Search

Copyright of Papers in Regional Science is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Papers in Regional Science is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: The 2008 financial and economic crisis has led to widespread destruction of employment in Spain. Using municipality data, I examine employment growth differences between urban cores, urban hinterlands, and rural areas during the pre‐crisis period and the recession period. The data show that patterns of growth and decline have been very uneven across different types of areas. While in the boom years, hinterlands and rural areas experienced higher growth, urban core areas have done better during the recession years. I then test three strands of explanations for local growth differences: (i) the role of the local sectoral composition, (ii) the role of human capital, and (iii) the role of access to urban core areas. Estimations for employment growth in the two periods show that the crisis has altered some of the drivers of local employment growth and that human capital has been a key determinant of local resilience during the Great Recession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A county-level labor market model is estimated for North Carolina. The model accounts for intercounty commuting, migration, and within-county adjustments to labor demand shocks. Econometric results indicate that most employment growth (70–80%) during the 1980s was accommodated by changes in commuting flows. Evidence is also presented indicating that labor force growth—and, by extension, population growth and associated fiscal impacts—in rural counties is sensitive to employment growth in nearby urban counties. These results highlight two opposing forces related to spatial spillovers that are usually neglected in analyses of the economic and fiscal impacts of employment growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]