Andrés Faíña

Market Potential, Spatial Dependences and Spillovers in European Regions

Bruna F., Lopez-Rodriguez J. and Faíña A. Market potential, spatial dependences and spillovers in European regions, Regional Studies. This paper reinterprets the new economic geography (NEG) ‘wage’ equation by distinguishing two different types of spatial dependences: a global spatial trend and local spatial autocorrelation. A measure of the variable Market Potential in this equation can capture both a global core–periphery pattern and spillovers, while the standard weights matrices of spatial econometrics tend to be designed to capture short-distance interactions among neighbours. Using cross-sectional European regional data, the paper compares different weighting schemes to build spatial lags. The estimation of spatial models of an NEG equation for gross value added per capita (GVApc) reveals new research challenges.

Market Potential and the curse of distance in European regions

In the context of the New Economic Geography (NEG) wage equation, the ‘curse of distance’ is the tendency of peripheral regions to have lower income because of being far from the main markets, as captured by a variable Market Potential. This pattern is consistent with the core-periphery spatial distribution of the European regional economic activity. Nevertheless, during the last decades, the European Union has been implemented active transport and regional policies, which should mitigate the consequences of peripherality. This paper analyzes the changes of the cross-sectional effects of Market Potential on the European regional income per capita during the sample period 1995-2008. The paper finds evidence that the cross-sectional elasticity of per capita income to Market Po-tential has been decreasing over the sample period. However, some results are sensitive to changes in the specification of the wage equation or the estimation method.

Nontaxable income and necessary consumption: the Rousseau’s paradox of fiscal egalitarianism

This article compares a tax method featuring flat rates and fixed allowances equal for all taxpayers (Surplus Income Tax Method (SITM) procedure) with a tax method featuring also flat rates and increasing personal allowances (IPAs) to meet the amounts of necessary consumption required by the different living standards (Discretionary Income Tax Method (DITM) procedure). Our results show that the DITM procedure generates an after-tax income distribution less unequal and superior in terms of social welfare. Moreover, the assumption (for comparison purposes) of identical total tax revenues leads to the corollary that the flat tax rate under the DITM is necessarily larger than the one under the SITM; being thus, the former taxmethod is more progressive than the latter. These results imply an obvious paradox considering the commonly accepted principle that basic necessities are the same for everyone (Rousseau, 1755). Based on the results obtained in this article, we have labelled this paradox as the Rousseau’s paradox of fiscal egalitarianism.