A Regional Core, Adjacent, Periphery Model for National Economic Geography Analysis



35

To answer the question, “Is there a significant difference between the levels of per capita
income in the CAP regions?” the Tukey-Kramer Procedure21 is used to determine whether the
average per capita income levels of the CAP regions are significantly different from each other. The
Tukey-Kramer Procedure is a single factor analysis of variance procedure to determine which means,
in a set of
c means, are significantly different from each other given unequal sample sizes. Table 6
reports the average levels of per capita incomes calculated for four samples of unequal size - the core,
adjacent, periphery and periphery regions - for four different periods.

The Tukey-Kramer procedure permits a concurrent examination of comparison between all
pairs of CAP average per capita income means in a given year. The null hypothesis states that there is
no difference among the average per capita income levels in a given year. The alternative hypothesis
states that not all means are equal. For the data observations on each year, the Sum of the Squares
Within (
SSW) groups was calculated. This allowed a determination of the Mean Square of the Sum
Within (
MSW) given that the number of levels in each year c = 4, and the total number of regions n =
202. The upper-tail critical value
QU from the Studentized range distribution with c = 4 degrees of
freedom in the numerator, and
n - c = 202 - 4 = 198 degrees of freedom in the denominator is given to
be
QU = 2.37.

The results of the test are given for c(c - 1)/2 = 6 pairs of means for a group-to-group
comparison for each year. The analysis shows that in all the group-to-group comparisons, the absolute
difference between the average per capita income levels exceeds their respective critical range. The
one exception is in 1995 between the means of the periphery region and the island periphery regions.
In this case, the absolute difference between the means (12.2) is marginally less than the critical range
(12.37), so that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. This situation changes in the following years.
The conclusion of the analysis is that the null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis that
there is a significant difference between the average per capita levels of income in the CAP regions, is
accepted.

21


Levine, D. Berenson, M. L., and Stephan, D., (1999), Statistics for Managers (2/ed)’, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.



More intriguing information

1. Effects of a Sport Education Intervention on Students’ Motivational Responses in Physical Education
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. Handling the measurement error problem by means of panel data: Moment methods applied on firm data
6. The name is absent
7. Revisiting The Bell Curve Debate Regarding the Effects of Cognitive Ability on Wages
8. Menarchial Age of Secondary School Girls in Urban and Rural Areas of Rivers State, Nigeria
9. Skills, Partnerships and Tenancy in Sri Lankan Rice Farms
10. Using Surveys Effectively: What are Impact Surveys?
11. The Role of Land Retirement Programs for Management of Water Resources
12. Tobacco and Alcohol: Complements or Substitutes? - A Statistical Guinea Pig Approach
13. EFFICIENCY LOSS AND TRADABLE PERMITS
14. ‘Goodwill is not enough’
15. Rent Dissipation in Chartered Recreational Fishing: Inside the Black Box
16. An Empirical Analysis of the Curvature Factor of the Term Structure of Interest Rates
17. Effort and Performance in Public-Policy Contests
18. Detecting Multiple Breaks in Financial Market Volatility Dynamics
19. The name is absent
20. The name is absent