# Spatial Spillover Effects of Agricultural Transport Costs in Peru

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Theoretical Setting

#### 2.1. Agricultural Transport Costs Model

_{od}in kilometres. The price per ton of a good in locations o and d is P

_{o}and P

_{d}, respectively; and the tonnage of a good in each location o and d is correspondingly symbolised by is Q

_{o}and Q

_{d}. The modelling logic of iceberg-type transport costs involves that only a fraction of the good shipped from o reaches its destination at d, that is, a part of the agricultural good ‘melts away’ in transit. The melting speed is supposed to be a linear function of the geographic distance between locations as in [1]. Thus, the iceberg transport technology for the agricultural good shipped from o to d is given by Equation (1):

_{d}), in relative terms, corresponds to Equation (2):

#### 2.2. Empirical Specification

## 3. Exploratory Spatial Flow Data Analysis

#### 3.1. Agricultural Transport Costs in Peru

**a**) in Table 1, or the other way around, as (

**b**) in Table 1, where n is the number of regions.

_{ij}is the cost of transporting agricultural goods from the origin region i to the destination region j, as approximated in Equation (8) where the values of the main diagonal are the transport costs of agricultural products traded within each region (intraregional flows). (

**a**) in Table 1, each column presents the values of the variable τ

_{iD}corresponding to the transport costs from each of the origin regions i to a specific destination region, D, whereas (

**b**) in Table 1, variables τ

_{Oj}show the transport costs from a given origin region, O, to each of the destination regions j.

#### 3.2. ESFDA of Agricultural Transport Costs

#### 3.2.1. Moran’s I Test of Global Spatial Autocorrelation of Flows

_{ID}of agricultural transport costs, which serves to detect the existence of a linear relationship between the transport cost values of each origin region, i, that carries agricultural goods to a given destination region, D, and the mean values of this variable in the regions neighbouring each origin region, ${\overline{\mathsf{\tau}}}_{iD}$. This statistic I test of destinations (I

_{D}) is expressed as follows:

_{D}statistics as destination regions.

_{Oj}of transport cost from a given origin region to all destination regions. This test serves to detect the existence of a linear relationship between the transport cost values of a given origin region that distributes agricultural products to the rest of the destination regions and the mean value of this variable in the regions neighbouring each destination region. This statistic is called I test of origins (I

_{O}) and is represented as follows:

_{O}statistics as origin regions.

#### 3.2.2. Moran Scatterplots of Spatial Flows

#### 3.2.3. LISA Tests of Local Spatial Autocorrelation of Flows

_{ID}of agricultural transport costs from each origin region i to a specific destination D, which serves to detect the existence of clusters or spatial agglomerations in the vicinity of the origin regions that carry agricultural goods to a certain destination region. This statistic is called I

_{iD}test of destinations:

_{Oj}of agricultural transport cost from a given origin region O to all destination regions j. This test serves to detect the existence of clusters or spatial agglomerations in the vicinity of the destination regions that carry agricultural goods to a certain origin region. This statistic is called I

_{Oj}test of origins:

^{2}dyadic elements of Table 1, for $N=n\times n$ regions.

## 4. Econometric Modelling

#### 4.1. Non-Spatial Origin-Destination Model

_{0}representing a constant parameter term; ${X}_{o}{\beta}_{o}$ and ${X}_{d}{\beta}_{d}$ are respectively ${X}_{o}={\iota}_{n}\otimes X$ and ${X}_{d}={\iota}_{n}\otimes X$, where X is an n-by-n matrix of the natural log of independent variables for the n regions and $\otimes $ represents a Kronecker product, with ${\beta}_{o}$ and ${\beta}_{d}$ being their related scalar parameters; ${D}_{od}$ is an N by 1 vector of the natural log of distance between each o, d pair of regions with α

_{1}and α

_{2}being the associated scalar parameters, and ε is the N by error term vector which is assumed $\epsilon ~N\left(0,{\sigma}^{2}{I}_{N}\right)$, for ${\sigma}^{2}$ the constant variance of the error term and ${I}_{N}$ an identity matrix of order N.

