Zmarak Shalizi

Geography and Development

The most striking fact about the economic geography of the world is the uneven spatial distribution of economic activity, including the coexistence of economic development and underdevelopment. High-income regions are almost entirely concentrated in a few temperate zones, half of the worlds GDP is produced by 15 percent of the worlds population, and 54 percent of the worlds GDP is produced by countries occupying just 10 percent of the worlds land area. The poorest half of the worlds population produces only 14 percent of the worlds GDP, and 17 of the poorest 20 nations are in tropical Africa. The unevenness is also manifest within countries and within metropolitan concentrations of activity. Why are these spatial differences in land rents and wages not bid away by firms and individuals in search of low-cost or high-income locations? Why does economic activity cluster in centers of activity? And what are the consequences of remoteness from existing centers? The authors argue that understanding these issues is central for understanding many aspects of economic development and underdevelopment at the international, national, and subcontinental levels. They review the theoretical and empirical work that illuminates how the spatial relationship between economic units changes and conclude that geography matters for development, but that economic growth is not governed by a geographic determinism. New economic centers can develop, and the costs of remoteness can be reduced. Many explicit policy instruments have been used to influence location decisions. But none has been systematically successful, and many have been very costly-in part because they were based on inappropriate expectations. Moreover, many ostensibly nonspatial policies that benefit specific sectors and households have spatial consequences since the targeted sectors and households are not distributed uniformly across space. These nonspatial policies can sometimes dominate explicitly spatial policies. Further work is needed to better understand these dynamics in developing countries.

Agglomeration, transport, and regional development in Indonesia

How effective are public interventions in addressing significant regional disparities in formal manufacturing concentration in a developing economy? The authors examine the aggregate and sectoral geographic concentration of manufacturing industries for Indonesia, and estimate the impact of factors influencing location choice at the firm level. They distinguish between natural advantage, including infrastructure endowments, wage rates, and natural resource endowments, and production externalities, arising from the co-location of firms in the same or complementary industries. The methodology pays special attention to empirically distinguishing the impact of measured production externalities from unobserved local characteristics. Depending on the sector, the authors find that a mix of both forms of regional advantage explains the geographic distribution of firms. Based on the estimated location choice model, they illustrate the potential impacts of policy interventions on manufacturing distribution by simulating the effectiveness of transport improvements on relocation of firms. Their findings suggest that improvements in transport infrastructure may only have limited effects in attracting industry to secondary industrial centers outside of Java, especially in sectors already established in leading regions. The findings underscore the challenges for addressing the industrial fortunes of lagging regions, either through local decentralized policy interventions or national policies focused on infrastructure development.

Addressing China's Growing Water Shortages and Associated Social and Environmental Consequences

China has experienced a wide-scale and rapid transformation from an agricultural based economy to the manufacturing workshop of the world. The associated relocation of the population from relatively low density rural areas to very high density urban areas is having a significant impact on the quantity and quality of water available as inputs into the production and consumption process, as well as the ability of the water system to absorb and neutralize the waste byproducts deposited into it. Water shortages are most severe in the north of the country, where surface water diversion is excessive and groundwater is being depleted. In addition, the quality of water is deteriorating because of pollution, thereby aggravating existing water shortages. The biggest challenge ahead will be for national and local governments to craft policies and rules within Chinas complex cultural and legal administrative system that provide incentives for users to increase efficiency of water use, and for polluters to clean up the water they use and return clean water to stream flows. Using a standard public economics framework, water requirements for public goods-such as ecosystem needs-should be set aside first, before allocating property rights in water (to enable water markets to function and generate efficient allocation signals). Even then, water markets will have to be regulated to ensure public goods, such as public health, are not compromised. Until water markets are implemented, staying the course on increasing water and wastewater prices administratively and encouraging water conservation are necessary to reduce the wasting of current scarce water resources, as well as the new water supplies to be provided in the future.

The economics of targeted mitigation in infrastructure

Once established, long-lived capital stock (LLKS) such as infrastructure can lock-in a stream of GHG emissions for extended periods of time. Historical examples from industrial countries suggest that investments in LLKS projects and networks are often lumpy and concentrated in time, and often generate significant indirect and induced emissions besides direct emissions. Urbanization and rapid economic growth suggest that similar investments in LLKS projects and networks are being or will soon be made in many developing countries. In their current form, carbon markets do not provide correct incentives for mitigation in LLKS because the constraint on emissions is limited to developed countries and extends only to 2012. Targeted mitigation programmes are thus necessary where LLKS is being built at a rapid rate to avoid getting locked into highly emissions-intensive LLKS. Even if carbon markets were extended geographically, sectorally, and over time, public intervention would still be required to ensure that indirect and induced emissions are accounted for, to facilitate LLKS project/network financing that bridges the gap between carbon revenues accruing over time and capital needed up front to finance lumpy investments, and to internalize other externalities (e.g. local pollution) and/or lift other barriers that penalize low-emissions alternatives relative to high-emissions ones. Policy relevance LLKS is rapidly being built in developing countries and ‘renewed’/upgraded in developed ones. Investment in LLKS programmes/networks, not just in individual projects, tends to be concentrated in time, two-thirds of which typically takes place in the first quarter of the programmes operating life. Initial/prototype projects can lock in commitment to a particular technology for the whole programme, thus requiring they be evaluated as part of a programme, and not on a stand-alone basis. In addition, indirect and induced emissions of LLKS programmes can be significant. However, scarce empirical evidence affects the utility of cost–benefit analysis in selecting projects or programmes. Finally, addressing the carbon externality alone (whether by market prices, taxes, or regulations) is insufficient to create a level playing field between low- and high-emission LLKS. Removing non-price barriers requires identification of binding constraints, selection of instruments to address them, and mechanisms to learn from and share experiences amongst countries and regions.

Will The Kyoto Protocol Affect Growth in Russia

In light of the recent argument that rapid economic growth in Russia over the next decade, might result in emissions higher than the Kyoto target, thereby putting much-needed growth at risk, the authors revisit the discussion on the costs and benefits of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia. They conclude that even under a very high economic growth assumption, and even under very conservative assumptions about the decoupling between carbon dioxide emissions, and economic growth, Russia still benefits from a net surplus of emissions allowances, and thus will not see its growth adversely affected by the Kyoto target. In addition, a review of the possible costs, and benefits of the Kyoto Protocol suggests that the potential sale of excess allowances, far outweighs the other costs.

Motorization in Developing Countries Implications for Public and Private Sectors

This paper was presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on Transportation, Traffic Safety and Health. October 21–22, 1998. Tokyo, Japan. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely of the author’s. They do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. The author would like to acknowledge his appreciation for the able research assistance provided by Ely sa Coles.