This paper analyzes the geography of regional competitiveness in manufacturing in Brazil. The authors estimate stochastic frontiers to calculate regional efficiency of representative firms in 137 regions in the period 2000–2006, in four sectors defined by technological intensity. The efficiency results are analyzed using Markov Spatial Transition Matrices to provide insights into the transition of regions between efficiency levels, considering their local spatial context. The results indicate that geography plays an important role in manufacturing competitiveness. In particular, regions with more competitive neighbors are more likely to improve their relative efficiency (pull effect) over time, and regions with less competitive neighbors are more likely to lose relative efficiency (drag effect). The authors find that the pull effect is stronger than the drag effect.
AfriatSydney N.1972. “Efficiency Estimation of Production Functions.”International Economic Review, 13:568–98.
2.
AignerDennis J.ChuShih-fan1968. “On Estimating the Industry Production Function.”American Economic Review, 58:826–39.
3.
DennisAignerKnoxC. A. LovellSchmidtPeter1977. “Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models.”Journal of Econometrics, 6:21–37.
4.
AnselinLuc.1988. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
5.
AnselinLucGriffithDaniel A.1988. “Do Spatial Effects Really Matter in Regression-Analysis.”Papers of the Regional Science Association65:11–34. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
6.
AzzoniCarlos R.1986. Manufacturing and Polarization Reversal in Brazil. Série Ensaios Econômicos. 58. São Paulo: Ipe-Usp.
7.
AzzoniCarlos R.2002. “On the need for a regional policy.” In Unity and Fragmentation: the Regional Question in Brazil, edited by AnitaKonSão Paulo: Editora Perspectiva, 17–43.
8.
BaldwinRichardMartinPhilippe. 2004. “Agglomeration and Regional Growth.” In Handbooks of Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 7, edited by VernonH. J.ThisseJ.Amsterdam, San Diego and Oxford: Elsevier.
9.
BatteseGeorge E.CoelliTim J.1995. “A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data.”Empirical Economics, 20:325–32.
10.
CicconeAntonioHallRobert E.1996. “Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity.”The American Economic Review, 86:54–70.
11.
Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI). 2010. Manufacturing and Brazil: an Agenda More and Better Growth.
12.
De NegriJoão AlbertoMario Sergio Salerno (Org.). 2005. Innovation, Technological Standards and the Performance of Brazilian Manufacturing Firms. Brasília: Ipea.
13.
EllisonGlennGlaeserEdward L.1997. “Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: A Dartboard Approach.”Journal of Political Economy, 105:889–927.
14.
FingletonBernardMcCombieJohn S. L.1998. “Increasing Returns and Economic Growth: Some Evidence for Manufacturing From the European Union Regions.”Oxford Economic Papers, 50:89–105.
15.
FujitaMasahisaPaulKrugmanVenablesAnthony J.1999. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
GalloJulie LeErturCem2003. “Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis of the Distribution of Regional Per Capita GDP in Europe, 1980-1995.”Regional Science, 82:175–201.
17.
GalloJulie LeChascoCoro Y.2008. “Spatial Analysis of Urban Growth in Spain (1900-2001).”Empirical Economics, 34:59–80.
18.
GardinerBenMartinRonPeterTyler. 2004. “Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Growth Across the European Regions.”Regional Studies, 38:1045–67.
19.
GriffithDaniel A.1996. “Some Guidelines for Specifying the Geographic Weights Matrix Contained in Spatial Statistical Models.” In Practical Handbook of Spatial Statistics, edited by ArlinghausS. L.GriffithD. A.DrakeW. D.NystuenJ. D., 82–148). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
20.
GriffithDaniel A.LagonaF.1998. “On the Quality of Likelihood-Based Estimators in Spatial Autoregressive Models When the Data Dependence Structure is Misspecified.”Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 69:153–74.
21.
HarrisRichard I. D.1987. “The Role of Manufacturing in Regional Growth.”Regional Studies, 21:301–12.
KrugmanPaul.1991. “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.”Journal of Political Economy, 99:483–99.
24.
KrugmanPaul.1997. Zipf’s Law and City Size. Mimeo.
Cambridge, USA, MIT.
25.
LallSomik V.ShaliziZmarak2003. “Location and Growth in the Brazilian Northeast.”Journal of Regional Science43:663–81.
26.
MonasterioLeonardo M.2010. “Brazilian Spatial Dynamics in the Long Term (1872–2000): ‘Path Dependency’ or ‘Reversal of Fortune’?”. Journal of Geographical Systems, 12:51–67.
27.
McCannPhilip.2001. Urban and Regional Economics. Oxford University Press. Cary, NC, USA.
28.
MeeusenWimvan den BroeckJulien1977. “Efficiency Estimation From Cobb-Douglas Production Functions With Composed Error.”International Economic Review, 18:435–44.
29.
PáezAntonioDarrenM. ScottErikVolz. 2008. “Weight Matrices for Social Influence Analysis: An Investigation of Measurement Errors and Their Effect on Model Identification and Estimation Quality.”Social Networks, 30:309–17.
30.
Pesquisa Industrial Anual – PIA. 2003. Série Relatórios MetodológicosIBGE. V. 22. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
31.
ReySergio J.2001. “Spatial Empirics for Economic Growth and Convergence.”Geographical Analysis33:194–214.
32.
ReySergio J.YeX.2009. “Comparative Spatial Dynamics of Regional Systems.” In Progress in Spatial Analysis: Methods and Applications, edited by PáezA.Le GalloJ.BuliungR.Dall’ErbaS., 441–63). Heidelberg: Springer.
33.
RezendeFernandoPaulo Tafner, (Org.).
2005. Brasil: o estado de uma nação, IPEA. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
34.
RicePatriciaVenablesAnthony J.2006. “Spatial Determinants of Productivity: Analysis for the Regions of Great Britain.”Regional Science and Urban Economics36:727–52.
35.
RosenthalStuart S.StrangeWilliam C.2001. “The Determinants of Agglomeration.”Journal of Urban Economics, 50:191–229.
36.
van SoestDaan P.GerkingShelbyvan OortFrank G.2006. “Spatial Impacts of Agglomeration Externalities.”Journal of Regional Science, 46:881–99.
37.
TveterasRagnarBatteseGeorge E.2006. “Agglomeration Externalities, Productivity, and Technical Inefficiency.”Journal of Regional Science, 46:605–25.
