Borrowing size in networks of cities: City size, network connectivity and metropolitan functions in Europe

Abstract

The current dynamics in the Western European urban system are in marked contrast with the bourgeoning literature stressing the importance of agglomeration for economic growth. This paper explores whether this is due to the rise of 'city network economies', leading to processes of borrowed size as well as the rise of agglomeration shadows in networks of cities. The spread of metropolitan functions over Western European cities is analysed. It is found that network connectivity positively enhances the presence of metropolitan functions, but local size remains the most significant determinant for most types of functions. The importance of size and network connectivity differs across metropolitan functions and across cities.JEL classification: R12, R11

Megalopolis unbound: Knowledge collaboration and functional polycentricity within and beyond the Yangtze River Delta Region in China, 2014

“…This last aspect also leads on to questions regarding the agglomeration economies generated by the functional polycentricity of urban networks -questions raised by Phelps and Ozawa (2003) and . A recent study by Meijers et al (2016) examined the relationship between network connectivity and metropolitan functions in Europe. In terms of knowledge function, it is natural to ask whether a city with higher network connectivity would be more productive in its reception, generation and dissemination of knowledge and if so which geographical scale matters most?…”

Urbanization and start-up rates in different geographies: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden

“…Competition for labor is steep, and wages are relatively high as well as land prices and rents. Particularly for new, small firms that do not yet know their competitive power high upfront costs can deter new firm formation in urban areas (Bosma et al 2008;Meijers et al 2016). Reflecting the negatives of agglomeration, Frenken and Boschma (2007) argue that the relationship between urbanization and innovation is not endlessly positive: a Bceiling^will be reached when the positive feedback processes are offset by negative feedback processes.…”

“…1 The overall level of urbanization is relevant as there is evidence that the effect of urbanization is not infinitely positive, and there are downsides to very high levels of urbanization (Bosma et al 2008;Meijers et al 2016). Frenken and Boschma (2007) suggest that a Bceiling^will be reached when the positive feedback processes are offset by negative feedback processes.…”

“…Originally applied to the situation where smaller cities borrow some of the urbanization benefits of their larger neighbors, it can be applied to rural-urban relationships as well. Access to the functions and networks of large cities can lead to higher average urbanization benefits in nearby areas, even though these functions are not present locally (Camagni et al 2015;Meijers and Burger 2015;Meijers et al 2016). As an illustration, Partridge et al (2007) have shown that employment growth in rural areas is higher if the rural area is within daily commuting distance from an urban center.…”

The City of Business: the Functional, the Relational-Cognitive and the Hierarchical-Distributive Approach

“…The level of net urban benefits -measured by unit land prices -depend on urban size, as expected, but also on what was called "borrowed size", i.e. the demographic size of the wider spatial context (Meijers et al, 2016), supplying a wider labour and goods markets to single cities; on the quality of the economic activities hosted, measured by the share of top functions hosted, both in the single metro areas and in the wider spatial context (that we called "borrowed functions"); and, last but not least, on the capability of joining large cooperation networks, measured by the presence of local business in EU Framework Programmes of applied research. Areas, 1995-2009Figure 2 -Average Annual GDP growth -Eurostat Metro Areas, 2008-2011 More interestingly, on the dynamic side, the growth of net urban benefits on a time span of 15 years was not found to be statistically associated at all to the initial size of the metro areas.…”