Evaluating the spatial spillover effects of transportation infrastructure on agricultural output across the United States

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.03.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The broader effect of transport infrastructure on U.S. agriculture is estimated.

  • A state’s road disbursement has positive effect on the state’s agricultural output.

  • Spending on roads in a state has spillover effect on the neighboring states’ agriculture.

  • Increase in road disbursement in U.S. central states has larger spatial spillover effects.

Abstract

The role of spatial spillover associated with the infrastructure–economy relationship has received increasing attention in the literature. Surprisingly, in previous studies, the potential spatial spillover effect of transportation infrastructure on economic output in the U.S. agricultural sector has not been taken into account given the sector’s importance in the economy and dependence on transportation. The broader effects, including the direct effect and spatial spillover effect, of transportation infrastructure on agricultural output across 44 states in the United States from 1981 to 2004 are estimated in this study. A spatial Durbin panel data model that catches spatial dependence in both dependent and explanatory variables is used. The results suggest that road disbursement in a given state has positive direct effects on its own agricultural output. Also, the spillover effect of road infrastructure on agricultural output in neighboring states varies with respect to the spatial weight matrix used in the model. Moreover, our analysis shows that enhancement in road infrastructure in the states in the U.S. central region has a larger positive spillover effect on agricultural output when compared to coastal or border states.

Introduction

Since the late 1980s, research measuring the influence of transportation infrastructure on economic output and productivity at various geographical levels, i.e. national, regional, and less aggregated jurisdictional areas, has quickly emerged (Aschauer, 1989, Munnell and Cook, 1990, Moomaw et al., 1995, Fernald, 1999, Li and Shum, 2001, Lakshmanan, 2011). Among the studies, the role of spatial spillover associated with the infrastructure–economy relationship has received increasing attention. Most studies considering the economic effects of transportation infrastructure have supported a positive spillover effect (Dundon-Smith and Gibb, 1994, Pereira and Roca-Sagales, 2003, Pereira and Andraz, 2004, Cohen and Paul, 2004, Cantos et al., 2005, Gutierrez et al., 2010), while other studies have found negative spillover effects (Boarnet, 1998, Cohen and Monaco, 2007, Sloboda and Yao, 2008). A few studies have also found mixed or no spillover effects of transportation infrastructure on economies in different sectors (Holtz-Eakin and Schwartz, 1995, Kelejian and Robinson, 1997, Jiwattanakulpaisarn et al., 2010) (see Table 1 for a summary).

Both positive and negative spatial spillover of transportation infrastructure on the economic activities can be feasible. The construction of an interstate highway, for instance, could improve the network by connecting states efficiently, thus leading to the redistribution of existing resources for production (Cohen, 2007, Jiwattanakulpaisarn et al., 2009). An improved transportation network in a state potentially can provide a more efficient and integrated transportation network to the state and, consequently, contribute positively to the economic activities in its spatially related states. Conversely, economic activities could be reallocated from states with poor transportation infrastructure to states with well-maintained transportation systems. Thus, the construction or improvement of transportation infrastructure in one state could adversely affect the output of private sectors in neighboring states with less developed transportation infrastructure (Boarnet, 1998).

Previous studies evaluating the output and productivity impact of transportation infrastructure in the agricultural sector have not taken the spatial spillover effect of transportation infrastructure into account (Antle, 1983, Craig et al., 1997, Felloni et al., 2001, Benin et al., 2009, Onofri and Fulginiti, 2008, Zhang and Fan, 2004). Lack of such analysis in the U.S. agricultural sector is surprising given the importance of agriculture in the U.S. economy and its strong dependence on infrastructure. Currently, improvements in the deteriorating transportation infrastructure, primarily the road system, are long overdue across the nation and still under extensive debate due to budget deficits. Therefore, conducting a more comprehensive and broad evaluation of transportation infrastructure impacts on output in the agricultural sector is timely and critical.

