Regional Studies

ISSN: 0034-3404 (Print) 1360-0591 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and

Regional Urban Systems

John B. Parr

To cite this article: John B. Parr (2014) The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and Regional
Urban Systems, Regional Studies, 48:12, 1926-1938, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2013.799759

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799759

Published online: 18 Jun 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1314

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 21 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cres20
Regional Studies, 2014
Vol. 48, No. 12, 1926–1938, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799759

The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and

Regional Urban Systems
JOHN B. PARR
School of Social and Political Sciences (Urban Studies), University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.
Email: John.Parr@glasgow.ac.uk

(Received July 2011: in revised form March 2013)

PARR J. B. The regional economy, spatial structure and regional urban systems, Regional Studies. In approaching the concept of the
regional urban system, attention is initially drawn to the better-known types of economic region. The distinctive nature of the
regional economy is next examined, and it is argued that its spatial structure represents an important dimension. Spatial structure
can be characterized in a variety of ways, the most comprehensive of which employs the perspective of an urban system. This is
examined firstly in terms of particular models from location theory, which provide important points of reference, and then within
the setting of the present-day city-region.

Regions Regional economy Spatial structure Regional urban systems

PARR J. B. 区域经济、空间结构与区域城市系统，区域研究。本文在着手处理区域城市系统的概念时，首先将关注较
为人所熟知的经济区域类型，接着将检视区域经济的特殊性，并主张其空间结构表现出一个重要的面向。空间结构
的特徵可依各种不同的方式描绘之，其中最为广泛的方式便是运用城市系统的视角。此将首先以区位理论中的特定
模型检视之，该理论提供了重要的参照依据，再者将置放在当今城市—区域的脉络中检视之。

区域 区域经济 空间结构 区域城市系统

PARR J. B. L’économie régionale, la structure spatiale, et les systèmes urbano-régionaux, Regional Studies. Pour aborder la notion de
système urbano-régional, on porte une attention particulière dans un premier temps aux typologies de région plus connues. Il
s’ensuit un examen des particularités de l’économie régionale, et on affirme que sa structure spatiale constitue un facteur
important. On peut caractériser la structure spatiale de différentes manières, dont la plus exhaustive est du point de vue d’un
système urbain. On l’examine primo à partir des modèles particuliers puisés dans la théorie de la localisation, qui fournissent
d’importants points de repère, et secundo dans le cadre de la cité-région d’aujourd’hui.

Régions Économie régionale Ossature spatiale Systèmes urbano-régionaux

PARR J. B. Regionalwirtschaft, Raumstruktur und regionale Stadtsysteme, Regional Studies. In dieser Untersuchung des Konzepts
des regionalen Stadtsystems richtet sich der Augenmerk zunächst auf die bekannteren Typen der Wirtschaftsregion. Anschließend
werden die charakteristischen Merkmale der Regionalwirtschaft untersucht, und es wird die These aufgestellt, dass es sich bei ihrer
Raumstruktur um eine wichtige Dimension handelt. Die Raumstruktur lässt sich auf vielfältige Weise charakterisieren; bei der
umfassendsten dieser Methoden kommt die Perspektive eines Stadtsystems zum Einsatz. Diese wird zunächst mit Hilfe
bestimmter Modelle der Standorttheorie untersucht, die wichtige Anhaltspunkte bieten, und anschließend innerhalb der
Umgebung der heutigen Stadtregion.

Regionen Regionalwirtschaft Raumstruktur Regionale Stadtsysteme

PARR J. B. Economía regional, estructura espacial y sistemas urbanos regionales, Regional Studies. Al analizar el concepto del sistema
urbano regional, prestamos atención a los tipos más conocidos de la región económica. A continuación se examina la naturaleza
distintiva de la economía regional y se postula que su estructura espacial representa una dimensión importante. La estructura espacial
puede caracterizarse de varias formas, y la más completa de ellas emplea la perspectiva de un sistema urbano. Esto se analiza en
términos de modelos específicos de la teoría de la ubicación que ofrecen puntos de referencia importantes y luego en el
entorno de la región metropolitana de hoy día.

Regiones Economía regional Estructura espacial Sistemas urbanos regionales

JEL classifications: R, R1, R12

© 2013 Regional Studies Association

http://www.regionalstudies.org
 The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and Regional Urban Systems
INTRODUCTION
The intention of the following discussion is to consider
some of the more important aspects of the urban system
within the context of a regional economy. There can be
no question that the regional urban system occupies a
prominent position within market economies, in
much the same manner that the metropolitan area
came to play a comparable role during the course of
the nineteenth century. The comments to follow are
based on four interrelated propositions, which collec-
tively form the background motivation for this examin-
ation of regional urban systems.
First, despite the upsurge of interest in the region
within the social sciences over recent decades
(STORPER , 1995), the concept of the region remains
shrouded in uncertainty, with opinion sharply divided.
Some view the concept of the region as an inherently
vague one that defies precise definition (WREN ,
2009). Others (probably representing the majority
view) embrace the concept as a flexible and therefore
convenient spatial scale that lends itself to a wide
variety of interpretations and applications, not recogniz-
ing perhaps that this very flexibility may be a source of
imprecision. Second, the regional economy represents
a particular scale of economic organization. It is not to
be seen simply as an element of a disaggregated national
economy: the region contains an internal spatial struc-
ture of varying complexity, which is influenced by the
course of economic and social change, but which may
also exert an influence over such change. The nature
of the regional economy can only be fully appreciated
if there is adequate scrutiny of its spatial dimension.
Third, in understanding the significance of regional
spatial structure, the urban system is an especially appro-
priate perspective, since it is able to incorporate a
number of different approaches. In this connection
much is to be gained from visiting or revisiting those
branches of location theory concerned with urban
systems. To a large extent such frameworks tend to be
overlooked, probably because these are thought to
have little relevance in a world that has undergone
rapid economic and technological change during the
last sixty years. Fourth, the urban-system view of
spatial structure takes on a particular significance in the
case of the city-region, an increasingly important
feature of the national space economy. Although city-
regions display a diversity of forms, both within the indi-
vidual nation and among nations, striking commonal-
ities are revealed when city-regions are seen through
the prism of the urban system.
In the following discussion the perspective adopted
will be largely of an economic character. As a conse-
quence, important aspects of a political, sociological
and institutional nature are not emphasized. Each is suf-
ficiently substantial as to merit separate treatment, and
under ideal circumstances these various strands would
be drawn together. Such a synthesis has yet to emerge,
1927
however; the disciplinary tradition dies hard! In order
to simplify the argument, the major concern will be
with conditions in nations of the economically devel-
oped world, and the weaknesses of such a restriction
are acknowledged. The discussion proceeds as follows.
After briefly surveying several forms of economic
region, attention is drawn to the regional economy
and the importance of spatial structure in its operation
and development. The nature of the urban system is
next examined, with the initial focus on particular
location-theory frameworks. These provide a platform
for examining conditions within the city-region, a
major feature of the contemporary economic landscape.
THE ECONOMIC REGION
The notion of the economic region is a relatively new
one. It came to be used during the 1920s in the
United States within the fields of agricultural economics
and economic geography, where agricultural regions,
crop cultivation regions and manufacturing regions rep-
resented early examples. More refined definitions sub-
sequently appeared.
A preliminary classification
A useful starting point in any discussion of modern-day
economic regions is the tripartite classification proposed
by MEYER (1963). He argued that for the purpose of
economic analysis the following typology was useful:
homogeneous (or uniform) regions; nodal regions; and
programming (that is, policy-related) regions. The
homogeneous region probably comes closest to the
popular view of an economic region as a space through-
out which there is a similarity of economic character-
istics, and which by implication is distinguishable from
other regions. The regions proposed by OHLIN (1933)
and by NORTH (1955) fall into this category (PARR ,
2008).
The nodal region, by contrast, is based on the internal
structure of its economy. Reduced to its essentials, the
nodal region is composed of two components: the
core or node and the hinterland. The core may rep-
resent a service centre or point of supply for the hinter-
land, which would comprise its market area.
Alternatively and/or additionally, the core can be seen
as a point of demand on the part of households or
firms for goods and services produced in the hinterland
which would function as its supply area. In both cases,
