For Whom the Bells Toll

Abstract

In his presidential address to the Regional Science Association over thirty years ago, William Alonso presented the case for “Five Bell Shapes in Development” and argued that “the developed countries will enter fully in to the realm of the right-hand tail of these curves” (p. 16) and that this transition might result in several surprises. He proposed, therefore, that we should study the right tail of these “curves” as well as interactions among them. Much of what Alonso suggested has come to pass, although his prognostications were not always exact. And although he touched on several issues of relevance to regional scientists, the discipline has been slow to move away from a growth-centered paradigm. The strength of regional science—the capacity to consider economic, demographic, and geographical aspects of an issue simultaneously—has yet to be focused on some of the “right-hand” challenges that have arisen, population loss, for example. In this article, we provide a review of regional science research within the context of Alonso’s five bells and hypothesize how Alonso’s propositions might differ in today’s world. We then focus more specifically on one particular area: population loss. Using these examples allows us to highlight how regional science might contribute to the conceptualization of “right-hand tail” development challenges, especially where theory, issues of spatial scale, and interregional dependencies are concerned.

Abstentionist Voting – Between Disengagement and Protestation in Neglected Areas: A Spatial Analysis of The Paris Metropolis

“…From this point of view, it studies contextual effects in greater depth, and recent publications in regional science on the anti-establishment vote illustrate this well. The issue of regional concentration effects and interregional inequalities is also central in regional science (Rey 2018; Franklin and van Leeuwen 2018). The accumulation of wealth in certain areas and the neglect of others is a key factor in explaining why people vote for populist parties in some areas or else abstain.…”

Locating geographies of inequality: publication trends across OECD countries

“…This has led to a resurgence of interest in understanding the underlying spatial dimensions of inequality across a multitude of scales: at the regional (e.g., Lobao et al 2008;Chetty et al 2014;Breau 2015;Rey 2016;Ballas et al 2017;Moser and Schnetzer 2017), metropolitan (e.g., Essletzbichler 2015;Florida and Mellander 2016) and neighbourhood levels (Walks 2001) of analysis. While the case for paying greater attention to spatial inequality is amplified by recent trends in within-country inequalities, scholars have also argued that a regional approach based on a broader and multi-dimensional framework combining knowledge and insights from a range of different disciplines may provide a more fertile avenue of research which advances the debate beyond the confines of traditional disciplinary silos (Del Casino and Jones 2007;Lobao et al 2008;Wei 2015;Franklin and van Leeuwen 2016;Savage 2016;Turok et al 2017).…”