The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 151–178 | Cite as

Does Gibrat’s law for cities hold when location counts?

Original Paper


According to Gibrat’s law, the growth rates of cities are expected to be independent of their sizes. In this study, we hypothesize that growth rates do depend on population size, but that the direction of the relationship depends on location, i.e., in unfavorable loci, growth rates are positively related to size, while the relationship is reversed in favorable loci, i.e., places with several location advantages. The present study examines that possibility, using 1990–2000 population growth data for two levels of geographic resolution—4,667 local administrative units (i.e., municipalities) and 2,189 contiguous urban areas in 40 European countries. According to our findings, when individual localities are considered, ‘proportionate’ growth (expected under Gibrat’s law) emerges at the aggregate (system-wide) level, but ‘dissipates’ when the settlement system is disaggregated into two urban sub-systems, formed by well-positioned localities and poorly positioned ones. Concurrently, for urban areas, a strong positive association between population size and growth emerges both before and after controlling for location attributes. However, this association between population size and growth is not especially strong, if favorably and unfavorably located urban areas are looked at separately.

JEL Classification

O18 R11 R23 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ades AF, Glaeser EL (1995) Trade and circuses: explaining urban giants. Q J Econ 110(1): 195–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso W (1971) The economics of urban size. In: Friedman J, Alonso W (eds) Regional policy: theory and applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 334–450Google Scholar
  3. Anderson G, Ge Y (2005) The size distribution of Chinese cities. Reg Sci Urban Econ 35(6): 756–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auerbach F (1913) Das Gesetz der Bevolkerungskonzeutration. Petermanns Mitteilungen 59:74–76 (cited in Nitsch V (2005) Zipf zipped. J Urban Econ 57:86–100)Google Scholar
  5. Batty M (2006) Hierarchy in cities and city systems. In: Pumain D (eds) Hierarchy in natural and social sciences. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 143–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black D, Henderson V (2003) Urban evolution in the USA. J Econ Geogr 3: 343–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bode E (2008) Delineating metropolitan areas using land prices. J Reg Sci 48(1): 131–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinkhoff T (2007) City population database.
  9. Cheshire PC, Magrini S (2006) Population growth in European cities: weather matters—but only nationally. Reg Stud 40(1): 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark SJ, Stabler JC (1991) Gibrat’s law and the growth of Canadian cities. Urban Stud 28(4): 635–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Córdoba JC (2008) On the distribution of city sizes. J Urban Econ 63: 177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duranton G (1999) Distance, land, and proximity, economic analysis and the evolution of cities. Research Papers in Environmental and Spatial Analysis No 53. (Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics)Google Scholar
  13. Eeckhout I (2004) Gibrat’s law for all cities. Am Econ Rev 94(5): 1429–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESRI (2000) ESRI data and maps. Environmental Science Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  15. Eurostat (2008) Urban audit database—Inforegio. Accessed June 2008
  16. Eurostat (2009) Local administrative units. Accessed Dec 2009
  17. Fujita M, Tomoya M (1997) Structural stability and evolution of urban systems. Reg Sci Urban Econ 27: 399–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabaix X (1999) Zipf’s law for cities: an explanation. Q J Econ 114: 739–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallup JL, Sachs J, Mellinger A (1999) Geography and economic development. Int Reg Sci Rev 22: 179–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geonames (2007) Geonames project database (
  21. Gibrat R (1931) Les inégalités économiques: applications aux inégalités des richesses, à la concentration des entreprises, aux populations des villes, aux statistiques des familles, etc., d’une loi nouvelle, la loi de l’effet proportionnel. Paris, Recueil Sirey (Cited in: Kalecki M (1945) On the Gibrat Distribution. Econometrica 13(2):161–170 and Moeckel R (2009) Simulation of firms as a planning support system to limit urban sprawl of jobs. Plann Des 36(5):883–905)Google Scholar