however, the core and the hinterland may contain
economic activities that are primarily related to areas
beyond the region. A general characteristic of the
nodal region is the pronounced interdependence
(direct and indirect) between the core and the hinter-
land (HOOVER and FISHER , 1949), not simply with
respect to trade, but also in terms of income levels,
capital movements, migration, commuting, etc.1
1928 John B. Parr
MEYER ’s (1963) third type of region – the policy
region – represents a space over which an official body
exercises a jurisdiction in the implementation of a par-
ticular policy. While this could represent an existing
political or administrative unit, it might also be a
special-purpose region such as the area of operation of
the Appalachia Regional Commission in the United
States. This tripartite classification of regions is a
common one, and most academic discussions of the
region are concerned with one of the three types.
There is a degree of overlap between the three types
of region, as Meyer clearly recognized. For example,
the policy region could be based on a homogeneous
region or a nodal region.
Other regional types
The Meyer classification is incomplete, however,
and mention is made of two other regional types. One
is the region based on a watershed or river basin
(KRUTILLA and ECKSTEIN , 1958). There is a case for
regarding this as a homogeneous region, to the extent
that there may be a dominant pattern of agricultural
land uses. On the other hand, the river has been
regarded as a barrier to interaction, often forming the
basis for a political or administrative boundary.
However, because of such trends as rail and road
communications replacing waterways, and resource
development declining in relative importance, regions
based on river basins have tended to lose much of
their significance in the organization of space.
Another regional type not fitting comfortably within
the Meyer classification is the ‘polycentric urban region’
(PUR) (DAVOUDI , 2003; MEIJERS et al., 2003). This has
also been referred to as the ‘dispersed city’ (BURTON ,
1963) and ‘network city’ (BATTEN , 1994). Examples
include the Ruhr District of Germany, Randstad in the
Netherlands, and the Research Triangle (Raleigh,
Durham, Chapel Hill) of North Carolina in the United
States. As originally proposed, the PUR represented an
area containing a cluster of urban centres, none of
which had a pronounced dominance over the others,
and each of which had one or more specializations,
usually giving rise to a well-developed pattern of inter-
action among the centres.2 Relevant here was the
concept of ‘borrowed size’, by which smaller urban
centres would be able to benefit from their proximity
to a larger centre (ALONSO , 1973). Note that the pres-
ence of clustered urban centres is a necessary, though
not a sufficient, condition for the existence of a PUR.
Again, there is a case for regarding the PUR as a homo-
geneous region, largely on the grounds of its over-
whelming urban character, but this characterization
would fail to capture certain key facets of such a
region. An important aspect of the PUR is the extent
to which it is integrated, both morphologically and func-
tionally, a question recently explored in the case of
Randstad by BURGER and MEIJERS (2012). These two
forms of integration are not specific to the PUR, and
may be applied to other types of economic region.
Variation in scale and hierarchical structure
It will be apparent that each of the regional types dis-
cussed above may display a considerable variation in ter-
ritorial extent or relative scale, so that a given regional
type may be seen as occupying a particular position
along a continuum. To emphasize this point, consider
the case of the nodal region. Toward the lower end of
the continuum there exists the ‘functional urban
region’ (FUR) (KARLSSON and OLSSEN , 2006),
which is often used in labour-market analysis. As with
all nodal regions, the FUR has a core–hinterland struc-
ture. The core is regarded as a centre of employment,
and is taken to be either the central municipality of an
urban area or the entire urban area, while the hinterland
consists of a series of directly or indirectly adjacent
municipalities. Various methods have been used to
define this type of FUR. One method is to include
each municipality in the hinterland if it has a
minimum number of jobs per hectare, and if there are
more commuters travelling to the relevant core than
to any other (CHESHIRE and HAY , 1989, p. 15). A less
sophisticated method is to include a hinterland munici-
pality, if at least a certain percentage of its workforce is
employed in the core, this percentage being as low as
10% in a study of European FURs (BRUNEL , 2002).
Toward the other end of the continuum of nodal
regions is the major city-region, a sub-national unit
comparable with those based on urban concentrations
(and not simply their political cities) such as Barcelona,
Birmingham, Bordeaux, Milan and Munich in
Western Europe, and Boston, Denver, Kansas City,
Seattle and Vancouver in North America. Here the
core is represented by a larger city or metropolitan
area that acts as an important centre of ownership,
decision-making and communications, as well a provi-
der of goods and services to the hinterland, sometimes
of considerable extent. Simultaneously, the hinterland,
which contains an urban as well as a rural population,
supplies the node with agricultural goods, raw materials,
and semi-manufactured or finished goods as inputs to
production, and is increasingly associated with the pro-
vision of services involving recreation, amenity and
retirement. Under no circumstances, however, should
the city-region be viewed as a closed system or self-
sufficient entity, particularly since it invariably has
extensive interregional as well as international linkages.
The term ‘city-region’ appears to have been first used
by DICKINSON (1947), and the concept was also exam-
ined in considerable depth by BOGUE (1950). Bogue
referred to it as the ‘metropolitan community’, and
somewhat later DUNCAN et al. (1960) used the
expression ‘metropolitan region’. Whereas Dickinson
and Duncan et al. tended to regard the hinterland in
general terms as an area dominated by the core,
 The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and Regional Urban Systems
Bogue examined the structure of the hinterland in more
detail, with attention given to the size-frequency struc-
ture of urban centres. From time to time it is argued that
what is deemed to be a PUR might be better viewed as a
series of city-regions, each based on a major centre of
the supposed PUR. The work of MUSTERD and VAN
ZELM (2001) and VAN OORT et al. (2010) may be
cited as examples. It can be expected that the greater
the territorial extent of the PUR, the more likely will
be the validity of this alternative interpretation. The
penultimate section of this paper will return to the
concept of the city-region.
This differentiation of a given type of region may also
be viewed in hierarchical terms. Continuing with the
example of a nodal region, the FUR may represent a sec-
ondary city-region, situated within some primary city-
region (of a scale similar to that indicated above). In
view of the obvious advantage in having a political or
governmental region coincide with an economic
region, this hierarchical arrangement of economic
regions could form the basis of a two-tier system of
administration. Under actual conditions, however, it is
not unusual for a secondary city-region to straddle the
boundary between two (sometimes three) primary city-
regions. While this would not constitute a problem in
the supply of goods and services by the private sector
(nor, more generally, an obstacle to the efficient func-
tioning of the relevant regional economies), it would
pose a problem for the spatial structure of administration.
In particular, the secondary city-region could not form
the basis of a secondary administrative region, since this
would be run counter to a fundamental tenet of political
organization, which requires that a secondary unit must
be wholly contained within a primary unit (PARR , 2007).
Having considered the principal forms of economic
region, the obvious question arises as to which is the
most appropriate type. Unsurprisingly, this will depend
on a number of factors, including the scale of the area
being studied, the kinds of research issues being investi-
gated, the nature of the problems being addressed, etc.
Nevertheless, some variant of the nodal region appears
to have become the most useful and the most commonly
employed. To a greater extent than is possible with other
types of region, the nodal region (in its various forms) is
able to provide insights into the operation of its economy
over space and into the spatial interrelations of the various
elements of this economy. These particular strengths do
not, of course, amount to a rejection of other types of
region in all circumstances. In the balance of the paper,
however, the emphasis will be on the nodal region,
with the scale specified as appropriate.
THE REGIONAL ECONOMY AND ITS
SPATIAL STRUCTURE
The economic region (whatever its type) has a number
of similarities with the economy of the nation. As with
1929
the national economy, social accounts provide impor-
tant information on the regional economy. In output
terms the gross domestic product of a region (corre-
sponding to the gross domestic product of the nation)
is the value of all goods and services produced within
a region. By contrast, the gross regional product (corre-
sponding to the gross national product) is equal to the
sum of gross domestic product and net external pay-
ments, that is, the dividends, rents, wages received by
residents and firms of the region from outside the
region and transfers from the central government,
minus comparable payments made by residents and
firms to outside the region, and payments made to the
central government.
Against these similarities between regional and
national economies need to be set the equally important
differences. For example, the divergence between gross
domestic product of the region and gross regional
product is usually more pronounced than the diver-
gence at the national level. In addition, the economic
performance of the region in terms of the growth rate
of income or employment is likely to be above or
below that of the nation, depending inter alia on the sec-
toral composition of its economy and the performance
of its individual sectors. Similarly, the temporal fluctu-
ations of the regional economy (with respect to the
length and amplitude of the trade cycle) can be expected
to differ from those of the national economy.
As an economic unit the region typically represents a
small, open economy. The relative openness of the
regional economy is reflected by the fact that exports
(visible and invisible) from the region usually account
for a greater proportion of its gross domestic product
than is the case for the nation in which the region is
located. Associated with this relative openness of the
regional economy is the high level of interregional
factor movement, particularly in the case of capital and
skilled labour. Such a characteristic, together with the
existence of economies of scale in production, causes
trade among regions to take place on the basis of absol-
ute advantage, a tendency that partially explains the
presence of problem regions. These are unable to capi-
talize on their comparative advantage, and are vulner-
able to competition from successful regions.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between
the regional economy and the national economy lies
within the area of economic sovereignty. Here the pos-
ition of the region is greatly constrained. Even if the
region has a government or administration (and this is
the exception rather than the rule), it is unable to
pursue a meaningful macro-economic policy. Thus,
there can be no monetary policy, simply because the
region lacks the ability to issue currency, and as a
result the region cannot follow an external economic
policy, involving exchange-rate adjustment. While
under certain conditions it is possible for a region to
pursue a fiscal policy, the prerogative of taxation and
expenditure has been increasingly surrendered to (or
1930 John B. Parr
usurped by) a higher authority, usually the central or
federal government (in the UK the recent public-
finance proposals for Scotland and Northern Ireland
are something of an exception to this trend). The limit-
ing effects of this lack of economic sovereignty are miti-
gated to some extent by the existence of interregional
financial transfers from the relatively prosperous
regions to the relatively poor regions. These transfers
are orchestrated by the central government (sometimes
according to strict formulae), and have the effect of par-
tially offsetting the lack of competitiveness of the
problem regions and the absence of adequate interregio-
nal mobility of parts of the workforce.
The question of spatial organization
By the same token that the regional economy displays a
variation over time (in terms of economic development
and trade-cycle fluctuation, for example), it also exhibits
a variation across space. Lösch (LÖSCH /WOGLOM and
STOLPER , 1944/1954) regarded this latter type of vari-
ation as anything but random, and referred to it as räum-
liche Ordnung (spatial order or spatial ordering), that is,
the spatial structure of the regional economy. In
addition to the locational pattern of economic activity
and infrastructure endowment (including communi-
cations and other elements of economic and social over-
head capital), spatial structure is concerned with the
organization and functioning of markets for goods and
factors of production, an aspect considered in the fol-
lowing section. Spatial structure highlights the fact that
the regional economy does not operate at a single
point and is not evenly distributed over space, the
actual spatial structure of a region representing a con-
figuration intermediate between these two extremes.
The spatial structure of a region may be seen as
reflecting the locational characteristics of economic
activities located there. For example, a region with an
economy based on extensive commercial agriculture
will have a different spatial structure from that of a
region with an economy dependent on extractive
industries and the processing of raw materials, which
in turn will differ from the spatial structure of a regional
economy reliant on engineering and other fabricative
manufacturing. The contrasting spatial structures are
likely to be influenced by a number of factors. These
include the orientation of economic activity (to
markets, raw materials, energy sources, etc.) and the
strength of agglomeration economies, both internal
and external to the firm, based on the advantages of
scale, scope and complexity (OHLIN , 1933; PARR ,
2002a). A useful distinction is sometimes made
between static and dynamic agglomeration economies:
static agglomeration economies are generally concerned
with the efficient locations of firms under a given set of
economic conditions, while dynamic agglomeration
economies draw attention to their influence on inno-
vation and productivity, leading to the growth of
particular cities within a region or nation (GLAESER ,
2008). There is, in addition, a more general factor in
operation. This concerns the fact that the spatial struc-
ture at a given point in time will be determined to a sub-
stantial degree by the spatial structure that existed during
the preceding era of economic development. It is
seldom the case that an existing spatial structure of a
region has emerged tabula rasa.
The relationship between economic activity and
spatial structure may operate in the opposite direction,
so that spatial structure exerts an influence on the level
of economic activity. For example, if for technological
and/or transport-cost reasons the locational require-
ments of the economic activities forming part of the
regional export base were to undergo a substantial
change, continued operation of these activities might
require an identifiably different spatial structure. The
problem here is that the spatial structure may not be
able to respond adequately to these changed conditions,
thus inhibiting the continued existence of the dominant
economic-activity set, and possibly preventing the
emergence of replacement economic activity that
might be viably located within the region. Although
adequate supplies of labour and elements of infrastruc-
ture are available within the region, these may exist at
inappropriate locations and/or in insufficient quantities
to be attractive to domestic or external sources of
capital that would otherwise be invested within the
region.
The influence of a pre-existing spatial structure on
regional economic performance need not be adverse,
however. It is sometimes neutral, and on occasions
may be positive, as will be argued in a later section.
The spatial structure of a region may thus be conducive
to improved productivity, innovation and creativity, as
well as its ability to adjust to external shocks. Consider-
able debate has taken place on the net advantages of
different spatial structures, although no consensus has
been reached. Successful economic performance
appears to be associated with a range of significantly
different spatial structures. It becomes evident that
while the spatial structure may be seen as a reflection
of regional economic activity, it can also act as an impor-
tant influence on the nature and the level of such
activity, an influence that may be positive or negative.
Characterizing spatial structure
After considering the significance of spatial structure
within the regional economy, the various ways in
which spatial structure can be specified are now briefly
reviewed. One fairly obvious approach is to view
spatial structure as a series of areal distributions. These
would involve such major aggregates of the regional
economy as population, workforce, employment,
unemployment, etc. In certain cases the areal distri-
bution of fixed investment, raw materials, energy
sources, and the land available for industrial or
 The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and Regional Urban Systems
commercial development may also be included. This
approach would not simply be concerned with inven-
tories of the various elements; certain of the inter-
relations among these various elements could be
analyzed with the aid of geographical information
systems (GIS) and the application of spatial statistics.
It is also possible to view the spatial structure of the
region as a set of flows among specified locations
within the region, making use of the extensive literature
on network analysis, an early example being the work of
GARRISON (1960). An important category of intra-
regional flows involves those that can be expressed in
economic terms such as trade flows (transactions
among firms as well as those between firms and house-
holds), capital movements, wages and salaries paid by
firms to commuters, and (where relevant) transfers of
funds to and from the regional government. Unfortu-
nately, the lack of reliable data on these flows often
makes it necessary to rely on surrogate flows such as
those relating to shopping trips, freight traffic, commu-
ter flows, telephone connections, etc.
Additional methods of characterizing regional spatial
structure are worthy of mention. One of these involves
city-size distributions in terms of population and
employment (LASUEN et al., 1967; MALECKI , 1980).
Another approach treats spatial structure as a surface
(HAGGETT , 1968; KRUMBEIN , 1959), an important
perspective if the concern is with dynamic spatial struc-
ture. A particular type of surface is the density function.
Though usually employed at the scale of a metropolitan
area, the density function may also be applied at the scale
of the region, centred on the regional core (BOGUE ,
1950; VINING , 1955). Undoubtedly, the most compre-
hensive characterization of spatial structure makes use of
an urban-system perspective. Such a view of spatial
structure is concerned with the hierarchical differen-
tiation of centres in terms of their size, spacing, fre-
quency and functional composition, and also includes
other approaches already mentioned, notably the econ-
omic flows among centres and their size distributions.
This urban-system perspective on the spatial structure
will be explored in the next two sections.
REGIONAL URBAN SYSTEMS:
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In considering the internal structure of a region in terms
of an urban system, attention is first given to several
important models developed in location theory. As
with models in general, a model of the urban system is
an abstraction, which is not intended to replicate
reality. It seeks to explore the processes by which par-
ticular variables are related or interrelated, and attempts
to formulate a structure which reflects this. Models of
the urban system can thus be employed not only as
benchmarks in the examination of actual conditions,
but also as the means by which working hypotheses
1931
can be generated. The construction of a model of the
urban system requires many variables to be held con-
stant, often involving the imposition of strong (even
heroic) assumptions. Inevitably, therefore, urban-
system models contain a simplicity or starkness, which
not all researchers in the area find acceptable. With
these considerations in mind, attention is now focused
on several models of the urban system, starting with
the Christaller framework (CHRISTALLER /BASKIN ,
1933/1966). This is considered in some detail since it
will be the standard against which other models are
compared.
The Christaller urban system
The Christaller contribution model was based on an
empirical study of the central places of Southern
Germany in the 1920s. The primary focus was on
three regions (the L-systems centred on Munich, Nur-
emberg and Stuttgart, each being a Landstadt or regional
city).3 Although not without a number of precursors,
the Christaller framework was an early attempt at
viewing the urban system as a set of hierarchically differ-
entiated service centres, each of these ‘central places’
having one or more exclusive market areas to which
the various goods and services were supplied.
The Christaller urban system is concerned exclusively
with ‘central goods’ which are supplied to a dispersed
market, and which are provided by the public sector
as well as the private sector.4 In terms of household
demand the central goods involve retail goods, consu-
mer services, the output of certain types of manufactur-
ing such as job printing, newspaper production, and
various kinds of food processing. In the case of inter-
mediate demand (that is, the demand exerted by
firms), central goods include wholesaling, transport
and communications, storage, business and financial ser-
vices, as well as numerous repair, maintenance and
engineering services. The various goods and services
can be grouped to form N sets, each of which may be
regarded as a composite good of level m where m = 1,
2, …, N. This grouping is based on the frequency of
points required for the viable supply, whether private
or public. Although not undertaken by Christaller, it
is possible to introduce a level 0 set of goods, which
includes agricultural commodities, foodstuffs, minerals
and other raw materials, etc., and which is supplied
only from level 0 of the hierarchy, that is, rural areas.
Structure of the Christaller urban system
Four major influences underlie the form of the Christal-
ler urban system. First, the demand for all central goods
is dispersed, and in varying degrees is sensitive to dis-
tance from the point of supply. Second, the supply of
these goods is closely related to this demand, and takes
place at points centrally located within their respective
market areas. The frequency of these points (and thus
1932 John B. Parr
market areas) depends on transport costs borne by the
consumer and on economies of scale in the production
of the good in question. A third influence reflects the
propensity of consumers to minimize travel costs, by
engaging in multipurpose trips, both with respect to
goods within a given set, but also in the case of goods
belonging to different sets. The fourth influence is the
tendency of suppliers of a given good to be drawn to
the location of suppliers of other goods, whether in
the same set or different sets. To some extent this is
determined by the previous influence, but it also
permits suppliers to benefit from agglomeration econ-
omies of the urbanization type such as access to infra-
structure and public utilities. This advantage tends to
increase with hierarchical level, although it is likely to
be partially offset by increasing location rents.
These four influences give rise to an urban system in
which there is a correspondence between spatial
demand and spatial supply, although this correspon-
dence is not of the same strength for all sets of
goods.5 A prominent feature of the Christaller urban
system is the successively inclusive hierarchy. It is
assumed that there are N levels of centre, N levels of
market area and N sets of goods (as defined above).
The successively inclusive hierarchy is such that a
centre of level m supplies a characteristic set m, together
with sets 1 to (that is, up to and including) m – 1. More
specifically, the centre of level m supplies sets 1 to m to
itself and to its market areas of levels 1 to m, respect-
ively, where its level m market area represents the
‘characteristic market area’. For a level 1 centre the
characteristic market area is wholly rural (part of level
0), while the characteristic market area of a centre of
level m > 1 consists of a rural component (part of
level 0) plus particular centres (of decreasing frequency)
belonging to levels 1 to level m – 1. The existence of
this successively inclusive hierarchy places a limitation
on the number and the sizes of the various market
areas.6 It also implies a distinctive pattern of trade
among centres. Thus, a centre of level 1 < m < N
exports to centres of levels 1 to m – 1, and imports
from centres of levels m + 1 to N. A balance-of-pay-
ments problem does not arise, if it is assumed, reason-
ably enough, that centres of particular levels are being
supplied with the level 0 goods from level 0 (rural
areas). Under actual conditions, the balance-of-pay-
ments problem is also avoided by the existence of
non-trade flows such as capital movements, govern-
ment expenditures, and the wages and salaries associ-
ated with commuting.
The overall structure of the Christaller system may be
summarized with respect to centres belonging to any
given level: the higher the level of a centre, the
greater the number of sets of goods supplied from it;
the greater its population; the greater the size of its
characteristic market area; and (because of this) the
lower the frequency of such centres and the wider
their spacing. In addition, centres of level m are evenly
spaced on a triangular or some alternative lattice (strictly
speaking, the even spacing of level m centres refers to all
centres of levels m to N, a consequence of the succes-
sively inclusive hierarchy). This even spacing stems
from the underlying assumption of a uniform density
of rural population. Such an assumption is easily dis-
pensed with, as demonstrated by RUSHTON (1972),
and the resulting pattern of variable centre spacing is
