$

Q

d0

d1

s0 $

Q

d1

d0

s0 $

Q

d0d1

s

Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3

Increase in housingdemand from those

favoring the park

Net effect on housingdemand and prices

Reduction in housingdemand from thoseopposed to the park

Illustration of the Effects of the Tiebout Hypothesis

The shorter the distance between two objects,and the greater the mass of either (or both) objects,the greater the gravitational pull between the objects.

Illustration of the Gravity Model

Chicago

Little Rock

Illustration of the intervening opportunities model

Marginal cost

Marginal

Aget0 1 t 2

A BMarginal

cost

benefit

The individual moves as soon as the marginal benefit ofmoving exceeds the cost (at points A and B in the lifecycle)

and benefit

Polachek and Siebert’s (1993) Life-Cycle Migration Model

Clark and Cosgrove's (1991) Wage Offer/Acceptance Functions

wage

amenities

F1

F2

F3

W1

W2

W3

WoW=wage acceptance

F=wage offer from firm

Perfect spatial informationand mobility world

Equilibriummodels

Amenity demandemphasis

Imperfect spatial informationand mobility world

Disequilibriummodels

Job searchemphasis

Observedmigration

Graves and Clawson’s (1981) Equilibrium vs. Disequilibrium Views of Migration

q

s

u

NN

q=0.

_s

Migration Dynamics in the Krugman Model (1993)

Dynamics of the Graves and Mueser (1993) Model

rent

wage

B

BA

A

C(w,r,b)=C* U(w,r,a)=U*

r*

w*