  22. Glaeser EL (2005) Smart Growth: education, skilled work & the future of cold weather cities. In: John F (ed) Policy brief. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Gotway C, Young LJ (2002) Combining incompatible spatial data. J Am Stat Assoc 97(48): 632–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guérin-Pace F (1993) Deux siècles de croissance urbaine. Paris, Anthropos (Cited in: Pumain D, Moriconi-Ebrard F (1997) City size distributions and metropolization. GeoJournal 43(3):307–314)Google Scholar
  25. Henry MS, Barkley DL, Bao S (1997) The hinterland’s stake in metropolitan growth: evidence from selected southern regions. J Reg Sci 37(3): 479–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ioannides YM, Overman HG (2003) Zipf’s law for cities: an empirical examination. Reg Sci Urban Econ 33: 127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ishikawa Y, Montanari A (eds) (2004) The new geography of human mobility: inequality trends. Societa Geographica Italiana, RomeGoogle Scholar
  28. Kalecki M (1945) On the Gibrat distribution. Econometrica 13(2): 161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karlsson C, Olsson M (2006) The identification of functional regions: theory, methods, and applications. Ann Reg Sci 40(1): 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B (2007) The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ Urban 19(1): 17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minami M, ESRI (2000) Using ArcMap: GIS. Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  32. Nitsch V (2005) Zipf zipped. J Urban Econ 57: 86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Openshaw S (1984) The modifiable areal unit problem. In: Concepts and techniques in modern geography. Monograph series. Geo Books, London, pp 38–41Google Scholar
  34. Partridge M, Bollman RD, Olfert MR, Alasia A (2007) Riding the wave of urban growth in the countryside: spread, backwash, or stagnation?. Land Econ 83(2): 128–152Google Scholar
  35. Polese M, Shearmur R (2006) Growth and location of economic activity: the spatial dynamics of industries in Canada 1971–2001. Growth Change 37(3): 362–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Portnov BA, Erell E (2001) Urban clustering: the benefits and drawbacks of location. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  37. Portnov BA, Schwartz M (2008) On the relativity of urban location. Reg Stud 42(4): 605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Portnov BA, Schwartz M (2009a) Urban clusters as growth foci. J Reg Sci 49(2): 287–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Portnov BA, Schwartz M (2009b) On the importance of location package for urban growth. Urb Stud 46(8):1665–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pumain D (1982) La dynamique des villes. Economica, Paris, 231 p cited in Suarez-Villa L (1988) Metropolitan evolution, sectoral economic change, and the city size distribution. Urb Stud 25:11–20Google Scholar
  41. Pumain D, Moriconi-Ebrard F (1997) City size distributions and metropolization. GeoJournal 43(3): 307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rappaport J (2006) Moving to nice weather. Reg Sci Urb Econ 37: 375–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reed WJ (2002) On the rank-size distribution for human settlements. J Reg Sci 42(1): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robson BT (1973) Urban growth, an approach. Methuen, London, p p 268Google Scholar
  45. Rose AK (2005) Cities and countries. In: NBER working paper series working paper 11762. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Rossi-Hansberg E, Wright MLJ (2007) Urban structure and growth. Rev Econ Stud 74: 597–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salway R, Wakefield J (2005) Sources of bias in ecological studies of non-rare events. Environ Ecol Stat 12: 321–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwanen T (2002) Urban form and commuting behaviour: a cross-European perspective. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 93(3): 336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strutzer A, Frey BS (2004) Stress that doesn’t pay: the commuting paradox. Discussion Paper Series IZA DP No. 1278Google Scholar
  50. UNEP and UNESCO (2004) Millennium ecosystem assessment report. UNESCO, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Vaturi A, Portnov BA, Schwartz M (2004) Internal migration and fiscal capacity of local authorities: a case study of the Greater Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area, 1985-1997. Space Polity 8(1): 61–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vlora NR (1979) Città et territorio. Bologne: Pàtron (Cited in: Pumain, D (2000) Settlement systems in the evolution. Geogr Ann 82B(2):73–87)Google Scholar
  53. Zipf GK (1932) Selected studies of the principle of relative frequency in language. Mass, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ManagementUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyAskelon Academic CollegeAskelonIsrael

Personalised recommendations