Economic deconcentration processes in mid-sized English cities: Deconcentrated outcomes and spatially differentiated impacts

  • Ian Smith
Part of the The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 91)


The outcome of employment land policy in provincial English city-regions has been employment deconcentration, but the spatial impacts of this process of relative deconcentration have been complex. The capacity of the land-use planning system to manage the consequences of deconcentrated growth patterns is limited. The quality-of-life impacts of the changing geography of employment have been explored, using the labour market as the mechanism mediating impacts on metropolitan residents. The impacts vary spatially, with the urban fringe benefiting most and the central cities experiencing spatial polarization between those in employment and those who are not


Metropolitan governance employment geography 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bailey N, Turok I (2000) Adjustment to job loss in Britain’s major cities. Regional Studies 34(7): 631–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell W (1954) A probability model for the measurement of ecological segregation. American Sociological Review 32: 357–364Google Scholar
  3. Deas I, Giordano B (2002) Locating the competitive city in England. In: Begg I (ed) Urban competitiveness: policies for dynamic cities. Policy Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  4. Dubin R (1991) Commuting patterns and firm decentralisation. Land Econ 67(1): 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan OD, Duncan B (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indices. American Sociological Review 41: 210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garb Y, van Kamp I, Kuijpers M, Qurednícek M, Sýkora L (2004) Quality of Life Indicators. Report for Work Package 2 of the SELMA projectGoogle Scholar
  7. Garreau J (1991) Edge city: life on the new frontier. Doubleday/Anchor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaschet F (2002) The new intra-urban dynamics: suburbanisation and functional specialisation in French cities. Pap Reg Sci 81: 63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillespie A (1999) The changing employment geography of Britain. In: Breheny M (ed) The people: where will they work? Report of TCPA research into the changing geography of employment. TCPA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Giuliano G, Small KA (1993) Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban Studies 30(9): 1485–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? J Am Plann Assoc 63(1): 95–106Google Scholar
  12. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1996) Employment decentralisation in US metropolitan areas: is Los Angeles an outlier or the norm? Environ Plann A 28: 1727–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1991) The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association 57(4): 416–420Google Scholar
  14. Gottlieb PD, Lentnek B (2001) Spatial mismatch is not always a central-city problem: an analysis of commuting behaviour in Cleveland Ohio and its suburbs. Urban Studies 38(7): 1161–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Green A (1997) A question of compromise? Case study evidence on the location and mobility strategies of dual career households. Regional Studies 31(7): 641–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harding A (2005) Governance and socio-economic change in cities. In: Buck N, Gordon I, Harding A, Turok I (eds) Changing cities: rethinking urban competitiveness, cohesion and governance. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  17. Huther J, Shah A (1998) Applying a simple measure of good governance to the debate on fiscal decentralisation, Working Paper 1894, the World BankGoogle Scholar
  18. Ihlanfeldt KR (1997) Information of the spatial distribution of job opportunities within metropolitan areas. J Urban Econ 41:218–242. In: Wassmer RW (ed) (2000) Readings in urban Economics: issues and public policy. Blackwells, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamal-Chaoui L (2003) Metropolitan governance in OECD countries. A paper presented at the OECD-Busan seminar on Policy Challenges in Metropolitan Regions in Busan, Korea (July 2003)Google Scholar
  20. Kloosterman RC, Musterd S (2001) The polycentric urban region: towards a research agenda. Urban Studies 38(4): 623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunzman KR (1996) Euro-megalopolis or themepark Europe? Scenarios for European spatial development. International Planning Studies 1(2): 143–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonald JF, Prather PJ (1994) Suburban employment centres: the case of Chicago. Urban Studies 31(2): 201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Narang S 2005 Disaggregating governance indicators: why local governance is important and how it can be measured. A paper presented to the technical workshop on governance indicators, April 20-22 New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  24. The reform of metropolitan governance. OECD Observer Policy Brief, October 2000, sourced at www.oecd.orgGoogle Scholar
  25. Rice P, Venables AJ (2005) Spatial determinants of productivity analysis for the regions of Great Britain. London School of Economics working paper.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers R, Power A (2000) Cities for a small country. Faber and Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Shearmur R, Alvergne C (2002) Intra-metropolitan patterns of high-order business service location: a comparative study of seventeen sectors in Ile-de-France. Urban Studies 7: 1143–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2004) The state of the World’s cities 2004/2005: globalisation and urban culture. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Voith RA (1998) Do suburbs need cities? J Reg Sci 38(3):45–64. In: Wassmer RW (ed) (2000) Readings in urban Economics: issues and public policy. Blackwells, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Cities Research CentreUniversity of the West of EnglandUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations