The Effects of Space on Inter-State Growth Dynamics and Income Disparities in India - Modeling the Simultaneous Growth of a System of Spatial Units

Spatial econometrics of multiregional growth: The case of India

“…It is one of the strengths of both the model and estimation method to capture the effects of more than those of the two determinants of spatial interdependence examined in this paper. It is also an opportunity to examine some of the factors that might be behind the pattern of simultaneous growth of this system of 17 states indicated by estimated coefficients in models G, H and F. Kocornik‐Mina (2007) has conducted a preliminary comparison of coefficients with factors that are either the product of state interactions or indicators of the nature of state interactions, including migration flows, money orders and tax exportation 27 . She has also conducted a preliminary search for regularities to help understand why some states are able to capture extensive positive growth effects while others are not, which included an examination of estimated coefficients in the context of measures of road infrastructure, agglomeration economies (urbanization) and degree of social fractionalization.…”

“…More than 90% of the population of the states in the Northwest, West and Central parts of India are non‐Muslims and non‐Christians. Kocornik‐Mina (2007) explores differences in the direction and magnitude of growth effects for states with different levels of social fractionalization as measured by the religious composition of states. Given that in no model is religious diversity taken into consideration when defining contiguity it is interesting to see that estimated growth effects from higher order neighbours c ′ in G are positively correlated with the measure of total diversity and of diversity in rural areas.…”

“…It is also expected to influence the location decision of industries (Lall 1999) and enhance opportunities for dynamic interdependencies to emerge between locations. Kocornik‐Mina (2007) addresses the question whether there are any commonalities in the direction and magnitude of growth effects of states that have a higher percentage change in road length per 100 km 2 between a given period and/or between states that had higher road lengths in say 1981–1982, as well as in terms of the size of their territories. A preliminary analysis of the relevant data indicates that states with a higher road length in 1981–1982 also had stronger estimated growth effects in absolute values from higher order neighbours in G and H. States that between 1981–1982 and 1998–1999 had a higher percentage change in road length were also found to have a stronger own growth effect a ′ in H. Thus, there is some indication that roads may enable interactions that in turn give rise to inter‐state growth dynamics.…”