Advertisement

Metropolitan Labor Productivity and Urban Spatial Structure

A Comparison of U.S. Monocentric and Polycentric Metropolitan Areas
  • Evert J. MeijersEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

This paper questions the extent to which agglomeration economies can develop in a cluster of close-by cities, so-called polycentric metropolitan areas or polycentric urban regions (PURs). Theory suggests that agglomeration economies are nowadays increasingly associated with more dispersed spatial structures. Are polycentric metropolitan areas, despite their polycentric spatial layout, able to reap the advantages of urban size to a similar extent as monocentric metropolitan areas? By means of a novel method, the most monocentric metropolitan areas (a MSA or CSA dominated by a single city) and most polycentric metropolitan areas (MSAs or CSAs in which population is rather evenly distributed over their constituent cities) in the USA are identified. Polycentric metropolitan areas are furthermore divided into conurbations and polycentric metropolitan areas proper, which is based on the question of whether the cities in a polycentric metropolitan area are part of a contiguous urban area (conurbation) or not. Labor productivity serves as a proxy for agglomeration economies. Using 2006 data, strong evidence was found for metropolitan labor productivity, and hence agglomeration economies, being higher in polycentric metropolitan areas compared to monocentric ones. Referring to Alonso, this means that in polycentric metropolitan areas, cities are able to ‘borrow size’ from each other. The findings suggest that the location of a city nearby other relatively similar-sized cities results in a ‘borrowed size’ effect of 11 % in polycentric metropolitan areas. This borrowed size effects suggests that polycentric metropolitan areas on average outperform monocentric, single cities, controlling for the size of the urban population, urban density, human capital and the structure of the metropolitan economy. A similar result is found when explaining mean annual wages, with an elasticity of polycentricity of 5.7 %. Polycentric conurbations resemble monocentric metropolitan areas more than polycentric metro areas. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that while many sectors of economic activity have a stronger presence in monocentric metropolitan areas, productivity in many sectors tends to be higher in polycentric metropolitan areas. One explanation is that the spatial range of agglomeration advantages has been regionalized, while agglomeration diseconomies remain relatively more limited to the local level.

Keywords

Metropolitan labor productivity Urban spatial structure Polycentricity 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The paper has benefited from comments received during the workshop on ‘Metropolitan Regions: Preconditions and Strategies for Growth and Development in the Global Economy’, held in April 2008 in Linköping, Sweden, as well as from valuable comments by Martijn Burger and Erik Louw. The usual disclaimer applies. Financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Albrechts L (1998) The Flemish diamond: precious gem and virgin area. Eur Plann Stud 6:411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrechts L (2001) How to proceed from image and discourse to action: as applied to the Flemish diamond. Urban Stud 38:733–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alonso W (1973) Urban zero population growth. Daedalus 109:191–206Google Scholar
  4. Anas A, Arnott R, Small KA (1998) Urban spatial structure. J Econ Lit 36:1426–1464Google Scholar
  5. Bailey N, Turok I (2001) Central Scotland as a polycentric urban region: useful planning concept or chimera? Urban Stud 38:697–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batten DF (1995) Network cities: creative urban agglomerations for the twenty-first century. Urban Stud 32:313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boix R, Trullén J (2007) Knowledge, networks of cities and growth in regional urban systems. Pap Reg Sci 86:551–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brakman S, Garretsen H, Gorter J, van der Horst A, Schramm M (2005) New economic geography, empirics, and regional policy. Special publication 56. Centraal Planbureau, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  9. Brueckner JK, Thisse J-F, Zenou Y (1999) Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor? An amenity-based theory. Eur Econ Rev 43:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton I (1963) A restatement of the dispersed city hypothesis. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 63:285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camagni R (1993) From city hierarchy to city networks: reflections about an emerging paradigm. In: Lakshmanan TR, Nijkamp P (eds) Structure and change in the space economy: festschrift in honour of Martin Beckmann. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 66–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capello R (2000) The city network paradigm: measuring urban network externalities. Urban Stud 37:1925–1945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Capello R, Camagni R (2000) Beyond optimal city size: an evaluation of alternative urban growth patterns. Urban Stud 37:1479–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carbonell A, Yaro RD (2005) American spatial development and the new megalopolis. Land Lines: Newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 17(2):1–4Google Scholar
  15. Catin M (1995) Economies d’agglomération. Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine 4:1–20Google Scholar
  16. CEC, Commission of the European Communities (1999) European spatial development perspective: towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the EU. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  17. Champion AG (2001) A changing demographic regime and evolving polycentric urban regions: consequences for the size composition and distribution of city populations. Urban Stud 38: 657–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheshire P (1999) Trends in sizes and structures of urban areas. In: Cheshire P, Mills ES (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 3. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 1339–1372Google Scholar
  19. Ciccone A (2002) Agglomeration effects in Europe. Eur Econ Rev 46:213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ciccone A, Hall RE (1996) Productivity and the density of economic activity. Am Econ Rev 86: 54–70Google Scholar
  21. Davoudi S (2003) Polycentricity in European spatial planning: from an analytical tool to a normative agenda. Eur Plann Stud 11:979–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dieleman FM, Faludi A (1998) Polynucleated metropolitan regions in Northwest Europe: theme of the special issue. Eur Plann Stud 6:365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IGEAT (Institut de Gestion de l’Environnement et d’Aménagement du Territoire, ULB) et al (2007) ESPON 1.4.3 Study on urban functions, project report. ULB/ESPON monitoring committee, Brussels/Luxembourg. See www.espon.eu
  24. Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class; and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community & everyday life. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Florida R, Gulden T, Mellander C (2008) The rise of the mega-region. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 1:459–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fujii T, Hartshorn TA (1995) The changing metropolitan structure of Atlanta Georgia: locations of functions and regional structure in a multinucleated urban area. Urban Geogr 16:680–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Funderburg RG, Boarnet MG (2008) Agglomeration potential: the spatial scale of industry linkages in the Southern California economy. Growth Change 39:24–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garreau J (1991) Edge city: life on the new frontier. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Glaeser EL (1998) Are cities dying? J Econ Perspect 12:139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glaeser EL, Kahn ME (2001) Decentralized employment and the transformation of the American city. Working paper 8117, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  31. Glaeser E, Kolko J, Saiz A (2001) Consumer city. J Econ Geogr 1:27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1996) Beyond polycentricity: the dispersed metropolis, Los Angeles, 1970–1990. J Am Plann Assoc 62:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gottlieb PD (1995) Residential amenities firm location and economic development. Urban Stud 32:1413–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gottmann J (1961) Megalopolis, the urbanized northeastern seaboard of the United States. The Twentieth Century Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Graham DJ (2005) Wide economic benefits of transport improvements: link between agglomeration and productivity. Imperial College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Green N (2007) Functional polycentricity: a formal definition in terms of social network analysis. Urban Stud 44:2077–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism. Geogr Ann 71B:3–17Google Scholar
  38. Henderson V (1997) Medium size cities. Reg Sci Urban Econ 27:583–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holcomb B (1994) City make-overs: marketing the post-industrial city. In: Gold JR, Ward SV (eds) Place promotion: the use of publicity and marketing to sell towns and regions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 115–131Google Scholar
  40. Hoover E, Vernon R (1959) Anatomy of a metropolis. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  41. Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Johansson B, Quigley JM (2004) Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. Pap Reg Sci 83:165–176Google Scholar
  43. Kawashima T (1975) Urban agglomeration economies in manufacturing industries. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 34:157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kennedy PE (1981) Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Am Econ Rev 71:801Google Scholar
  45. Kloosterman RC, Lambregts B (2001) Clustering of economic activities in polycentric urban regions: the case of the Randstad. Urban Stud 38:717–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kloosterman RC, Musterd S (2001) The polycentric urban region: towards a research agenda. Urban Stud 38:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lambooy JG (1998a) Polynucleation and economic development: the Randstad. Eur Plann Stud 6:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lambooy JG (2004) Geschakelde metropolen en de tussengebieden. Essay t.b.v. VROM-raad advies 043: Nederlandse steden in internationaal perspectief: profileren en verbinden. See www.vromraad.nl
  49. Lambregts L, Zonneveld W (2004) From Randstad to Deltametropolis: changing attitudes towards the scattered metropolis. Eur Plann Stud 12:299–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lang RE (2003) Edgeless cities: exploring the elusive metropolis. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Lang RE, Dhavale D (2005) America’s megalopolitan areas. Land Lines: Newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 17(3):1–4Google Scholar
  52. Larsen K (2005) Cities to come: Clarence Stein’s postwar regionalism. J Plann Hist 4:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee B (2007) “Edge” or “Edgeless” cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000. J Reg Sci 47:479–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee B, Gordon P (2007) Urban spatial structure and economic growth in US metropolitan areas. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Newport BeachGoogle Scholar
  55. Malecki EJ (2004) Jockeying for position: what it means and why it matters to regional development policy when places compete. Reg Stud 38:1101–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meijers E (2005) Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts? Urban Stud 42(4):765–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meijers E (2007a) Clones or complements? The division of labour between the main cities of the Randstad, the Flemish diamond and the RheinRuhr area. Reg Stud 41:889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meijers E (2007b) From central place to network model: theory and evidence of a paradigm change. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 98:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meijers E (2008a) Summing small cities does not make a large city: polycentric urban regions and the provision of cultural, leisure and sports amenities. Urban Stud 45(11):2323–2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meijers E (2008b) Measuring polycentricity and its promises. Eur Plann Stud 16(9):1313–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meijers E, Romein A (2003) Realizing potential: building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. Eur Urban Reg Stud 10:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meijers E, Sandberg K (2008) Reducing regional disparities by means of polycentric development: panacea or placebo? Scienze Regionali Italian J Reg Sci 7(2):71–96Google Scholar
  63. Meijers E, Hoekstra J, Aguado R (2008) Strategic planning for city networks: the emergence of a Basque global city? Int Plann Stud 13(3):239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moulaert F, Djellal F (1995) Information technology consultancy firms: economies of agglomeration from a wide-area perspective. Urban Stud 32:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mueller B (2001) Urban networks and polycentric spatial development in Europe – the case of Germany. EUREG 9:40–46Google Scholar
  66. Nordregio et al (2004) ESPON 1.1.1: potentials for polycentric development in Europe, project report. Nordregio/ESPON Monitoring Committee, Stockholm/LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  67. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2006) Competitive cities in the global economy, OECD territorial reviews. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  68. Parr JB (2002a) Agglomeration economies: ambiguities and confusions. Environ Plann A 34:717–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Parr JB (2002b) Missing elements in the analysis of agglomeration economies. Int Reg Sci Rev 25: 151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Parr JB (2004) The polycentric urban region: a closer inspection. Reg Stud 38:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Phelps NA (1992) External economies, agglomeration and flexible production. Trans Inst Brit Geogr NS 17:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Phelps NA, Fallon RJ, Williams CL (2001) Small firms, borrowed size and the urban–rural shift. Reg Stud 35:613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Phelps NA, Ozawa T (2003) Contrasts in agglomeration: proto-industrial, industrial and post-industrial forms compared. Prog Human Geogr 27:583–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Priemus H (1994) Planning the Randstad: between economic growth and sustainability. Urban Stud 31:509–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Quigley JM (1998) Urban diversity and economic growth. J Econ Perspect 12:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Richardson HW (1995) Economies and diseconomies of agglomeration. In: Giersch H (ed) Urban agglomeration and economic growth. Springer, Berlin, pp 123–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rosenthal SS, Strange WC (2004) Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In: Henderson JV, Thisse J-F (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4, Cities and geography. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2119–2171Google Scholar
  79. Scott AJ (1998) Regions and the world economy: the coming shape of global production, competition, and political order. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  80. Strange W (2005) Urban agglomeration. Forthcoming in Durlauf S, Blume L (eds) New Palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd edn). Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. Turok I, Bailey N (2004) The theory of polynuclear urban regions and its application to central Scotland. Eur Plann Stud 12:371–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. van Oort FG (2004) Urban growth and innovation, spatially bounded externalities in the Netherlands. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OTB Research Institute for the Built EnvironmentDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations