Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 411–433 | Cite as

Core–periphery dynamics in the Portland, Oregon, region: 1982–2006

  • Paul LewinEmail author
  • Bruce Weber
  • David Holland
Original Paper

Abstract

The relative strength of positive and negative spillovers of urban development is a long-standing and contested issue in regional and development economics, and the search for spread and backwash effects of development in urban core economies goes back at least 50 years. Using data from IMPLAN and the Bureau of Economic Analysis to develop multiregional input–output models, we developed estimates of core–periphery economic interdependence (sales and purchases of goods and services and commuting of workers between the core and the periphery) of the Portland, Oregon, region for 1982 and 2006. We explored whether the changing flows of sales and purchases, spillovers and commuting between 1982 and 2006 suggested a dominance of spread effects or backwash effects. We found increased commuting between periphery and core, decreased core–periphery transactions, and smaller core-to-periphery spillovers and periphery-to-core spillovers in both goods and services. Our findings do not point to a clear dominance of spread or backwash effects. Results showing smaller core-to-periphery and periphery-to-core multipliers/spillovers suggest that spread effects related to trade in goods and services weakened between 1982 and 2006. Our findings of increased commuting are consistent with enhanced spread effects in labor markets.

JEL Classification

R11 R12 R15 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the really significant contributions to this paper of our colleague Bruce Sorte at Oregon State University who was deeply involved in the construction of the multiregional input–output model and provided constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. The paper also benefited greatly from the comments of two anonymous reviewers who challenged us to think more deeply about the conceptual framework of our study and to improve the clarity of exposition. None of them share responsibility for any shortcomings of the current paper. Support for the research was provided by the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Project ORE 817.

References

  1. Barkley DL, Henry MS, Bao S (1996) Identifying “spread” versus “backwash” effects in regional economic areas: a density function approach. Land Econ 72(3):336–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry BJ, Garrison WL (1958a) Recent development in central place theory. Proc Reg Sci Assoc 4:107–121Google Scholar
  3. Berry BJ, Garrison WL (1958b) A note on central place theory and the range of a good. Econ Geogr 34(4):304–3011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christaller W (1966) Central places in Southern Germany (C. W. Baskin, transl.). Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. Dabson B, Jensen JM, Okagaki A, Blair AP, Carroll MM (2012) Case studies of wealth creation and rural-urban connections. Rural Futures Lab, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Deller SC, Harris TR (1993) Estimation of minimum market thresholds for rural commercial sectors using stochastic frontier estimators. Reg Sci Perspect 23:3–17Google Scholar
  7. Gaile GL (1980) The spread-backwash concept. Reg Stud 14(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henderson JW, Kelly TM, Taylor BA (2000) The estimation of agglomeration economies on estimation demand thresholds: an extension of Wensley and Stabler. J Reg Sci 40(4):719–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Henry MS, Schmitt B, Barkley DL, Bao S (1999) Extending Carlino–Mills models to examine urban size and growth impacts on proximate rural areas. Growth Change 30:524–5423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hibbard M, Seltzer E, Weber B, Emshoff B (eds) (2011) Toward one Oregon: rural-urban interdependence and the evolution of a state. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirschman AO (1958) The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland D, Pernique F (2000) Some procedures for estimating goods and service trade between regions using trade data from IMPLAN. Agricultural Economics Staff Paper A.E. 2000–3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  14. Holland D, Wyeth P (1993) SAM multipliers: their decomposition, interpretation and relationship to input-output multipliers. Research Bulletin XB, (1027) College of Agriculture and Home Economics. Washington State Univeresity, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  15. Holland D, Weber B, Waters E (1992) Modeling the economic linkage between core and periphery regions: the Portland Oregon trade area. Working Paper No. 92-103, (August 1992) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland D, Weber B, Waters E (1993) How Interdependent are Rural and Urban Areas? Staff Paper No. 93-6, (March 1993) Department of Agricultural Economics. Washington State University, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  17. Holland D, Lewin P, Sorte B, Weber B (2009) How economically interdependent is the Portland metro core with its rural periphery? A comparison across two decades. Working Paper RSP 09–01, (February 2009) Rural Studies Program. Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  18. Holland D, Lewin P, Sorte B, Weber B (2011) The declining economic interdependence of the Portland metropolitan core and its periphery. In: Hibbard M, Seltzer E, Weber B, Emshoff B (eds) Chapter 5 in toward one Oregon: rural-urban interdependence and the evolution of a state. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes DW, Holland DW (1994) Core–periphery economic linkage: a measure of spread and possible backwash effects for the Washington Economy. Land Econ 70(3):364–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khan R, Orazem PF, Otto DM (2001) Deriving empirical definitions of spatial labor markets: the roles of competing versus complementary growth. J Reg Sci 41:735–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leontief W, Ford D (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52:262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller R, Blair P (1985) Input–output analysis, foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulligan GF, Partridge MD, Carruthers JI (2012) Central place theory and its reemergence in regional science. Ann Reg Sci 48:405–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myrdal G (1957) Economic theory and under-developed regions. Gerald Duckworth and Co Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Olsson G (1966) Central place systems, spatial interaction and stochastic processes. Proc Reg Sci Assoc 18:18–45Google Scholar
  26. Parr JB (1973) Growth poles, regional development, and central place theory. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 31:173–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parr JB (1987) Interaction in an urban system: aspects of trade and commuting. Econ Geogr 63:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parr JB, Denike KG (1970) Theoretical problems in central place analysis. Econ Geogr 46(4):568–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Partridge MD, 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
  30. Partridge MD, Rickman DS, Ali K, Olfert MR (2008) Lost in space: population dynamics in the America hinterlands and small cities. J Econ Geogr 8(6):727–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Partridge MD, Ali K, Olfert MR (2010) Rural-to-urban commuting: three degrees of integration. Growth Change 41(2):303–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polèse M, Shearmur R (2006) Why some regions will decline: a Canadian case study with thoughts on local development strategies. Pap Reg Sci 45:23–46Google Scholar
  33. Renkow M (2003) Employment growth, worker mobility, and rural economic development. Am J Agric Econ 85(2):503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Renkow M, Hoover D (2000) Commuting, migration, and rural-urban population dynamics. J Reg Sci 40(2):261–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson HW (1976) Growth pole spillover: the dynamics of backwash and spread. Reg Stud 5:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richardson HW (1979) Regional economics. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaffer R, Deller S, Marcouiller D (2004) Community economics linking theory and practice, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  38. Shepard ID, Thomas CJ (1980) Urban consumer behavior. In: Dawson JA (ed) Retail geography. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Shonkwiler JS, Harris TR (1996) Rural retail business thresholds and interdependencies. J Reg Sci 36: 617–630Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1980) 1980 Census of population journey to work STF4 documentation, Supplement 1 Tabulation P-B34. Place of Work Destinations. U.S, Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division (1975) The BEA economic areas: structural changes and growth, 1950–73. Surv Curr Bus 55(11): 14–25. U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (1988) Local area personal income 1981–86, vol 5: Southwest, Rocky Mountain and Far West regions, and Alaska and Hawaii. U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (2006) Regional economics accounts, personal income and employment summary. http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable+CA04
  44. Wensley MR, Stabler JC (1998) Demand threshold estimation for business activities in rural Saskatchewan. J Reg Sci 35:155–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural SociologyUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Rural Studies Program Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.School of Economic SciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations