City Size Distributions and Spatial Economic Change
- 1 October 1982
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in International Regional Science Review
- Vol. 7 (2) , 127-151
- https://doi.org/10.1177/016001768200700203
Abstract
The concept of the city size distribution is criticized for its lack of consideration of the effects of interurban interdependencies on the growth of cities. Theoretical justifications for the rank-size relationship have the same shortcomings, and an empirical study reveals that there is little correlation between deviations from rank-size distributions and national economic and social characteristics. Thus arguments suggesting a close correspondence between city size distributions and the level of development of a country, irrespective of intranational variations in city location and socioeconomic characteristics, seem to have little foundation.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dependency and Urban Growth: A Critical Review and Reformulation of the Concepts of Primacy and Rank-SizeEnvironment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 1981
- Rank-Size Convexity and System Integration: A View from ArchaeologyEconomic Geography, 1980
- Population Redistribution in the United States in the 1970sPopulation and Development Review, 1977
- A MODIFIED YULE-SIMON MODEL ALLOWING FOR INTERCITY MIGRATION AND ACCOUNTING FOR THE OBSERVED FORM OF THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF CITIES*Journal of Regional Science, 1973
- CITY SIZE DISTRIBUTION IN A CENTRAL PLACE HIERARCHY: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH*Journal of Regional Science, 1970
- Organization, city size distributions and central placesPapers in Regional Science, 1969
- SOME GENERALIZATIONS CONCERNING PRIMATE CITIES1Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1965
- THE RANDOM SPATIAL ECONOMY: AN EXPLORATION IN SETTLEMENT THEORYAnnals of the American Association of Geographers, 1964
- CITIES AS SYSTEMS WITHIN SYSTEMS OF CITIESPapers in Regional Science, 1964
- Great Cities of 1930 in the United States with a Comparison of New York and LondonGeographical Review, 1933