IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eurpls/v28y2020i4p830-849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polycentricity at its boundaries: consistent or ambiguous?

Author

Listed:
  • Malte Möck
  • Patrick Küpper

Abstract

Polycentricity describes a certain region by the relationship of a selection of its most central spatial entities. We identify two sources of shortcomings in measures of polycentricity: the delineation of the region under study and the number of units considered within it. Both bear the risk of manufacturing polycentricity before measuring it, the first by setting borders between regions, the latter by distinguishing ‘central’ and ‘peripheral.’ Building on a literature review, which traces these challenges in debates on polycentricity, we empirically investigate their impact for two German cases. The study utilizes rank-size analysis based on employment (morphological) and commuting (functional), to assess polycentricity and compare it over cases and dimensions. By varying scales and units considered, we extend the regular scope of analysis and uncover differences strengthening an interpretation of polycentricity as an ambiguous concept. This challenges descriptions and comparisons resting on clear-cut borders and ‘center’ definitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Malte Möck & Patrick Küpper, 2020. "Polycentricity at its boundaries: consistent or ambiguous?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 830-849, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:28:y:2020:i:4:p:830-849
    DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1666802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09654313.2019.1666802
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09654313.2019.1666802?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:28:y:2020:i:4:p:830-849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEPS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.