English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Gustavsson [1999] finds that policies that promote international trade increase the size of a country’s largest city relative to the country’s total population, which is defined here as an increase in urban gigantism. In contrast, Ades and Glaeser [1995] report urban gigantism is reduced by freer political institutions and, with less confidence, more open trade. In light of Henderson’s (2000) findings that excessive urban concentration inhibits economic growth, these conflicting results for the relationship between openness and urban gigantism (concentration), which are of great interest for the new economic geography, call for additional study. This study uses two measures of urban concentration and finds that lower international-trade costs are associated with lower primacy, but not with lower gigantism. Unlike Gustavsson, however, we find no evidence that lower trade costs increase gigantism.

Urban Primacy, Gigantism, and International Trade: Evidence from Asia and the Americas