...</P> <P>La décentralisation figure en tête de toute analyse de la politique économique et sociale canadienne. Cette tendance n'est nulle part plus prononcée que dans le domaine des programmes d'assurance-chômage (AC) et d'aide sociale. Les provinces maintenant gèrent les programmes d'aide sociale et récupèrent 100% de toute économie obtenue, alors que le gouvernement fédéral conserve la pleine responsabilité pour le volet passif de l'AC. Aux termes d'une série d'Ententes sur le développement du marché du travail (EDMT), depuis 1997 la plupart des provinces canadiennes ont la responsabilité de gestion pour les Prestations d'emploi et mesures de soutien (PEMS) ciblées sur les allocataires de l'AC. Il existe quelques études portant sur les conséquences des mesures restrictives appliquées au programme d'AC pour les programmes provinciaux d'aide sociale. Cet article étudie la possibilité que les provinces fassent basculer sur le système d'assurance (nommé maintenant l'assurance-emploi, AE) les ...</P>
    JEL: J64 J65 J68
    Date: 2003–09–19

This nep-geo issue is ©2005 by Vassilis Monastiriotis. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.