Skip Navigation



Journal of Economic Geography Advance Access published online on February 14, 2005
Journal of Economic Geography, doi:10.1093/jnlecg/lbh062
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
5/3/319    most recent
lbh062v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Combes, P.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Lafourcade, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Revised May 21, 2003
Accepted July 30, 2004

Article

Transport costs: measures, determinants, and regional policy implications for France*

Pierre-Philippe Combes 1 and Miren Lafourcade 2*

1 CERAS-ENPC. CNRS researcher also affiliated to CEPR
2 Universitéd'Évry (IUT, GLT Department) and CERAS-ENPC. CERAS, 48 Bd. Jourdan, 75014 Paris, France

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Miren Lafourcade, E-mail: lafourca{at}enpc.fr


  Abstract

We develop a methodology to accurately compute transport costs. Based on the real transport network, our measure encompasses the characteristics of infrastructure, vehicle and energy used, as well as labor, insurance, tax and general charges borne by transport carriers. Computed for the 341 French employment areas, road transport shipments and the period 1978-1998, this new measure is compared to alternative ones such as great circle distance, real distance, or real time. We conclude that these proxies do a very good job in capturing transport costs in cross-section analysis. However, important discrepancies limit the possibility of using them in time series analysis. Moreover, our measure allows us to identify the policies that most impact transport costs. We show that transport technology and market structure are responsible for most of the transport cost decrease. Infrastructure improvements only condition the spatial distribution of the gains. Finally, some implications for researchers and regional policy makers are derived.

Keywords: trade costs; infrastructure; Geographic Information System (GIS); regional development; shift-share analysis.
* We are grateful to Malik Béchar and André-Pierre Surineau (The MVA Consultancy), Christophe Bodard (SETRA), Jérôome Carreau (Atlas Concept), Marie-Pierre Allain and Emeric Lendjel (CNR), Laurent Gobillon, François Lebrun, Frédéric Leray, Jean-Claude Meteyer (SES-DAEI) and Jean-Pierre Roumegoux (INRETS) for their critical help in gathering data. We also acknowledge Laurence Demeulenaere, Lionel Fortin, David Meunier, Emile Quinet, Alain Sauvant and other participants to the economic seminar of the French Ministry of Transports for helpful comments. We also thank three anonymous referees, Gilles Duranton, Philippe Martin, Thierry Mayer, Henry Overman and Diego Puga for very fruitful suggestions and discussions. This paper is produced as part of a CEPR Research Network on ‘The Economic Geography of Europe: Measurement, Testing and Policy Simulations’, funded by the European Commission under the Research Training Network Programme (Contract No: HPRN-CT-2000-00069). Financial support from SES-DAEI and from NATO (Combes' advanced fellowship grant) are also gratefully acknowledged, as well as the hospitality of the economics department at Boston University.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Planning LiteratureHome page
A. Holl
A Review of the Firm-Level Role of Transport Infrastructure with Implications for Transport Project Evaluation
Journal of Planning Literature, August 1, 2006; 21(1): 3 - 14.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.