- Gross value added in each region, which measures regional economic dynamics. Since agricultural trade flows are directly proportional to the economic activity in regional economies, we would expect a positive relationship between these flows and the gross value added.
- Consumer price index variation for agricultural products in each region, which approximates the price-demand relationship of agricultural goods. Prices increment should reduce the demand for goods, and lead to reductions of agricultural trade flows, thus effects associated with change to consumer price index should be negative with respect to trade flows.
- Paved neighbourhood road length in each region measures road transport network efficiency. A better-quality infrastructure should lead to more trade, therefore, we would expect a positive relationship between trade flows and paved neighbourhood road length.

#### 4.2. Spatial Origin-Destination Model

#### 4.2.1. Specification

_{o}, W

_{d}, and W

_{w}, respectively. Hence, the spatial autoregressive (SAR) interaction model of agricultural transport flows is expressed as follows:

_{n}) equal in size to that of the spatial weight matrix to describe spatial connectivity between the n regions [26]. The origin spatial weight matrix (W

_{o}), the destination spatial weight matrix (W

_{d}), and the origin-to-destination spatial weight matrix (W

_{w}), are obtained, respectively, as follows:

#### 4.2.2. Estimation of the SAR Origin-Destination Model

**.**There is a high indication of origin- and origin-to-destination-based spatial dependence. These results confirm the effectiveness of the ESFDA for clusters in origin-regions. The coefficients ${\rho}_{o}$ and ${\rho}_{w}$ were 0.64, and 0.48, respectively, and the 99 percent credible intervals indicate they are different from zero. The destination-based spatial dependence captured by ${\rho}_{d}$ = −0.18 also was significant although proved to be the least influential for detecting spatial dependence patterns. The coefficient for the distance variable was significant and negative (−0.0007) and much closer to zero than the least-squares estimate (−0.0085), as shown in Figure 4. It is a usual result for the estimate on distance to fall in significance when spatially lagged variables are included into a SAR interaction model as distance operates as a proxy for spatial dependence when it is not incorporated [30,31].

