The mental map of Dutch entrepreneurs. Changes in the subjective rating of locations in the Netherlands, 1983-1993-2003



a five step ordinal scale, thus expressing its suitability as a location for the firm in
question. The research population was confined to those firms that would be capable of
judging locations in the entire country. Manufacturing industries and several lines of
service industries (wholesale, transport, construction, etc.) were selected. Non-profit
organizations, branch plants, and companies with less than ten employees were
excluded. For every survey, a systematic sample of firms was drawn from this
population.

1800 firms were approached per survey. The rate of response was 36, 40, and 30 % for
the three surveys, respectively. Forms from companies with a market area covering only
a part of the research area were skipped. Forms with more than 10 % missing data were
also excluded. The outcome is a number of 388, 370, and 271 usable forms,
respectively.

Average rating of locations

The general pattern of ratings that emerges from the 1983 survey in the Netherlands is
characterized by a fairly simple structure. The center of the Netherlands - specifically,
the province of Utrecht - gets the highest ratings, and from there the rating declines in
all directions (Figure 1a). The course of the isopleths also indicates the existence of a
number of zones with a relatively high rating, radiating out from Utrecht in the
directions of Rotterdam, Breda, and Eindhoven.

Additional inquiries and analyses show that the pattern of ratings, as shown in the map,
can largely be explained by the interaction of a limited number of elements. One of
these elements is a general preference for the center of the country, which can be
explained in terms of access to the national market. The second element is the tendency
of entrepreneurs to prefer their own environment as a location area, a phenomenon that
can be referred to as ‘locational self-preference’ (Meester 2000, 2004). Yet another
element is a preference for larger agglomerations. The pattern of ratings that is revealed
by Figure 1a, thus reflects the importance of centrality and existing economic activity as
location factors for firms.

The pattern of ratings in 2003 is largely identical to the one found twenty years before:
high scores for places in the central part of the country and low scores for the peripheral
regions, particularly the three northern provinces and Zeeland (Figure 1b). At first sight,
few changes in the rating landscape seem to have occurred during the period under
consideration. Even the secondary peak of Rotterdam shows up on both maps. A closer



More intriguing information

1. Monetary Discretion, Pricing Complementarity and Dynamic Multiple Equilibria
2. The name is absent
3. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives
4. Synchronisation and Differentiation: Two Stages of Coordinative Structure
5. An alternative way to model merit good arguments
6. Computational Experiments with the Fuzzy Love and Romance
7. Migration and Technological Change in Rural Households: Complements or Substitutes?
8. Does South Africa Have the Potential and Capacity to Grow at 7 Per Cent?: A Labour Market Perspective
9. Labour Market Flexibility and Regional Unemployment Rate Dynamics: Spain (1980-1995)
10. Neural Network Modelling of Constrained Spatial Interaction Flows
11. CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
12. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence
13. The magnitude and Cyclical Behavior of Financial Market Frictions
14. The name is absent
15. Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: the case of the agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt
16. MATHEMATICS AS AN EXACT AND PRECISE LANGUAGE OF NATURE
17. INTERACTION EFFECTS OF PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR U.S. COTTON
18. Spousal Labor Market Effects from Government Health Insurance: Evidence from a Veterans Affairs Expansion
19. RETAIL SALES: DO THEY MEAN REDUCED EXPENDITURES? GERMAN GROCERY EVIDENCE
20. Three Strikes and You.re Out: Reply to Cooper and Willis