$
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*