## 5. Discussion on the Effect Estimates

#### 5.1. Non-Spatial Origin-Destination Model

#### 5.2. Spatial Origin-Destination Model

## 6. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Krugman, P. Increasing returns and economic geography. J. Political Econ.
**1991**, 99, 483–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McCann, P. Transport costs and new economic geography. J. Econ. Geogr.
**2005**, 5, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fingleton, B.; McCann, P. Sinking the iceberg? On the treatment of transport costs in new economic geography. In New Directions in Economic Geography; Fingleton, B., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2007; Chapter 6; pp. 168–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garretsen, H.; Martin, R. Rethinking (New) Economic Geography models: Taking geography and history more seriously. Spat. Econ. Anal.
**2010**, 5, 127–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Samuelson, P.A. The transfer problem and transport costs, II: Analysis of effects of trade impediments. Econ. J.
**1954**, 64, 264–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fujita, M.; Krugman, P.R.; Venables, A.J. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Thünen, J.H. Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Nationalalo Konomie und Landwirtschaft; 1826 Reprinted by Fischer, G. Stuttgart; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Picard, P.M.; Zeng, D.-Z. Agricultural sector and industrial agglomeration. J. Dev. Econ.
**2005**, 77, 75–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tanaka, K. Transport Costs, Distance, and Time: Evidence from the Japanese Census of Logistics; IDE Discussion Papers; Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization: Chiba, Japan, 2010; Volume 241. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, C.L.; Harrigan, J. Distance, time, and specialization: Lean retailing in general equilibrium. Am. Econ. Rev.
**2005**, 95, 292–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Djankov, S.; Freund, C.; Pham, C.S. Trading on Time. Rev. Econ. Stat.
**2010**, 92, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - IFPRI. Constructing a Typology of Rural Communities of the Peruvian Highlands Using Stochastic Profit Frontier Estimation; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Richards, P. It’s not just where you farm; it’s whether your neighbor does too. How agglomeration economies are shaping new agricultural landscapes. J. Econ. Geogr.
**2018**, 18, 87–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rangel-Preciado, J.; Parejo-Moruno, F.M.; Cruz-Hidalgo, E.; Castellano-Álvarez, F.J. Rural Districts and Business Agglomerations in Low-Density Business Environments. The Case of Extremadura (Spain). Land
**2021**, 10, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Läpple, D.; Renwick, A.; Cullinan, J.; Thorne, F. What drives innovation in the agricultural sector? A spatial analysis of knowledge spillovers. Land Use Policy
**2016**, 56, 238–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ranjan, P.; Tobias, J.L. Bayesian inference for the gravity model. J. Appl. Econom.
**2007**, 22, 817–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Herrera-Catalán, P.; Chasco, C. Agglomeration on the periphery? Exploratory spatial analysis of agricultural transport flows in Peru. In Agglomeration Economies and Rural Development; Parejo-Moruno, F., Rangel-Preciado, J., Eds.; Dykinson Publishing: Madrid, Spain, in press.
- Anselin, L. GeoDa Workbook. 2021. Available online: https://geodacenter.github.io/documentation.html (accessed on 14 November 2021).
- World Bank. Peru—Towards a System Integrated City: A New Vision for Growth; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Karp, L.S.; Perloff, J.M. A Synthesis of Agricultural Trade Economics. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics; Gardner, B.L., Rausser, G.C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; Chapter 37; pp. 3035–3213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, W. Economic growth, convergence, and agricultural economics. Agric. Econ.
**2019**, 50, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - McCalla, A.F. Impact of macroeconomic policies upon agricultural trade and international agricultural development. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
**1982**, 64, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Diaz-Bonilla, E.; Robinson, S. Macroeconomics, macrosectoral policies, and agriculture in developing countries. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics; Pingali, P., Evenson, R., Eds.; Academic Press: Burlington, ON, Canada, 2010; Chapter 61; pp. 3035–3213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Combes, P.-P.; Lafourcade, M. Transport costs: Measures, determinants, and regional policy implications for France. J. Econ. Geogr.
**2005**, 5, 319–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sotelo, S. Domestic Trade Frictions and Agriculture. J. Political Econ.
**2020**, 128, 2690–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - LeSage, J.P.; Pace, R.K. Spatial econometrics modeling of Origin-Destination Flows. J. Reg. Sci.
**2008**, 48, 941–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - LeSage, J.P.; Pace, R.K. Introduction to Spatial Econometrics; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Anselin, L. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- LeSage, J.P.; Thomas-Agnan, C. Interpreting spatial econometric origin-destination flow models. J. Reg. Sci.
**2015**, 55, 188–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - LeSage, J.P.; Fischer, M.M.; Scherngell, T. Knowledge spillovers across Europe, evidence from a poisson spatial interaction model with spatial effects. Pap. Reg. Sci.
**2007**, 86, 393–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sellner, R.; Fischer, M.M.; Koch, M. A spatial autoregressive Poisson gravity model. Geogr. Anal.
**2013**, 45, 180–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Martínez-García, M.P.; Morales, J. Resource effect in the Core–Periphery model. Spat. Econ. Anal.
**2019**, 14, 339–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Beghin, J.C.; Schweizer, H. Agricultural Trade Costs. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy
**2021**, 43, 500–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cai, J.; Li, X.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; Lu, S. Coupling and coordinated development of new urbanization and agroecological environment in China. Sci. Total Environ.
**2021**, 776, 145837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Forslid, R.; Okubo, T. Agglomeration of low-productive entrepreneurs to large regions: A simple model. Spat. Econ. Anal.
**2021**, 16, 471–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, L.; Zhang, M.; Hendry, L.C.; Bu, M.; Wang, S. Supplier Development Practices for Sustainability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective. Bus. Strateg. Environ.
**2018**, 27, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Mishra, P.K.; Dey, K. Governance of agricultural value chains: Coordination, control and safeguarding. J. Rural Stud.
**2018**, 64, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Flynn, A. Investigating the implementation of SME-friendly policy in public procurement. Policy Stud. UK
**2018**, 39, 422–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]

**Figure 2.**Clusters in destination regions created by origin regions: (

**a**) Origin: Piura; (

**b**) Origin: Cajamarca; (

**c**) Origin: San Martín; (

**d**) Origin: Ica.

**Figure 3.**Clusters in origin regions created by destination regions: (

**a**) Destination: Arequipa; (

**b**) Destination: Ica; (

**c**) Destination: Cajamarca; (

**d**) Destination: Lambayeque.

**Figure 4.**Origin-destination transaction networks for agricultural goods; (

**a**) North network; (

**b**) South-Central network.

**Table 1.**Organisation of the data for the agricultural transport cost matrix: (

**a**) Destination-based flows; (

**b**) Origin-based flows.

D_{1} | D_{2} | D_{n} | O_{1} | O_{2} | … | O_{n} | |||

O_{1} |
τ
_{11} | τ_{12} | … | τ_{1n} | D_{1} | τ_{11} | τ_{21} | … | τ_{n1} |

O_{2} |
τ
_{21} | τ_{22} | … | τ_{2n} | D_{2} | τ_{12} | τ_{22} | … | τ_{n2} |

… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | |

O_{n} | τ_{n1} | τ_{n2} | … | τ_{nn} | D_{n} | τ_{1n} | τ_{2n} | … | τ_{nn} |

(a) | (b) |

Clusters in Origin Regions | Clusters in Destination Regions | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Destination | Origin | Moran I | LISA | Origin | Destination | Moran I | LISA |

Arequipa | 0.272 *** | Cajamarca | 0.184 *** | ||||

Cusco | 0.311 *** | La Libertad | 0.518 *** | ||||

Puno | 0.331 *** | Lambayeque | 0.664 *** | ||||

Tacna | 0.430 ** | San Martín | 0.175 *** | ||||

Cajamarca | 0.224 *** | Ica | 0.164 ** | ||||

Ancash | 0.060 ** | Cusco | 0.163 *** | ||||

La Libertad | 0.258 *** | Junín | 0.192 ** | ||||

Lambayeque | 0.039 ** | Lima | 0.086 ** | ||||

MLC ^{a} | 0.331 ** | ||||||

Ica | 0.103 *** | Piura | 0.122 ** | ||||

Apurímac | 0.152 ** | Cajamarca | 0.013 ** | ||||

Arequipa | 0.605 ** | La Libertad | 0.243 *** | ||||

Cusco | 0.008 ** | ||||||

Huancavelica | 0.233 ** | ||||||

Lambayeque | 0.127 ** | San Martín | 0.129 ** | ||||

Cajamarca | 0.351 *** | Cajamarca | 0.354 ** | ||||

San Martín | 0.168 ** | Lambayeque | 0.182 ** | ||||

Piura | 0.447 ** |

^{a}MLC corresponds to Metropolitan Lima and El Callao.

Variable | Description | Units | Mean | Std | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Dependent variable | ||||||

Agricultural trade flows | Agricultural transport costs between each pair of regions. Authors calculations (see Section 3.2). | Dollar per ton/h | 351,504.6 | 542,531.8 | 732.7 | 3,336,130.4 |

Independent variables | ||||||

Regional economic dynamics | Gross value added in each region. National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI) | (Index 2007 = 100) | 137.3 | 20.6 | 89.0 | 189.8 |

Price-demand relationships | Consumer price index variation for agricultural goods in each region. INEI. | Consumer Price Index | 2.8 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 5.7 |

Road transport network efficiency | Paved neighbourhood roads length in each region. Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC). | km | 77.6 | 94.1 | 66.2 | 403.3 |