The objective of this study is to provide a measure of the contribution of transportation infrastructure and its spatial spillover effect on U.S. agricultural output. Results from this research have the potential to assist policy makers in allocating transportation infrastructural investments by providing better estimates of how these investments could impact states’ agricultural sectors. To accomplish this objective, it is hypothesized that transportation infrastructure investment in a state has a statistically significant spillover effect on neighboring states. This hypothesis is empirically tested using a spatial modeling framework that considers the spatial interaction of both dependent and explanatory variables within the framework of the spatial Durbin model (SDM) (LeSage and Pace, 2009). The SDM is useful in testing the hypothesis because the model captures the contribution of transportation infrastructure in a given region to agricultural output both in and outside of the region. Moreover, the SDM is the only model that produces an unbiased estimator in all possible spatial data modeling processes, according to LeSage and Pace (2009, pp. 158–159). The omitted variables problem is also less likely to be observed in the SDM because of the inclusion of spatial dependence in the explanatory variables.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the empirical model specification and estimation methods of SDM, followed by a summary of data in Section 3. Empirical results are discussed in Section 4, and the last section presents the findings and associated discussion.

Section snippets

Model specification

This study adopts a Cobb–Douglas production function to represent the relationship between agricultural output and input factors in a state. Transportation infrastructure in the state is incorporated in the production function as an external factor to productivity (Boarnet, 1998, Jiwattanakulpaisarn et al., 2011). Transportation infrastructure is treated as a production function frontier “shifter,” which increases the efficiency of other inputs. This relationship is elaborated by the following

Data

This analysis covered panel data for 44 states in the United States4 during the period from 1981 to 2004. Agricultural output and input (excluding transportation infrastructures) data for each state were obtained from the Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Department of Agriculture

Empirical results

Table 3 presents the results of (1) a pooled OLS model, (2) an OLS model with spatial fixed effects, (3) an OLS model incorporating temporal fixed effects, and (4) an OLS model considering both fixed effects (referred to as “Model (4)” here and below), respectively. In this study, statistical significance at the 5% level is denoted with one asterisk in the tables; those variables and test statistics are henceforth referred to as “significant” in the discussion below. The null hypothesis of the

Conclusion and discussion

The effects of transportation infrastructure on agricultural output for 44 continuous U.S. states from 1981 to 2004 are evaluated in this study. The SDM based on four different weight matrices is employed to accommodate spatial dependence in both dependent and independent variables. Findings based on the model estimates suggest that road disbursement has a significant positive direct effect on a state’s agricultural output. A 1% increase in the investment and maintenance in roads in one state

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the two anonymous reviewers and the Editor for their valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier version of the manuscript.

References (48)

  • T.R. Lakshmanan

    The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure investments

    Journal of Transport Geography

    (2011)
  • L.F. Lee et al.

    Estimation of spatial autoregressive panel data models with fixed effects

    Journal of Econometrics

    (2010)
  • A. Levin et al.

    Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties

    Journal of Econometrics

    (2002)
  • S.M. Li et al.

    Impacts of the national truck highway system on accessibility in China

    Journal of Transport Geography

    (2001)
  • A. Pereira et al.

    Spillover effects of public capital formation: evidence from the Spanish regions

    Journal of Urban Economics

    (2003)
  • L. Anselin

    Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models

    (1988)
  • M.J. Antle

    Infrastructure and aggregate agricultural productivity: international evidence

    Economic Development and Cultural Change

    (1983)
  • Association of American Railroads

    Railroad Facts, 1983–2005

    (2012)
  • V.E. Ball et al.

    Agricultural productivity revisited

    American Journal of Agricultural Economics

    (1997)
  • Benin, S., Mogues, T., Cudjoe, G., Randriamamonjy, J., 2009. Public Expenditures and Agricultural Productivity Growth...
  • M.G. Boarnet

    Spillovers and the locational effects of public infrastructure

    Journal of Regional Science

    (1998)
  • P. Burridge

    On the Cliff-Ord test for spatial correlation

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B

    (1980)
  • P. Cantos et al.

    Transport infrastructures, spillover effects and regional growth: evidence of the Spanish case

    Transport Reviews

    (2005)
  • Cohen, J., 2007. Economic Benefits of Investments in Transport Infrastructure. Joint Transport Research Center....
  • Cited by (84)

    • Understanding electric vehicle ownership using data fusion and spatial modeling

      2024, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
    • The economic impact of inland ports on regional development: Evidence from the Yangtze River region

      2022, Transport Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Moreover, the spillover effect of Yangtze River inland ports on neighboring cities is also discussed, ultimately guiding policymakers and inland port operators. This study seeks to quantify the economic impact of Yangtze River inland ports on regional development by assuming that there is a conventional production function associating the economic output (Y) with external factors, such as inland port activities, measured in terms of throughput (T) and the number of variable inputs (X), such as capital and labor force (Tong et al., 2013). The panel data model can be enriched to account for possible spatial effects among different units.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text