Abstract
It is customary to define economic geography as a discipline that deals with the uneven distribution of economic activity across space. From a historical perspective, stochastic growth models are of particular use (Simon 1955). Such models explain the current distribution of activities from the dynamics of the long historical process that has produced these patterns. This approach might also be labelled “evolutionary economic geography” (Boschma and Frenken 2006), referring to the evolutionary economics tradition, since stochastic growth models account for path dependence in which each event changes the probability of a next event to occur (Arthur 1989; David 1985).
In geography, stochastic models of urban growth have a long intellectual history. In particular, The Simon model of the Zipf's rank-size rule is still regarded as one of the canonical models of urban size distribution (Batty 2005). A shortcoming of these urban growth models is that they take spatial entities as the unit of analysis. Since spatial entities are not behavioural entities, the explanation of urban growth in such models is not grounded in the micro-behaviour of agents. What is more, the delineation of spatial entities is a notoriously difficult exercise. Organizational units are less problematic, because these are the agents of change and relatively easy, though by no means trivial, to delineate. More recently, some of the urban growth models have explicit micro-foundations, including neoclassical models (Duranton and Puga 2004) and agent-based models (Batty 2005).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Pumain (2006, p. 202): “The proportionality between resident population and inward and outward migratory flows which is derived from the multiplication of the population at the origin by the population at destination in the numerator of the model can be seen as merely an application of a random interaction process”.
- 2.
Put differently, the probability of a product division producing a new entrepreneur who sets up his or her own product division is proportional to the number of previous employees who set up an own product division, an example of preferential attachment where the probability that a node acquires a new link is proportional to the node's degree (Barabási and Albert 1999).
References
Arthur WB (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99:116–131
Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512
Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog Hum Geogr 28:31–56
Batty M (2005) Cities and complexity. Understanding cities with cellular atomata, agent-based models, and fractals MIT Press, Harvard, MA
Boschma RA (2004) The competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective. Reg Stud 38(9):1001–1014
Boschma RA (2005) Proximity and innovation. A critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74
Boschma RA, Frenken K (2006) Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. J Econ Geogr 6(3):273–302
Breschi S, Lissoni F (2003) Mobility and social networks: Localised knowledge spillovers revisited. CESPRI Working Paper 142. http://www.cespri.unibocconi.it/, forthcoming in the Annales d'Economie et de Statistique
Breschi S, Lissoni F (2006) Mobility of inventors and the geography of knowledge spillovers. New evidence on US data. CESPRI Working Paper 184. http://www.cespri.unibocconi.it/
Castells M (1996) The rise of the network society. Blackwell, Oxford
David PA (1985) The economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev (Papers and Proceedings) 75:332–337
Duranton G, Puga D (2004) Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In: Henderson JV, Thisse JF (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, 1st ed., vol 4. Elsevier: Amsterdam, pp 2063–2117
Frenken K, Boschma RA (2007) A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic geography: industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process. J Econ Geogr 7(5):635–649
Krugman PR (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99(3):483–499
Ponds R, van Oort FG, Frenken K (2007) The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Pap Reg Sci 86:423–443
Pumain D (2006) Alternative explanations of hierarchical differentiation in urban systems. In: Pumain D (ed.) Hierarchy in natural and social sciences. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 169–222
Scott AJ (2001) Global city-regions. Trends, theory, policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Simon HA (1955) On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42(3–4):425–440
Tinbergen J (1962) The world economy. Suggestions for an international economic policy. Twentieth Century Fund, New York, NY
Wilson AG (1970) Entropy in urban and regional modelling. Pion, London
Zipf G (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge MA
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Frenken, K. (2009). Proximity, Social Capital and the Simon Model of Stochastic Growth. In: Reggiani, A., Nijkamp, P. (eds) Complexity and Spatial Networks. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01554-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01554-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01553-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01554-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)