[雙語翻譯]外文翻譯--區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)一種新的經(jīng)濟(jì)地理學(xué)視角

1、3700 英文單詞， 英文單詞，2 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 6400 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Behrens K, Thisse J F. Regional economics: A new economic geography perspective[J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2007, 37(4): 457-465.Regional economics: A ne

2、w economic geography perspectiveKristian Behrens , Jacques-François ThisseAbstractWe show that the concepts and tools developed in new economic geography may be used to revisit several problems in regional economics

3、. In particular, we want to stress the following two points: (i) what do we mean by a region and (ii) what kind of interactions between regions do we want to study and how to model them? We conclude by discussing a few o

4、pen problems that should be explored in more detail for regional economics to become a richer body of knowledge.Keywords: Regions; Regional economics; New economic geography1. IntroductionThis journal has been launched i

5、n 1972 under the title Regional and Urban Economics, which is almost the name of the JEL-classification entry R. The first point we wish to make is that, by the time this journal was launched, urban economics was already

6、 a well-established field drawing on new concepts and tools. By contrast, the scientific status of regional economics was less clear in that regional concepts, models and techniques were too often a mere extension of tho

7、se used at the national level, with an additional index identifying the different regions (see, e.g., interregional input–output matrices or the Harrod–Domar model of regional growth).1 The Samuelsonian emphasis put on t

8、rade theory also acted as an impediment to the further development of regional economics, the trade of goods being viewed as a substitute to the mobility of factors. Today, thanks to the surge of new economic geography (

9、in short, NEG), it is time to re-think regional economics. This is what we wish to do in this note.It is worth stressing from the outset that, in order to talk even halfway sensibly about regional economics, it is necess

10、ary to tackle the following two questions: (i) what do we mean by a region; and (ii) what kind of interactions between regions do we want to study and how to model them? Regarding the first question, we find it crucial t

11、o develop a better understanding of how the spatial scale of the analysis matters for the economic results. Too often, economists use interchangeably different, yet equally unclear, words such as locations, regions or pl

12、aces without being aware that they often correspond to different spatial units. In doing so, they run the risk of drawing implications that are valid at a certain level of spatial aggregation but not at another.2 Further

13、more, using vague definitions of the spatial unit of analysis reduces the scientific contents of the theory in the Popperian sense, as the empirical results can always be contested in light of the theory on the sole basi

14、s that variables are not measured at the appropriate spatial scale.As to the second question, regardless of what is meant by a region, the concept is useful if and only if a region is part of a broader network through wh

15、ich various types of interactions occur. Without taking this aspect into account, one may wonder what the difference between regional economics and the macroeconomics of a closed economy would be. When there is a single

16、region, the economy is a-spatial and there is nothing interesting to be said in terms of spatial analysis. Hence, any meaningful discussion of regional issues requires at least two regions in which economic decisions are

17、 made. Furthermore, if we do not want the analysis to be confined to trade theory, we must also account explicitly for the mobility of agents – firms and/or consumers – as even more dramatic in applied research. However,

18、 such a difficulty does not dispense the analyst from seeking meaningful empirical solutions (see, e.g. Magrini, 2004; McMillen and Smith, 2003). On the one hand, the question of the size of regions no longer matters bec

19、ause it is often dictated by administrative classifications (e.g., the NUTS regional classification of the EU). On the other hand, one is tempted to twist theory so that it fits into the available statistical classificat

20、ions. One additional problem is that, due to the nature of the data available, space must often be represented by a discrete set of points. Yet, when there are too many points, aggregation becomes necessary and gives ris

21、e to another problem, known as the MAUP (Movable Areal Unit Problem).3 Some new techniques should alleviate the MAUP problem. In particular, the use of geographical information systems and the increasing availability of

22、micro-spatial data should allow for less reliance on arbitrarily determined regional boundaries.3. The relationship between regional economics and NEGThe idea of spatial interaction is central to regional economics. Broa

23、dly defined, spatial interaction refers to a wide array of flows subject to various types of spatial frictions, such as traded goods, migrations, capital movements, interregional grants, remittances, and the interregiona

24、l transmission of knowledge and business cycle effects. So far, the bulk of NEG has been restricted to the movements of goods and of some agents only.As argued in the foregoing section, defining clearly and delineating p

25、recisely a region appears to be a difficult, not to say impossible, task. Keeping this in mind, we assume from now on that regions may be viewed as units where economic activity takes place. In light of this (vague) defi

26、nition, it becomes crucial for the analysis to account for the fact that where things happen is endogenously determined in a regional system. In this respect, traditional regional economics often fails to grasp such an i

27、ssue by taking the location of production factors as given, very much as in trade theory.How can (or should) a regional system be formally represented is still a matter of debate. Firstly, one may consider that there is

28、a discrete set of regions. Alternatively, one may assume that there is a continuum of regions. Although the second approach may seem more appropriate when we want to work at a very disaggregate spatial level, it seems na

29、tural to think of a regional system as being formed by a finite set of regions. Furthermore, NEG shows that even when location spaces are continuous, economic activity usually clusters into a few places.5 This leads us t

30、o believe that the operationally feasible and theoretically desirable representation of a regional system is in terms of a graph. Note that this is the approach that has been chosen for a long time in location theory (Be

31、ckmann and Thisse, 1986). Indeed, graphs offer a natural representation of finite systems of agents/nodes which interact with each other through links. It also fits well the intermediate spatial scale considered in regio

32、nal economics.In a spatial economy with a finite number of regions, we know from Starrett's Spatial Impossibility Theorem that the competitive market mechanism breaks down when the mobility of firms and/or households

33、 is combined with the transport costs of goods between regions. Hence, unless strong spatial heterogeneities are assumed to be given a priori, the question of where economic activity occurs and why cannot be readily addr

34、essed within the competitive framework. As argued by Krugman (1995), this probably explains why spatial economic issues have been for so long at the periphery of mainstream economics. Note, in passing, that a major impli