Reply to Robert W. Wassmer
Abstract
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / August 2001Nelson / REPLY TO ROBERT W. WASSMER Reply to Robert W. Wassmer Arthur C. Nelson Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Wassmer (2001 [this issue]) contributes to the debate on professional sports team loca- tion constructively through insightful review of literature. He recommends--and I concur--that future research may consider second-stage least squares regression provided the limitations he observes are overcome. Wassmer identifies an oversight in my second equation. Future work can consider this, although I suspect that results are not likely to change much. The first equation is more elegant in any event; it and associated interpretations can be considered my principal contribution. His principal reservation is that strength of the central city with respect to its metropolitan statis- tical area (MSA) was not addressed in my empirical models. He suggests that they should have included such control variables as income share, poverty rate, or unemployment rate of the central city relative to its MSA. This is problematic because central cities vary in size considerably, mostly for reasons of widely varying state annexation and consolidation laws. Consider that Atlanta is home to about 15% of the MSA's poverty households, but Indianapolis's share is about