Vanishing Cities: What Does the New Economic Geography Imply About the Efficiency of Urbanization?
How should the size and number of cities evolve optimally as population grows? Stripped of the constraints of geography itself, the setup of the New Economic Geography implies that de-agglomeration (or de- urbanization) is efficient. The number of cities increases while the size of each decreases on the optimal path until the economy suddenly disperses to tiny towns of stand-alone firms each specializing in a unique good. The cause of this narrow result is the NEG’s strong emphasis on intercity trade to satisfy the taste for more goods. For the same aggregate population, a system of smaller cities saves time lost in commuting, has a larger labor supply and makes more goods than does a system of larger cities. Falling interurban trading costs favor this de- urbanization process. Only if intraurban commuting costs fall sufficiently, can a pattern of growing city sizes be efficient with growing population. Of course, when the number of cities or the geographic space itself is limited or asymmetric, then agglomeration can arise as an artifact of the constraints imposed by geography as demonstrated by numerous NEG models. This reveals that the central agglomerative force in the NEG is space itself and not the underlying economic relations.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Paul Krugman, 1990.
"Increasing Returns and Economic Geography,"
NBER Working Papers
3275, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Edward L. Glaeser & Hedi D. Kallal & Jose A. Scheinkman & Andrei Shleifer, 1991.
"Growth in Cities,"
NBER Working Papers
3787, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Fujita, Masahisa & Krugman, Paul & Mori, Tomoya, 1999. "On the evolution of hierarchical urban systems1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 209-251, February.
- Anas, Alex & Xiong, Kai, 2003.
"Intercity trade and the industrial diversification of cities,"
Journal of Urban Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 258-276, September.
- Alex Anas & Kai Xiong, 2003. "Intercity Trade and the Industrial Diversification of Cities," Urban/Regional 0302003, EconWPA.
- Abdel-Rahman, Hesham M., 1996. "When do cities specialize in production?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-22, February.
- Henderson, J. Vernon & Ioannides, Yannis M., 1981. "Aspects of growth in a system of cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 117-139, July.
- Helsley, Robert W. & Strange, William C., 1990. "Matching and agglomeration economies in a system of cities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 189-212, September.
- Krugman, Paul & Elizondo, Raul Livas, 1996.
"Trade policy and the Third World metropolis,"
Journal of Development Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 137-150, April.
- Ronald L. Moomaw, 1981. "Productivity and City Size: A Critique of the Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 96(4), pages 675-688.
- Masahisa Fujita & Paul Krugman & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561476, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpur:0302005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.