Abstract
In this chapter, we start showing that development processes are spatially uneven. In advanced regions there are factors that lead to increasing returns: economies of specialization, economies of scale, and external economies. Opening markets might thus bring about regional divergence as a result of a cumulative inflow of mobile resources to the more advanced regions. We then observe that in lagging regions there may be, however, untapped immobile resources, and their valorization justifies place-based policies. Current profitability may be in favor of a certain spatial distribution of activities, but potential profitability may be in favor of a different distribution. The possible movements that may arise will depend on the formation of ex ante expectations. It is therefore reasonable to think that intentional actions such as place-base policies—supporting the best exploitation of untapped, immobile resources where they exist—are justified and may produce significant results. We will lastly examine whether and how realistic it is to assume that these resources are untapped, taking into account a strong objection: if resources are available, they will be spontaneously exploited in a market capitalism system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Calculation is based on data from page 338 and 339 of the World Bank’s 2009 report. Leading area is defined as the area with the highest measure of welfare per capita (income or consumption or GDP) as percentage of country’s average welfare measure. Lagging area is defined as the area with le lowest measure of welfare as percentage of country’s average welfare measure.
- 2.
Klenow (2006) divides the same ratio (24) into four multiplicative components: the employment rate of the population (1 point), physical capital per output unit (2 points), human capital (from 2 to 4), and residual tfp (from 3 to 6).
- 3.
- 4.
Increasing returns are conceived at the firm level or at the level of linked firms complex, as pointed out by Leijonhufvud (1986). It follows that the perfect competition is excluded, since firms or systems of firms with increasing returns undergo strong incentives to increase their size and consequently their market power. This, on the other hand, is what you need to have a definite geographical distribution of productive activities, which, according to the Starret’s theorem (Starrett 1978), is not possible under perfect competition if there are indivisibilities and non-zero transportation costs.
- 5.
«Indivisibilities typically imply local nonconvexities» (Romer 1990b, 3).
- 6.
«[…] “it will have been found necessary to establish an accountant’s department, with clerks to pay the workmen, and to see that they arrive at their stated times; and this department must be in communication with the agents who purchase the raw produce, and with those who sell the manufactured article” (Babbage). It will cost these clerks and accountants little more time and trouble to pay a large number of workmen than a small number; to check the accounts of large transactions, than of small. If the business doubled itself, it would probably be necessary to increase, but certainly not to double, the number either of accountants, or of buying and selling agents. […]. If an increased quantity of the particular article is not required, and part of the labourers in consequence lose their employment, the capital which maintained and employed them is also set at liberty» (Mill 1848, I.9.5, I.9.7).
- 7.
The stages were many more in Smith’s example, so the seven indicated by Babbage were probably a result of its clustering. «To take an example, […] one in which the division of labor has been very often taken notice of, the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business […] make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty. But in the way in which this business is now carried on […] it is divided into a number of branches, of which the greater part are likewise peculiar trades. One man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands. The business of making a pin is divided into about eighteen distinct operations» (Smith 1776, 3).
- 8.
In Babbage’s Table, the time for making one lb. of pins was 7.6892 h. One lb. was the weight of 5,546 pins.
- 9.
In Babbage’s Table, the time for making the individual stages of production for one lb. of pins was 1.3436 h for drawing wire, straightening wire, pointing, twisting and cutting heads; 4 h for heading, 0.1071 h for tinning or whitening, 2.3456 h for papering. In order to make simpler the representation, we assume a narrower definition of heading so that the three production stages can appear more similar in average time of execution.
- 10.
The working time was 12 h a day, as reported by Babbage.
- 11.
- 12.
Perroux clearly makes use of the concept of external economies: «[…] la situation où le profit d'une firme est fonction de son débit, de ses achats de services, du débit d'une autre firme, des achats de services d'une autre firme. Dans cette situation, les deux firmes ne sont plus reliées entre elles par le seul prix; elles le sont aussi par le débit et par les achats de services, c'est-à-dire, puisque ces éléments dépendent de la technique et de ses changements, par la technique pratiquée par les firmes et par leurs changements» (Perroux 1955, 309).
- 13.
«When the Depression struck, there was a desperate need for answers—and the answers wanted were to the question, “What do we do?” not “How did we get here?”. Faced with that question, the institutional economists couldn’t deliver; all they could offer was, well, persuasive discourse on the complex historical roots of the problem. […] what mainstream economists want is the ability to answer “what if” questions: if something were different, how would that change the economic outcomes? That’s a kind of question that’s almost by definition impossible to answer if your approach emphasizes the uniqueness of each individual case and the specifics of history» (Krugman 2010, 5–6).
- 14.
In December 1995 the third phase was launched with the Euro definition, which would enter in circulation on January 1, 2002. On January 1997, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined (EU-15). In May 1998, the European Central Bank was established. In March 2002, national currencies were no longer legal tender.
- 15.
The eleven Southern African countries are: Tanzania, Namibia, Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho, Mauritius, Swaziland and South-Africa (Petersson 2000). The eleven European are: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom. In this case, the Gini index is based on the Lorenz curve, which plots the proportion of the total manufacturing workers (y axis) that is cumulatively placed in the x % of the regions. The line placed at 45° thus represents perfect equality distribution of workers among regions. The Gini index can then be thought of as the ratio of the area that lies between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve A over the total area under the line of equality (A and B); i.e., G = A/(A + B), and G = 2A being A + B = 0,5. The Gini index can theoretically range from 0, when all the regions have the same proportion of manufacturing workers, to 1 when all the workers are in only one region.
- 16.
A Pareto non efficient distribution means that a strategy exist by which it is possible to improve one party’s situation without making another party’ situation worse. We will examine again this issue later.
- 17.
With increasing returns of scale, the optimal choice for a company would be specializing in the production of a single variety of manufactured good. The number of varieties of goods produced thus coincides with the number of companies N.
- 18.
The assumption introduces typical features of the production of goods that depends on immobile factors in a simplified context as exemplified by the agricultural production, which uses immobile land as one of its productive factors.
- 19.
L’unità d’Italia è stata e sarà—ne ho fede invitta—la nostra redenzione morale. Ma è stata, purtroppo, la nostra rovina economica. Noi eravamo, nel 1860, in floridissime condizioni per un risveglio economico sano e profittevole. L’unità ci ha perduti. E come se questo non bastasse, è provato, contrariamente all’opinione di tutti, che lo Stato italiano profonde i suoi benefici finanziari nelle province settentrionali in misura ben maggiore che nelle meridionali (Fortunato 1899, 65).
- 20.
Industry, not including construction, plus business, finance, insurance, communication and information services.
- 21.
The GVA per worker in 2002 was: club 1 €65,450; club 2 €48,180; club 3 €39,030; club 4 €31,520; club 5 €25,620; club 6 €15,590 (Bartkowska and Riedl 2012, 24).
- 22.
«We apply a four-level typology. The top group (type 1) is formed by ‘large agglomerations’, i.e., regions with an urban core of more than half a million inhabitants (in the year 2000). At the second level (type 2), we have ‘urbanised regions’ with a population in the core between 300,000 and 500,000. […]. We use the term ‘metropolitan regions’ to denote large agglomerations (type 1) and urbanized regions (type 2) as a group, and the term ‘non-metropolitan regions’ to denote intermediate regions (type 3) and rural regions (type 4) as a group» (Geppert and Stephan 2008, 199–200).
- 23.
This term indicates the discrete probability distribution in which the logarithm of the frequency of a dimension of an entity is a quadratic polynomial of the logarithm of the rank. It is said fractal with reference to the fact that the distribution of “fractal objects” (Benoit Mandelbrot) takes this form. Fractal objects have forms that repeat similar at different scales (self-similarity). Note that the Zipf distribution is also indicated as fractal linear and that the lognormal distribution is approximated by a polynomial of third degree in the logarithms of the size and rank. You could then say that the sequence for the city of decreasing size is of fractal distributions of first then of second then of third degree.
- 24.
Some data not available from Eurostat were obtained from the National Institutes of Statistics as in the case of Bulgaria and Latvia (1999–2002), Spain, Latvia, the United Kingdom (2010–2012). All data concerning the Italian cities are derived from Istat. Those for the 1999–2002 period are taken from the 2001 Census of Population. As to the following periods, they are calculated using 2001 data, rates of change in employment in the local labor systems (SSL), considering cities in the center of SSL with more than 100 thousand inhabitants in 2001, a sample of 74 Italian cities comparable to those of other countries.
- 25.
The cities in the Urban Audit database are more than 900, but for many the data for this exercise are missing.
References
Acemoglu D, Zilibotti F (1997) Was prometheus unbound by chance? Risk, diversification and growth. J Polit Econ 105(4):709–751
APO (2004) Total factor productivity growth: survey report. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo
Babbage C (1832) On the economy of machinery and manufactures. Charles Knight, Pall Mall East London
Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2001) The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs, and income similarity. J Int Econ 53:1–27
Bartkowska M, Riedl A (2012) Regional convergence clubs in Europe: identification and conditioning factors. Econ Model 29(1):22–31
Beckerman W (1962) Projecting Europe’s growth. Econ J 72(288):912–925
Berry BJL, Okulicz-Kozaryn A (2012) The city size distribution debate: resolution for US urban regions and megalopolitan areas. Cities 29(1):S17–S23
Bickenbach F, Bode E (2013) New economic geography and reunified Germany at twenty: a fruitful match? Spat Econ Anal 8(2):120–153
Blaug M (1964) A case of Emperor’s clothes: Perroux’ theories of economic domination. Kyklos 17(4):551–564
Bosker M, Brakman S, Garretsen H, Schramm M (2010) Adding geography to the new economic geography: bridging the gap between theory and empirics. J Econ Geogr 10(6):793–823
Brülhart M (1998) Economic geography, industry location and trade: the evidence. University of Manchester, mimeo for The World Economy Special Issue
Caselli F (2005) Accounting for cross-country income differences. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth. North Holland—Elsevier, Amsterdam, London, pp 679–741
Danquah M, Moral-Benito E, Ouattara B (2011) TFP growth and its determinants: nonparametrics and model averaging. Banco de Espagna Working Paper 1104
Desmet K, Fafchamps M (2005) Changes in the spatial concentration of employment across US counties: a sectoral analysis 1972–2000. J Econ Geogr 5(3):261–284
Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67:297–308
Doran J, Jordan D (2013) Decomposing European NUTS2 regional inequality from 1980 to 2009 national and European policy implications. J Econ Stud 40(1):22–38
Drèze J, Bean C (1990) Europe’s employment problem: Introduction and synthesis. CORE Discussion papers 1990041, Université Catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics
Duranton G (2006) Some foundations for Zipf’s law: product proliferation and local spillovers. Reg Sci Urban Econ 36(4):542–563
Duranton G, Puga D (2013) The growth of cities. CEPR Discussion Papers 9590
Edwards BK, Starr RM (1987) A note on indivisibilities, specialization, and economies of scale. Am Econ Rev 77(1):192–194
Eichner AS, Kregel JA (1975) An essay on Post-Keynesian Theory: a new paradigm in economics. J Econ Lit 13(4):1293–1314
Feenstra R (1998) Integration trade and disintegration of production in the global economy. J Econ Perspect 12(4):31–50