Spatial variable | Distance between each pair of regions. Authors calculations based on data from INEI. | km | 720.1 | 413.7 | 56.1 | 1948.9 |

Variable | Least-Squares Model | Spatial Autoregressive | |
---|---|---|---|

Coefficient | Coefficient | ||

Constant | −13.5381 * | −8.6443 | |

β_{d} | consumer price index for agricultural goods | −0.6002 ** | −0.2285 |

β_{d} | paved neighbourhood roads | 0.6885 *** | 0.3143 *** |

β_{d} | regional gross value added | 3.5698 *** | 1.4912 |

β_{o} | consumer price index for agricultural goods | −0.3295 | 0.0579 |

β_{o} | paved neighbourhood roads | 0.1188 | 0.0653 |

β_{o} | regional gross value added | 0.0008 | 0.1286 |

log(distance) | −0.0085 *** | −0.0007 | |

log(distance2) | 0.30 × 10^{−5} *** | 0.13 × 10^{−6} | |

ρ_{d} | −0.1817 * | ||

ρ_{o} | 0.6435 *** | ||

ρ_{w} | 0.4874 *** |

Variables | Least-Squares Model | Spatial Autoregressive | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Mean | Median | Std. Dev. | Mean | Median | Std. Dev. | |

Origin-consumer price index for agricultural goods | 0.0637 | 0.0614 | 0.3079 | −0.1532 | −0.1316 | 1.0399 |

Origin-paved neighbourhood roads | 0.0595 | 0.0596 | 0.0956 | 0.5969 | 0.4749 | 0.7727 |

Origin-regional gross value added | 0.1681 | 0.1422 | 1.0593 | 2.5751 | 2.0815 | 5.1307 |

Destination-consumer price index for agricultural goods | −0.2081 | −0.2102 | 0.3007 | -0.5848 | −0.5369 | 1.1752 |

Destination-paved neighbourhood roads | 0.2967 | 0.2960 | 0.1036 | 1.0031 | 0.8885 | 0.8138 |

Destination-regional gross value added | 1.4238 | 1.4327 | 1.0543 | 4.6975 | 4.1212 | 5.5379 |

Intraregional-consumer price index for agricultural goods | −0.0060 | −0.0060 | 0.0180 | −0.0207 | −0.0186 | 0.0564 |

Intraregional-paved neighbourhood roads | 0.0148 | 0.0149 | 0.0059 | 0.0453 | 0.0409 | 0.0352 |

Intraregional-regional gross value added | 0.0663 | 0.0661 | 0.0628 | 0.2052 | 0.1807 | 0.2516 |

Network-consumer price index for agricultural goods | -- | -- | -- | −5.7770 | −4.0858 | 19.0636 |

Network-paved neighbourhood roads | -- | -- | -- | 12.3269 | 9.3101 | 17.7252 |

Network-regional gross value added | -- | -- | -- | 56.3468 | 38.4989 | 109.0265 |

Total-consumer price index for agricultural goods | −0.1504 | −0.1511 | 0.4493 | −6.5357 | −4.7502 | 21.1928 |

Total-paved neighbourhood roads | 0.3711 | 0.3721 | 0.1471 | 13.9721 | 10.7266 | 19.3182 |

Total-regional gross value added | 1.6582 | 1.6515 | 1.5710 | 63.8246 | 44.3224 | 119.5158 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Herrera-Catalán, P.; Chasco, C.; Torero, M. Spatial Spillover Effects of Agricultural Transport Costs in Peru. *Land* **2022**, *11*, 58.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010058

**AMA Style**

Herrera-Catalán P, Chasco C, Torero M. Spatial Spillover Effects of Agricultural Transport Costs in Peru. *Land*. 2022; 11(1):58.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010058

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Herrera-Catalán, Pedro, Coro Chasco, and Máximo Torero. 2022. "Spatial Spillover Effects of Agricultural Transport Costs in Peru" *Land* 11, no. 1: 58.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010058