Lump-sum Moving Cost

  • Gerbert Romijn
Part of the Applied Econometrics Association Series book series (AEAS)


When one sets out to model the market for office space, one of the central variables that requires modelling is the demand for office space or the occupied stock of office space. In one of the first attempts Rosen (1984) models the occupied stock of office space as being a function of the employment level in the key service producing industries and the real rental rate. When one projects this aggregate model to the microeconomic level it implies that office space using firms change their use of office space every time their employment or the rent changes. However, we see in practice that firms only infrequently change their use of office space. To remedy this Wheaton (1987) models the net absorption (that is the change in occupied stock) as a partial-adjustment process: current absorption equals a fraction of the difference between desired office space use and lagged actual office space use. Desired office space use is again modelled as a function of office employment and the real rental rate. Additionally, Wheaton adds office employment growth to account for expectations regarding future office space needs. Hence, Wheaton accommodates the gradual change in occupied office space in two ways, the partial adjustment of net absorption and the appearance of office employment growth in desired office space use.


Drift Rate Adjustment Cost Vector Error Correction Model Office Space Wage Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bertola, G. and R.J. Caballero (1994), ‘Irreversibility and Aggregate Investment’, Review of Economic Studies, 61, 223–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchard, O.J. and S. Fischer (1989), Lectures on Macroeconomics, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Caballero, R.J. and E.M.R.A. Engel (1991), ‘Dynamic (S,$) Economies’, Econometrica, 59(6), 1659–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dixit, A.K. and R.S. Pindyck (1994), Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Harrison, J.M., T.M. Seilke and A.J. Taylor (1983), ‘Impulse Control of Brownian Motion’, Mathematics of Operations Research, 8(3), 454–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johansen, S. (1995), Likelihood-Based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Romijn, G. (1997), ‘Office Space in the Netherlands, 1974–1995’, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Series, 97–112/3.Google Scholar
  8. Romijn, G., J. Hakfoort and R. Lie (1996), ‘A Model of the Demand for Office Space per Worker’, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Series, 96–85/5.Google Scholar
  9. Rosen, K.T. (1984), ‘Toward a Model of the Office Building Sector’, AREUEA Journal, 12(3), 261–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wheaton, W.C. (1987), ‘The Cyclic of Behaviour of the National Office Market’, AREUEA Journal, 15(4), 281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Applied Econometrics Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerbert Romijn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations