Spatial Structure and Productivity in US Metropolitan Areas

Abstract

Recent concepts as megaregions and polycentric urban regions emphasize that external economies are not confined to a single urban core, but shared among a collection of close-by and linked cities. However, empirical analyses of agglomeration and agglomeration externalities so-far neglects the multicentric spatial organization of agglomeration and the possibility of 'sharing' or 'borrowing' of size between cities. This paper takes up this empirical challenge by analyzing how different spatial structures, in particular the monocentricity -polycentricity dimension, affect the economic performance of U.S. metropolitan areas. OLS and 2SLS models explaining labor productivity show that spatial structure matters. Polycentricity is associated with higher labor productivity. This appears to justify suggestions that, compared to relatively monocentric metropolitan areas, agglomeration diseconomies remain relatively limited in the more polycentric metropolitan areas, while agglomeration externalities are indeed to some extent shared among the cities in such an area. However, it was also found that a network of geographically proximate smaller cities cannot provide a substitute for the urbanization externalities of a single large city. Free AbstractRecent concepts as megaregions and polycentric urban regions emphasize that external economies are not confined to a single urban core, but shared among a collection of close-by and linked cities. However, empirical analyses of agglomeration and agglomeration externalities so-far neglects the multicentric spatial organization of agglomeration and the possibility of 'sharing' or 'borrowing' of size between cities. This paper takes up this empirical challenge by analyzing how different spatial structures, in particular the monocentricity -polycentricity dimension, affect the economic performance of U.S. metropolitan areas. OLS and 2SLS models explaining labor productivity show that spatial structure matters. Polycentricity is associated with higher labor productivity. This appears to justify suggestions that, compared to relatively monocentric metropolitan areas, agglomeration diseconomies remain relatively limited in the more polycentric metropolitan areas, while agglomeration externalities are indeed to some extent shared among the cities in such an area. However, it was also found that a network of geographically proximate smaller cities cannot provide a substitute for the urbanization externalities of a single large city.

Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size’

“…Perhaps polycentric metropolitan areas (areas where borrowed size would be especially likely to occur) are characterised by a special balance between agglomeration benefits and costs. Meijers and Burger (2010) show that in the U.S. urban system this balance is better in polycentric metropolitan areas than in those areas dominated by a large city. Interestingly, some scholars have suggested that agglomeration costs are confined more to the city boundaries than the spatial range of agglomeration benefits (Parr, 2002).…”

An Empirical Study on the Relationship between Urban Spatial Form and CO2 in Chinese Cities

“…Some cities have a monocentric spatial distribution, and some are polycentric in distribution, therefore, the spatial form is different [10]. Although urban spatial form varies, most researchers divide urban spatial form into two types: scattered spatial form and polycentric spatial form [11,12].…”

Assessing the Functional Polycentricity of the Mega-City-Region of Central Belgium Based on Advanced Producer Service Transaction Links

“…Developing more suitable measurements of functional integration of MCRs is not only relevant on its own terms (MEIJERS, 2008), but also because research on polycentric development serves as the input to broader research questions altogether. MEIJERS and BURGER (2010), for instance, have shown how different spatial structures -and in particular the monocentricity /polycentricity dimension -affect the economic performance of metropolitan areas. Here we focus on the three above-mentioned issues, and tackle these by (i) introducing an alternative approach to measure polycentricity based on actual transaction link data, (ii) developing an alternative method to calculate the FPI, and (iii) extending the conceptualization of functional polycentricity by introducing a formal model to test the degree of urban network integration.…”