Feldman MP (2000) Location and innovation: the new economic geography of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration. In: Clark GL, Gertler MS, Feldman MP (eds) The oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford University Press, New York
Feldman MP, Audretsch D (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43:409–429
Felice E (2009) Estimating regional GDP in Italy (1871–2001): sources, methodology, and results. Universidat Carlos III Madrid, Working papers in Economic History
Fortunato G (1899) Lettera a Pasquale Villari 2 settembre 1899. In: Giustino Fortunato e Emilio Gentile, Carteggio 1865–1911. Laterza, Bari 1978, p 65
Gabaix X (1999) Zipf’s law for cities: an explanation. Q J Econ 114(3):739–767
Gabaix X, Ibragimov R (2011) Rank−1/2: a simple way to improve the OLS estimation of tail exponents. J Bus Econ Stat 29(1):24–39
Gabaix X, Ioannides YM (2004) The evolution of city size distributions. In: Henderson JV, Thisse JF (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4., Cities and geographyNorth-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 2341–2378
Gan L, Li D, Song S (2006) Is the Zipf law spurious in explaining city-size distributions? Econ Lett 92:256–262
Geppert K, Stephan A (2008) Regional disparities in the European union: convergence and agglomeration. Papers Reg Sci 87(2):193–217
Giesen K, Suedekum J (2012) The size distribution across all cities: a unifying approach. CESifo Working paper Series 3730
Isaksson A (2007) Determinants of total factor productivity: a literature review. Unido, Vienna
Iuzzolino G, Pellegrini G, Viesti G (2011) Convergence among Italian regions 1861–2011. Banca d’Italia Economic History Working Papers 22
Kaldor N (1934) The equilibrium of the firm. Econ J 44(173):60–76
Kaminsky G, Schmukler S (2002) Short-run pain, long-run gain: the effects of financial liberalization. World Bank Working paper 2912
Klenow P (2006) Income differences across countries. Society of economic dynamics conference, 6 July 2006, Vancouver, Canada
Krugman P (1991) Geography and trade. MIT Press, Cambridge
Krugman P (2010) The new economic geography, now middle-aged. Paper prepared for presentation to the Association of American Geographers, April 16, pp 1–19
Istat (2012) L’Italia in 150 anni. Sommario di statistiche storiche 1861–2010. Roma
Leijonhufvud A (1986) Capitalism and the factory system. In: Langlois RN (ed) Economic as a process: essays in the new institutional economics. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 203–223
Malevergne Y, Pisarenko V, Sornette D (2009) Gibrat’s law for cities: uniformly most powerful unbiased test of the Pareto against the lognormal. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 09/2009
Marshall A (1890) Principles of economics. An introductory volume. MacMillan, London
Martin R (1999) The new ‘geographical turn’ in economics: Some critical reflections. Camb J Econ 23(1):65–91
Mayer-Foulkes D (2002) Global divergence. Center for Research and Teaching of Economics (CIDE)—Division of Economics, Mexico
Maynou L, Saez M, Bacaria J, Lopez-Casasnovas G (2014) Health inequalities in the European union: an empirical analysis of the dynamics of regional differences. Eur J Health Econ Line
Meardon SJ (2001) Modelling agglomeration and dispersion in city and country—Gunnar Myrdal, Francois Perroux and the new economic geography. Am J Econ Sociol 60(1):25–57
Mill JS (1848) Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy, 7th edn. (1909). Longmans, Green and Co, London
Miura T (2005) What has the division of labour brought? A lesson from Charles Babbage. Fukuoka Univ Rev Commercial Sci 50(2–3):119–141
Moriconi-Ebrard F (1993) L’urbanisation du Monde depuis 1950. Editions Anthropos, Paris
Nelson R, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
OECD (2010) Factbook 2010: economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. OECD, Paris
Olinto P, Saavedra J (2012) An overview of global income inequality trends. World Bank Inequality Focus 1(1):1–11
Ottaviano GIP, Thisse J-F (2002) Integration, agglomeration and the political economics of factor mobility. J Public Econ 83:429–456
