This paper is an examination of functional form and functional misspecification in regression-based spatial interaction models. Box–Cox transformations are used to model US state-to-state labor migration. Attention is given to the production-constrained gravity model, the competing and intervening destinations (CID) model, and an extension of the CID model which uses dummy variables and an iterative transformation procedure. Statistical evidence supports the argument that the use of highly restrictive log-linear specifications may be inappropriate and problematic. Implications for spatial interaction modeling using general nonrestrictive functional forms are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnselinL, 1988Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
2.
BoxGEPCoxD, 1964, “An analysis of transformations”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B26211–252
3.
BoxGEPTidwellPW, 1962, “Transformation of the independent variables”Technometrics4531–550
4.
CesarioFJ, 1976, “Alternative models for spatial choice”Economic Geography52363–373
5.
CliffADOrdJK, 1981Spatial Processes: Models and Applications (Pion, London)
6.
DavidsonRMacKinnonJ, 1985, “Testing linear and loglinear regressions against Box — Cox alternatives”Canadian Journal of Economics18499–517
7.
FikTJMulliganGF, 1990, “Spatial flows and competing central places: Towards a general theory of hierarchical interaction”Environment and Planning A22527–559
8.
FikTJAmeyRGMulliganGF, 1992, “Labor migration amongst hierarchically competing and intervening origins and destinations”Environment and Planning A241271–1290
9.
FotheringhamAS, 1981, “Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters”Annals of the Association of American Geographers71425–436
10.
FotheringhamAS, 1983, “A new set of spatial-interaction models: The theory of competing destinations”Environment and Planning A1515–36
11.
FotheringhamAS, 1984, “Spatial flows and spatial patterns”Environment and Planning A16529–543
12.
FotheringhamASWebberMJ, 1980, “Spatial structure and the parameters of spatial interaction models”Geographical Analysis1233–46
13.
GreeneWH, (Ed.), 1991LIMDEP Version 6.0Econometric Software Inc., Castle Hill, Australia
14.
GreeneWH, 1993Econometric Analysis (Macmillan, New York)
15.
HalvorsenRPollakowskiHO, 1981, “Choice of functional form for hedonic price equations”Journal of Urban Economics1037–49
16.
JohnsonMSRagasWR, 1987, “CBD land values and multiple externalities”Land Economics63337–347
17.
JudgeGGriffithsWHillRLutkepohlHLeeT-C, 1985The Theory and Practice of Econometrics (John Wiley, New York)
18.
KauJBSirmansCF, 1979, “The functional form of the gravity model”International Regional Science Review4127–136
19.
MilonJWGresselJMulkeyD, 1984, “Hedonic amenity valuation and functional form specification”Land Economics60378–387
20.
SavinNWhiteK, 1978, “Estimation and testing for functional form and autocorrelation: A simultaneous approach”Journal of Econometrics81–12
21.
SeaksTLaysonK, 1983, “Box — Cox estimation with standard econometric problems”Review of Economics and Statistics65160–164
22.
SheppardES, 1984, “The distance decay gravity model debate”, in Spatial Statistics and Models Eds GaileGLWillmottCJ, (D Reidel, Dordrecht) pp 367–388
23.
SpitzerJ, 1982a, “A fast and efficient method for estimation of parameters in models with the Box—Cox transformation”Journal of the American Statistical Association77760–766
24.
SpitzerJ, 1982b, “A primer on Box — Cox estimation”Review of Economics and Statistics64307–313
25.
TukeyJW, 1957, “On the comparative anatomy of transformations”Annals of Mathematical Statistics28602–632
26.
van GastelMAJJPaelinckJHP, 1993, “Box—Cox transformations revisited”, discussion paper, Department of Theoretical Spatial Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam
27.
ZarembkaP, 1968, “Functional form in the demand for money”Journal of the American Statistical Association63502–511
28.
ZarembkaP, 1974Transformations of Variables in Econometrics (Academic Press, Boston, MA)
