Abstract
In this paper, the stylized assumption that one single “optimal” city size exists for all cities—achieved when marginal location costs equal marginal location benefits—is abandoned, as well as the opposite view that each city operates on its own cost and production curves, defining a specific optimal size. Instead, this work maintains the comparability among cities and demonstrates that urban specificities in functions performed, quality of life, industrial diversity and social conflicts shift up and down the benefits and costs linked to pure physical size, leading to different “equilibrium” sizes for cities. In order to achieve this result, a model of equilibrium urban size is set up, based on urban costs and urban benefits, merging elements suggested both by the traditional urban economics literature as well as by updated approaches considering also environmental quality, urban form and inter-urban cooperation networks. The model is then estimated on a sample of 59 European cities with data at FUA level. Empirical results allow the identification of city-specific “equilibrium” sizes. The error term, that is, the difference between actual urban population and the “equilibrium” one predicted by the model can be explained, beyond a measure of our ignorance, by good or bad governance, thereby suggesting future strategies for more efficient urban planning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The optimal city size theory tackles the issue of optimal urban dimensions in terms of population; this is also the approach followed in this paper.
Advocating a multiplicity of specialized cities, each with its own production function (as in Henderson 1974, 1985) looks as a rather ad hoc solution inside this kind of abstract models. On the other hand, showing urban heterogeneity as a consequence of a casual identity of urban production and cost functions, with increasing returns (as in Fujita and Krugman 1995, p. 163), or as a consequence of the choice of different wage rates by different developers/managers of new towns, instead of the normal national wage rate (as in Fujita and Krugman 1995, p. 166), means relying on strange, casual cases rather than on theoretically relevant conditions. Introducing a consistent mix of urban externalities, quality public goods and rankings of services and functions into a modelling paradigm based substantially on the accessibility principle represent still a widely open theoretical challenge.
Alonso stressed the mistaken tendency of many authors to look for “optimal city size” only by minimizing the location cost function. As he argued, this would be sensible only if output per capita was constant (Alonso 1971, pp. 70).
Data presented by Alonso were previously analysed by Douglas (1967).
A doubt remains though with these results: in larger cities, higher per capita expenses may be due to a higher willingness to pay for public services than to diseconomies of scale. Moreover, the difference in per capita income between large and small cities exceeds the difference in average costs; therefore, if an optimal dimension exists, this is characterized more by productivity than by average costs.
On the concept of urban milieu, see Camagni (1991). For empirical evidence on the existence of “urban milieu effects”, see Capello (2001).
Richardson (1972) suggests replacing the concept of optimal city size with an efficient interval of urban size in which urban marginal benefits are greater than marginal location costs.
The two cities will differ, though, in dynamic terms: the one belonging to the lower rank (R1) will not grow further, having reached the maximum size of its interval, while the other one having developed the higher functions (linked to rank 2) will grow, due to the presence of new and wide net urban benefits (profits).
The controversial issue concerning the capability of a pure market mechanism to lead to an optimal allocation of population in cities—evident in the stylized theoretical model of urban land-use but not confirmed by more complex formulations with externalities and public goods (Henderson 1985, p. 262; Fujita 1989, p. 284)— is not crucial for the model presented here.
A similar result in a different theoretical context was achieved by Fujita (1989, p. 151) treating “the open city model with absentee landowners” inside the land-use equilibrium theory. Assuming two cities with two communities maximizing their utilities, with similar productivity curves but, in one case, a superior level of amenities, the model proves that the city with amenities, being more attractive, reaches a higher equilibrium size (which is also optimal). This result shows convergence between our approach and the one of the New Urban Economics.
Capital cities in the EU27 countries are 22, as Brussels, Dublin, Valletta, Nicosia, and Luxembourg are excluded from the sample because of missing values.
“The LUZ approximate as much as possible the functional urban region taking into account the commuting of the work force into the core city. The LUZ are built as follows:
1. The building blocks for the LUZ are the Local Area Units (i.e. communes). However, not always data are available for the LAUs, and in some cases, NUTS level 3 regions were used as building blocks.
2. The commuting rate is calculated as the share of the out commuters of the working population. The commuting rate threshold for including or excluding areas of the hinterland in the LUZ is set between 10 and 20 %.
3. Criteria of spatial contiguity helped in adjusting the definition of the LUZ, although some exception was made.
The definition of the LUZ is then adjusted taking into account the requirement of spatial contiguity. Moreover, it should be underlined that the boundaries of all LUZ were developed in close cooperation with national experts of the country concerned. This approach assures that realistic choices were made, paying attention to the view of experts who know the city in question very well” (EUROSTAT 2010).
See “Appendix 2” for more details.
Country fixed effects have also been used, although these results are not presented in this paper. They strongly confirm the main message of the paper, without, however, adding much insight into the main relations between independent and dependent variables.
The EVS is a comprehensive survey on Europeans and their beliefs about broad life categories, including trust, religion, politics and society. Citizens have been asked, respectively, “Would you agree that most people can be trusted?”, Do you spend some [spare] time in voluntary organizations?”, “Is politics important in your life?”, “Would you justify cheating on taxes?”, “Have you ever signed a petition for political action?” and “How do you react to a major change in life?”. For more information on data collection methods, see www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu.
In particular, for the latter variable, the answers were used to the questions “Is casual sex justifiable?”, “Do you think that a woman has to have children in order to be fulfilled or is this not necessary?” and “If a woman wants to have a child as a single parent but she does not want to have a stable relationship with a man, do you approve or disapprove?”. On the other hand, trust is measured as the percentage of people replying that they highly trust connationals.
Raw data are available at http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2003.jsp.
Stadtluft macht frei, as predicted by a mediaeval saying.
References
Akçomak IS, ter Weel B (2012) The impact of social capital on crime: evidence from the Netherlands. Reg Sci Urb Econ 42(1–2), 323–340
Alonso W (1960) A theory of the urban land market. Pap Proc Reg Sci Assoc 6:149–157
Alonso W (1971) The economics of urban size. Pap Proc Reg Sci Assoc 26:67–83
Anderson R, Crocker T (1971) Air pollution and residential property values. Urban Stud 8:171–180
Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56
Baum CF, Schaffer ME, Stillman S (2003) Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing. Boston College Economics working paper no. 667
Becker G (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76(2):169–217
Beckmann M, McPherson JC (1970) City size distribution in a central place hierarchy: an alternative approach. J Reg Sci 10:25–33
Beeson P (1992) Agglomeration economies and productivity growth. In: Mills E, McDonald F (eds) Sources of metropolitan growth. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, pp 19–35
Berger M, Blomquist G, Waldner W (1987) A revealed-preference ranking of quality of life for metropolitan areas. Soc Sci Q 68:761–778
Blomqvist G, Berger M, Hoehn J (1988) New estimates of the quality of life in urban areas. Am Econ Rev 78(1):89–107
Breheny M (1992) Sustainable development and urban form: an introduction. In: Breheny M, Owens S (eds) Sustainable development and urban form. Pion, London
Burnell J, Galster G (1992) Quality-of-life measurements and urban size: an empirical note. Urban Stud 29(5):727–735
Camagni R (1991) Local milieu, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a dynamic theory of economic space. In: Camagni R (ed) Innovation networks: spatial perspectives. Belhaven-Pinter, London, pp 121–144
Camagni R (1993) From city hierarchy to city networks: reflection about an emerging paradigm. In: Lakshmanan T, Nijkamp P (eds) Structure and change in the space economy: festschrifts in honour of Martin Beckmann. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 66–87
Camagni R (1998) Sustainable urban development: definition and reasons for a research programme. Int J Environ Pollut 1:6–26
Camagni R (1999) The city as a milieu: applying the GREMI approach to urban evolution. Rev Econ Reg Urbaine 3:591–606
Camagni R (2001) The economic role and spatial contradictions of global city-regions: the functional, cognitive and evolutionary context. In: Scott AJ (ed) Global city-regions: trends, theory, policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 96–118
Camagni R (2011) Principi di economia urbana e territoriale. Carocci, Rome
Camagni R, Capello R (2004) The city network paradigm: theory and empirical evidence. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P (eds) Urban dynamics and growth: advances in urban economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 495–532
Camagni R, Diappi L, Leonardi G (1986) Urban growth and decline in a hierarchical system: a supply-oriented dynamic approach. Reg Sci Urban Econ 16(1):145–160
Camagni R, Gibelli MC, Rigamonti P (2002) Urban mobility and urban form: the social and environmental costs of different patterns of urban expansion. Ecol Econ 40(2):199–216
Capello R (1998a) Economies d’echelle et taille urbaine: théorie et études empiriques révisités. Rev Econ Reg Urbaine 1:43–62
Capello R (1998b) Urban return to scale and environmental resources: an estimate of environmental externalities in an urban production function. Int J Environ Pollut 10(1):28–46
Capello R (2001) Urban innovation and collective learning: theory and evidence from five metropolitan cities in Europe. In: Fischer MM, Froehlich J (eds) Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 181–208
Capello R (2009) Indivisibilities, synergy and proximity: the need for an integrated approach to agglomeration economies. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 100(2):145–159
Capello R, Camagni R (2000) Beyond optimal city size: an evaluation of alternative urban growth patterns. Urban Stud 37(9):1479–1496
Capello R, Rietveld P (1998) The concept of network synergy in economic theory: policy implications. In: Button K, Nijkamp P, Priemus H (eds) Transport networks in Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 57–83
Carlino G (1980) Contrast in agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh reconsidered. Urban Stud 17:343–351
Carlino J, Saiz A (2008) Beautiful city: leisure amenities and urban growth Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia working paper SSRN-1280157
Cheshire P, Magrini S (2006) Population growth in European cities: weather matters-but only nationally. Reg Stud 40(1):23–37
Chesnais F (1988) Technical co-operation agreements between firms, STI review 4. OECD, Paris
Chinitz B (1961) Contrast in agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh. Am Econ Rev Pap 51:279–289
Christaller W (1933) Die zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland. Gustav Fischer, Jena
Ciccone A, Hall RE (1996) Productivity and the density of economic activity. Am Econ Rev 86(1):54–70
Clark C (1945) The economic functions of a city in relation to its size. Econometrica 13(2):97–113
Clark D, Cosgrave J (1991) Amenities versus labour market opportunities: choosing the optimal distance to move. J Reg Sci 31:311–328
Clark D, Kahn J (1988) The social benefits of urban cultural amenities. J Reg Sci 28:363–377
Clark D, Kahn J (1989) The two stage hedonic wage approach: a methodology for the valuation of environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 16:106–120
Conway H, Liston L (1981) The good life index Atlanta. Conway Publications, GA
Cragg JG, Donald SG (1993) Testing identifiability and specification in instrumental variables models. Econ Theory 9(2):222–240
Cropper M (1981) The value of urban amenities. J Reg Sci 21:359–374
Douglas R (1967) Selected indices of industrial characteristics for US: metropolitan statistical areas, 1963. Discussion paper no. 20, Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia
Duncan O (1956) The optimum size of cities. In: Spengler JE, Ducan O (eds) Demographic analysis. Free Press, New York
Duranton G, Puga D (2001) Nursery cities: Urban diversity, process innovation and the life-cycle of product. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1454–1477
Duranton G, Puga D (2005) From sectoral to functional urban specialisation. J Urban Econ 57(2): 343–370
European Environment Agency (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge. EEA report 10, Copenhagen
EUROSTAT (2004) Urban audit-methodological handbook. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
EUROSTAT (2010) Urban audit metadata. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/urb_esms.htm. Retrieved on Oct 14, 2011
Faggian A, McCann P (2009) Human capital, graduate migration and innovation in British regions. Camb J Econ 33(2):317–333
FOCI (2010) Future orientation of cities, final report available at http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/FOCI/FOCI_final_report_20110111.pdf
Freeman MA III (1971) Air pollution and property values: a metodological comment. Rev Econ Stat 53(4):415–416
Fujita M (1989) Urban economic theory: land use and city size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fujita M, Krugman P (1995) When is the economy moncentric? von Thünen and Chamberlin unifed. Reg Sci Urban Econ 25(4):505–528
Gabaix X (1999) Zipf’s law for cities: an explanation. Qu J Econ 114(3):739–767
Getz M, Huang Y (1978) Consumer revealed preference for environmental goods. Rev Econ Stat 60:449–458
Glaeser EL, Kahn ME (2004) Sprawl and urban growth. In: Henderson JV, Thisse J-F (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, cities and geography, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2481–2527
Glaeser EL, Mare DC (2001) Cities and skills. J Labor Econ 19(2):316–342
Glaeser EL, Sacerdote B (1999) Why is there more crime in cities? J Polit Econ 107(6):S225–S258
Glaeser EL, Kallal H, Scheinkman JA, Shleifer A (1992) Growth in cities. J Polit Econ 100(6):1126–1156
Henderson J (1974) The sizes and types of cities. Am Econ Rev 64:640–656
Henderson J (1982) Evaluating consumer amenities and interregional welfare differences. J Urban Econ 11:32–59
Henderson J (1985) Economic theory and the cities. Academic Press, Orlando
Henderson J (1996) Ways to think about urban concentration: neoclassical urban systems vs. the new economic geography. Int Reg Sci Rev 19(1–2):31–36
Herzog H, Schlottmann A (1993) Valuing amenities and disamenities of urban scale: can bigger be better? J Reg Sci 33(2):145–165
Hirsch WZ (1968) The supply of urban public services. In: Perloff H, Wingo L (eds) Issues in urban economics. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore
Izraeli O (1987) The effect of environmental attributes on earnings and housing values across SMSAs. J Urban Econ 22:361–376
Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York
Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Random House, New York
Jeanty P, Partridge M, Irwin E (2010) Estimation of a spatial simultaneous equation model of population migration and housing price dynamics. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40:343–352
Kawashima T (1975) Urban agglomeration economies in manufacturing industries. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 34(1):157–172
Ladd H (1992) Population growth, density and the costs of providing public services. Urban Stud 29(2): 237–295
Liu B (1976) Quality of life indicators in US metropolitan. Areas Praeger, New York
Lösch A (1954) The economics of location. Yale University Press, Yale
Marelli E (1981) Optimal city size, the productivity of cities and urban production functions. Sistemi Urbani 1(2):149–163
Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. Macmillan, London. Retrieved on Oct 12, 2009 on the website of the Library of Economics and Liberty: http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marPCover.html
Martin P, Mayer T, Mayneris F (2011) Spatial concentration and plant-level productivity in France. J Urban Econ 69(2):182–195
McCann P, Acs ZJ (2011) Globalization: countries, cities and multinationals. Reg Stud 45(1):17–32
Mera K (1973) On the urban agglomeration and economic efficiency. Econ Dev Cult Change 21:309–324
Moomaw R (1983) Is population scale worthless surrogate for business agglomeration economies? Reg Sci Urban Econ 13:525–545
Muth R (1969) Cities and housing. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Owens S (1992) Energy, environmental sustainability and land use planning. In: Breheny M, Owens S (eds) Sustainable development and urban form. Pion, London
Partridge MD (2010) The duelling models: NEG vs amenity migration in explaining US engines of growth. Pap Reg Sci 89(3):513–536
Partridge M, Rickman D, Ali K, Olfert M (2009) Agglomeration spillovers and wage and housing cost gradients across the urban hierarchy. J Int Econ 78(1):126–140
Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. Doubleday & Co, New York
Rappaport J (2004) Why are population flows so persistent. J Urban Econ 56(3):554–580
Rappaport J (2007) Moving to nice weather. Reg Sci Urban Econ 37(3):375–398
Richardson H (1972) Optimality in city size, systems of cities and urban policy: a sceptic’s view. Urban Stud 9(1):29–47
Richardson H (1978) Regional and urban economics. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
Ridker RG, Henning JA (1967) The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution. Rev Econ Stat 49(2):246–257
Roback J (1982) Wages, rents, and the quality of life. J Polit Econ 90(6):1257–1278
Roback J (1988) Wages, rents and amenities: differences among workers and regions. Econ Inq 26:23–41
Rosen S (1979) Wage-based indices of urban quality of life. In: Mieszkowski P, Straszheim M (eds) Current issues in urban economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 74–104
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, cities and geography, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2119–2171
Rousseaux M-P (1995) Y a-t-il une surproductivité de l’l̂le de France? In: Savy M, Veltz P (eds) Économie globale et Réinvention du Local. DATAR / éditions de l’aube, Paris, pp 157–167
Rousseaux M-P, Proud’homme R (1992) Les bénéfis de la concentration parisienne. L’Oeil-Iaurif, Paris
Sassen S (ed) (2002) Global networks, linked cities. Routledge, New York (NY)
Segal D (1976) Are there returns to scale in city size? Rev Econ Stat 58:339–350
Shefer D (1973) Localization economies in SMSA’S: a production function analysis. J Reg Sci 13:55–64
Sveikauskas L, Gowdy J, Funk M (1988) Urban productivity: city size or industry size. J Reg Sci 28(2): 185–202
Sveikauskas L (1975) The productivity of cities. Q J Econ 89(3):393–413
Syverson C (2011) What determines productivity? J Econ Lit 49(2):326–365
Uzawa H (1962) Production functions with constant elasticities of substitution. Rev Econ Stud 29(4): 291–299
Wilkinson RK (1973) House prices and measurement of externalities. The Econ J 83(329):72–86
Zipf GK (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Boston
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A first version of this article has been conceived within the ESPON POLYCE project, coordinated by the Vienna Technical University, under the supervision of Prof. Rudolf Giffinger.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Camagni, R., Capello, R. & Caragliu, A. One or infinite optimal city sizes? In search of an equilibrium size for cities. Ann Reg Sci 51, 309–341 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-012-0548-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-012-0548-7