Parr JB (1999a) Growth-pole strategies in regional economic planning: a retrospective view part 1. Origins and advocacy. Urban Stud 36(7):1195–1215
Parr JB (1999b) Growth-pole strategies in regional economic planning: a retrospective view part 2. Implementation and outcome. Urban Stud 36(8):1247–1268
Perroux F (1955) Note sur la notion de pôle de croissance. Economique Appliquée 7:20–307
Petersson L (2000) The theory of new economic geography and industrial location in SADC. Paper presented at the XXIX annual conference of the Australian Society of Economists
Phillips PC, Sul D (2007) Transition modelling and econometric convergence tests. Econometrica 75(6):1771–1855
Pumain D (2004) Scaling laws and urban systems. Sfi Working paper 2004-02-002, Santa Fe Institute
Quandt RE (1964) Statistical discrimination among alternative hypotheses and some economic regularities. J Reg Sci 5:1–23
Quinn D, Schindler M, Toyoda AM (2011) Assessing measures of financial openness and integration. IMF Econ Rev 59(3):488–522
Rapoport A (1978) Rank-size relations. In: Kruskal H, Tanur JM (eds) International encyclopedia of statistics, vol 2. Free Press, New York, pp 847–854
Romer PM (1990a) Endogenous technological-change. J Polit Econ 98(5):S71–S102
Romer PM (1990b) Are nonconvexities important for understanding growth? Working paper 3271, NBER working paper series
Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University Press, New York
Rozenfeld HD, Rybski D, Gabaix X, Makse HA (2011) The area and population of cities: new insights from a different perspective on cities. Am Econ Rev 101(5):2205–2225
Rybski D, Garcìa Cantù Ros A, Kropp JP (2013) Distance weighted city growth. Phys Rev. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.87.042114
Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Strahan W, Cadell T, London
Starrett D (1978) Market allocations of location choice in a model with free mobility. J Econ Theory 17:21–37
Urzua CM (2000) A simple and efficient test for Zipf’s law. Econ Lett 66:257–260
Venables AJ (1996) Equilibrium locations of vertically linked industries. Int Econ Rev 37:341–359
Veneri P (2013) On city size distribution: evidence from OECD functional urban areas. OECD regional development working papers 2013/27, OECD Publishing
Von Hippel E (1994) “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manage Sci 40(4):429–439
Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. The Free Press, New York
Young AA (1928) Increasing returns and economic progress. Econ J 38(152):527–542
Zipf GK (1949–2012) Human behavior and the principle of least effort: an introduction to human ecology. Reprint of 1949 edition, Martino Publishing, Manfield CT
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Size and Growth of European Cities
Appendix: Size and Growth of European Cities
2.1.1 Introduction
The number of cities in a given territory is always in an inverse geometrical progression of their size (for instance, there are about 23,000 urban agglomerations larger than 10,000 inhabitants in the world, 2,000 are larger than 100,000 inhabitants and about 200 above 1 million, after Moriconi-Ebrard 1993). This persistent scaling behaviour has been questioned for more than one century, giving rise to a large variety of interpretations. (Pumain 2004, 1).
The essay by the German physicist, Felix Auerbach (Das Gesetz der Bevölkerungskonzentration), published a century ago, is always cited. He observed that the probability of finding a city larger than x was inversely proportional to x. This kind of distribution is found in many natural and social processes, but Auerbach was the first to apply it to the urban concentration of population. The American linguist George Kingsley Zipf, who discovered the same distribution in word frequency, evidenced this: «The first person to my knowledge to note the rectilinear distribution of communities in a country was Felix Auerbach in 1913» (Zipf 1949–2012, 374). The term rectilinear refers to the fact that, taking cities in order of decreasing size, the second city tends to have half of the population compared to the first, the third one-third, the fourth one-fourth and so on. In this way, the logarithms of rank as a function of the logarithms of size, follow a straight line with an angular coefficient equal to minus one.
The studies on this subject have never ceased, and thanks to the wider availability of new statistics, they have become numerous in the late 1990s. There are many tests today that show the applicability of this distribution, or its variants. There are also different interpretative proposals concerning the mechanisms that may lie behind it, as shown in the Berry and Okulicz-Kozaryn (2012) review.
As to Zipf’s distribution applicability to different contexts and different samples of cities, a specific problem has always hindered the easiest exercise, which could be the regression of the rank logarithm to the size logarithm, in order to verify whether the estimated coefficient is significantly different from −1. The reason is fairly obvious, underlined a long time ago (Quandt 1964; Rapoport 1978) and mentioned on several occasions (Gabaix and Ioannides 2004; Gan et al. 2006). The variable rank is not the result of independent observations but it is obtained by ordering variable size. It is endogenous. Estimates are therefore biased and inconsistent. This was tested by using Monte Carlo simulations. With generated random numbers and applied econometric rank-size estimates, there are significant results in favor of Zipf-type distribution, while this should not happen for construction (Ganet al. 2006, 259, 262). The problem is serious and the different solutions offered (including the remarkable one Gabaix and Ibragimov (2011) proposed), confirmed Urzua’s judgment (2000, p. 260): «strictly speaking, Zipf’s law cannot hold except for a certain sample size». Generally, after a great deal of theoretical-methodological and empirical work, a substantial consensus emerges (Malevergne et al. 2009) on expected distributions. For large samples of cities, we can expect (even in different contexts like the U.S., Europe, and emerging countries) a lognormal distribution in the range of medium-small cities. A Zipf distribution should prevail among large cities. A parabolic fractalFootnote 23 distribution is expected in the middle (see also Giesen and Suedekum 2012; Rybski et al. 2013). To illustrate the distinctive features of these distributions, Figure 2.13 (based on an artificial sample of 2,000 cases) shows the percentage deviations, with respect to the linear Zipf, of the logarithms of the lognormal and parabolic fractal distribution size.
The lognormal distribution presents deviations from Zipf’s, which take the shape of a heightened bell displaced to the left, while the deviations of the parabolic fractal are lower.
A second problematic aspect concerns the definition of a city. It seems now undisputed (Rozenfeld et al. 2011; Veneri 2013) that the results of the analysis concerning the shapes of the distributions also depend on the criteria adopted to identify what a city is. It often emerges that the indicated rank-size rule is best applied to urban realities defined by substantive criteria rather than administrative boundaries. It is therefore appropriate to consider temporal data over not too long periods relying on statistical data based on administrative boundaries. In this way, it is at least possible to conjecture a constant error.
Finally, concerning the mechanisms that can lead to these distributions, Gabaix (1999) and Malevergne et al. (2009) showed that they may be the result of the long term growth rates, independent of size (Gibrat law).
In the following section, we will introduce an exercise on data concerning 352 European cities. We will see that the conjecture concerning distribution forms is verified, indicating that in the past city growth rates were independent of size. We will then see that in recent times the growth rates, by contrast, appear to increase—in a nonlinear manner—in relation to size. This requires a specific interpretation which we will attempt to provide.
2.1.2 Data
The explanations for city growth usually evoke mechanisms that affect productivity (and hence the degree of utilization of resources, in an open economy): economies and diseconomies of scale, human capital, innovation, public goods. It seems therefore appropriate to consider employment, rather than population. Employment size and growth are more immediately linked to productivity and its effects on the use of resources. Eurostat (with additionsFootnote 24) provides, for a total of 352 European cities,Footnote 25 the average employment levels for the periods 1999–2002, 2003–2006, 2010–2012. The city sample (determined by the availability of data but fairly representative also of medium-small size cities) appears as shown in Table 2.6. From the same source, we have data on area size and population, and we can calculate the population density relative to 2012. Finally, with Google Maps, we have, obtained distances (in minutes of travel by car) between the towns of various countries and their capitals. Size, growth, density, distances are, in fact, considered essential in the recent debate on the analysis of urban area evolution.
2.1.3 The Exercise
Let us consider first (Fig. 2.14) the differences between the logarithms of the actual city size and those that would occur applying a Zipf distribution (taking Gabaix-Ibragimov’s correction).
As expected, the distribution is lognormal with transition to the parabolic fractal starting at about 100,000 employees, while the tail of large cities drops rapidly to zero indicating that, in this range, size distribution becomes Zipf-type. From 1999–2002 to 2010–2012, the shift of distribution to the right and down is evident. This displacement will be in part a statistical result, owing to the fact that the sample of 352 cities is constant. New cities do not enter in this sample in the period considered, producing an increase in average size. We cannot exclude, however, that this may also depend on a change of the relative weight structure, regardless of this statistic effect. In fact, there is evidence for this when we consider frequency by size groups. The percentage frequency of the cities with less than 40,000 employed people decreases (from 18 to 15 %). However, the percentage frequency of the cities between 40,000 and 250,000 employees does not increase and stays at 69 %, while the share of the largest cities increases from 13 to 16 %. There is confirmation and explanation for this change considering ratios between 2010–2012 and 1999–2002 cumulative employment (Fig. 2.15).
Figure 2.15 shows that cities in the size class 40–250,000 employed (logarithms from 4.6 to 5.4) had the lowest gains comparing the actual data with a linear interpolation. Smaller cities had higher increases and large cities even more so. The interpolating line indicates employment growth of individual cities regularly increasing with the size-related logarithm. If we make a comparison considering constant growth rates independent of size (R line), however, the transition between the upper and lower growth is around the city size of 100,000 employees.
Summing up: (1) The relationship between growth and size in the ten-year period considered deviates from Gibrat’s law, which probably operated in the long run in the past. (2) One part of the cities grows less and one part more than a constant growth rate; the dividing threshold is around the size of 100,000 employed. (3) A recent positive correlation between growth and size is not linear and the cities that are growing relatively less are those between 40 and 250,000 employed.
These results, however, may arise from a spurious correlation between size and growth. Employment could have increased more, independently of city size, in countries where the sample share of small and large cities is greater. While we cannot completely exclude this possible distortion using the available data, we can limit it considering the growth rates of cities net of countries’ growth rate and other possible effects. An equation is therefore estimated and the results are shown in Table 2.7.
Some country dummies were significant, indicating city employment growth rates larger than the overall nationwide growth (in Belgium, France and Italy), and smaller instead in Hungary and Spain. Distance from the capital and population density (in logarithms) are significantly negative, while positive distance divided by the maximum distance is not very significant. The negative effect of population density probably depends on congestion costs, intended in the broadest sense, which detract from the benefits of agglomeration. The negative effects of distance from the capital, while positive in terms of relative distance, are more difficult to interpret. Distance probably captures an adverse effect, related to the physical size of the country, as the cities grow more in small countries. Relative distance, however, captures a positive effect as the net result of conflicting mechanisms, with the prevalence of dispersion over concentration. The non-linear trend of the relative rates of growth of employment in relation to the size of the city seems to be confirmed. The estimated value of dimensional dummy coefficients, in the range of 40–250,000 employed, is the smallest. The coefficient is greater in the range of 30–40,000, and over 250,000. The standard estimate errors, however, are high enough to make these differences not very significant. Nevertheless, the significance of the non-linear trend is clear considering the residuals. We computed, for size ranges, averages of residue growth rates after removing effects of variables not related to the size: country dummies, population density, and distance. We obtained the following residues which measure cities’ annual relative growth rates. These residues depend on the size of the cities, on other unknown variables, and on a random component. They are: 1.6 % (30–40,000 employed), 1.5 % (from 40 to 250,000), 2.0 % (from 250 to 400,000), 2.3 % (over 400,000). Finally, we compared actual data and simulated data by means of these residues as ratios of cumulative employment in 2010–2012 and 1999–2002. The non-linearity in the relation between growth and size is now less strong but not canceled. The growth of large cities is also reduced. An increasing relationship between growth and size of cities remains however (Fig. 2.16).
2.1.4 Suggested Interpretation
The exercise shows that, during the last 10 years in Europe, medium-sized cities appear to have grown less than in the past, while larger and, to a lesser extent, smaller cities have grown relatively more. It is not easy to give an interpretation for this intervened non-linear relation between size and growth.
The Acemoglu and Zilibotti’s growth model (1997) suggests considering it a possible result of an increase in uncertainty, which in fact appears to have taken place, fueled by intensified international competition. In Fig. 2.17, we represent unemployment rates as moving averages of three four-month terms from 1970 to 2013. Since the beginning of the 1990s unemployment has not only remained high (having progressively increased since the 1970s), but it has also become more unstable.
The Acemoglu and Zilibotti model seems suitable to explain how this increased instability and uncertainty might have penalized growth in medium-sized cities. The microfounded model contains several assumptions, the most important of which are the following three: (1) Savings are used by agents to make investments, which are classified into two types: risky investments with greater expected earnings, and safe investments with lower returns. (2) Different projects madepossible by risky investments are imperfectly correlated so that agents have the possibility of reducing the risk through portfolio diversification. (3) The allocation problem is not trivial (it would be so if all agents could invest in all projects by diversifying most of the risks) as there is a minimum investment threshold for each project which gives rise to a trade-off between expected returns and risk insurance.
The authors suggest applying the model to national economies. The reason is that the considered economic system must have boundaries. However, the model can also be applied to a city if it is admitted that the city constitutes a system with limits. This does not exclude the city having large external relations. It implies that the considered possibilities for agents to act for potential projects are internal. An external wider system of relations may exist, but we assume that the system is constant while internal activities change.
Figure 2.18 shows the dynamics of accumulation of productive capital in the city under uncertainty conditions (standardized variables).
G(Kt + 1) and B(K + 1) indicate the stock of capital at time t + 1 in the case of “good news” and “bad news”, respectively. At initial accumulation level (small town) the ease of finding small-scale, not too risky projects allows growth in every case, with both good and bad luck. The two curves are both, in fact, to the left of the bisector. However, as the process goes on, in the case of bad news, growth stops (in the figure to the level Kt = Kt + 1 = 0.11). It remains positive in the case of good news. Therefore, the system may remain, for the initial phase of its growth at least, subject to a condition oscillating between stop and go. Such a condition would be overcome and growth could restart without interruption over a certain threshold (in the figure above Kt = Kt +1 = 0.23), when the curve indicates that the effect of bad luck goes to zero and when the G curve is always to the left of the bisector.
This result, for a given risk aversion [which determines the saddle shape of the curve G(Kt +1)] depends on the difference between the returns on risky projects and safe projects. Reducing this parameter by half, we obtain Fig. 2.19, where circumstances are very different.
Now a condition exists (Kt between 0.29 and 0.37) in which there is no growth, as the curve G(Kt + 1) is not on the left of the bisector. Here the city is fairly big and take-off difficulties have already been surmounted. These difficulties of medium-size cities are born because of a low yield spread between safe and risky assets owing to an increase of all risks resulting from the increased instability and uncertainty. In a medium-size city, this lower return differential does not find a balance in risk distribution, while in larger cities it is guaranteed by a broad diversification of assets. In a medium-size city, furthermore, lower return differential is not offset by the lower cost of the projects as in the case of small cities.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seravalli, G. (2015). The Spatial Perspective. In: An Introduction to Place-Based Development Economics and Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15377-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15377-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15376-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15377-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)