obviously more in keeping with actual conditions.
Limitations of the system
While the Christaller structure is able to reflect several
important facets of actual urban systems, it nevertheless
contains a number of serious weaknesses. Perhaps the
most serious of these is the fact that attention is confined
to goods and services of a market-orientated nature,
where centrality with respect to the consuming
market (whether comprising households or firms) is of
paramount importance. Consideration of goods with
other orientations is excluded. Another weakness of
the model is that it wholly neglects the input structure
of production: it is as if all inputs to production are ubi-
quitous, that is, available everywhere at approximately
equal cost.
A further deficiency is concerned with the direc-
tional pattern of trade. Thus, a centre of a given level
does not export to (that is, supply) a centre of a
higher level, and does not import from (that is, is not
supplied by) a centre of a lower level. The reasons
for this pattern may be explained as follows. A centre
of level m < N, for example, is exporting goods of
levels 1 to m, but these same goods are also exported
from centres of level m + 1 to N. Since these higher-
level centres can assumed to be self-sufficient in such
goods, there is no basis for exports from the centre of
level m to centres of higher levels. At the same time
this centre of level m < N is self sufficient in goods of
levels 1 to m – 1, so that there is no basis for imports
to this centre from centres of levels 1 to m – 1. By
similar reasoning there is no basis for trade among
different centres of level m. As will be argued, these
restrictions on the pattern of trade (though logical in
terms of the assumptions of the model) represent an
inadequacy of the Christaller structure in the context
of the modern conditions.
Finally, the Christaller model places an excessive
premium on proximity. Thus, when a centre (or a
location in a rural area) is supplied with a good of a
given level m, this is always from the nearest centre of
level m or higher.7 Such a requirement results from
the assumption that demand for goods and services is
extremely sensitive to distance. No allowance is made
for a person travelling to a centre other than the
nearest relevant one, in order to buy a particular style
of clothing or brand of consumer good, nor for a firm
failing to select the closest relevant centre, in order to
obtain an input to production.
 The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and Regional Urban Systems
The economic region of Lösch
It fell to Lösch (LÖSCH /WOGLOM and STOLPER , 1944/
1954) to provide the micro-economic underpinnings of
the Christaller model. The objective of the Lösch analy-
sis was to construct from first principles a regional land-
scape of production points, giving rise to an urban
system. In several important respects the Lösch approach
was similar to the Christaller model: attention was con-
fined to central goods (though there is more concern
with manufactured goods); no consideration was given
to the location of inputs; the supply of a good to a par-
ticular location was always from the nearest relevant
centre.
The approach involved the analysis of demand over
space with freight-on-board (FOB) pricing, increasing
returns to scale in production, and spatial competition
among suppliers under conditions of free entry. In
the case of a single good the spatial equilibrium is speci-
fied for each identical firm in terms of price, output
and market-area radius. This outcome for a single
good is broadly equivalent to that in the Christaller
structure. The analysis was then extended to examine
the outcome for all goods. However, instead of impos-
ing the successively inclusive hierarchy in the manner
of Christaller, Lösch allowed a wider variation in
market-area size. In this multi-good setting the
primary concern was with minimizing the overall
number of production points. What emerged was a
continuous economic landscape in which an economic
region could be identified. Interestingly, Lösch
(LÖSCH /WOGLOM and STOLPER , 1944/1954,
pp. 130–131) was aware of the Christaller urban
system, and regarded this as a special case of his own
more complex system, a case in which the number of
market-area sizes is limited by the number of levels
of political or administrative organization.
The economic region derived by Lösch contains
three major features not present in the Christaller struc-
ture. First, the centres have a wider diversity of func-
tional complexity and therefore a greater range of
population sizes (STOLPER , 1955). Second, a relatively
small centre (one supplying few goods) can export to
a large centre (one supplying relatively many). Third,
the regional economic landscape is dominated by a
single metropolitan centre, from which all goods are
supplied, and from which extend six centre-rich
sectors and six centre-poor sectors. The centre-rich
sectors of adjacent regions form the bases for transport
axes between pairs of neighbouring metropolitan
centres. This explanation for the common phenomenon
of inter-metropolitan corridors is imaginative, although
the analysis contains too many inconsistencies and con-
tradictions for such a result to be accepted. Moreover,
within an actual regional urban system it is debateable
whether centre-rich sectors gave rise to transport corri-
dors or whether the causation was in the reverse
direction.
1933
The Tinbergen contribution
The work of TINBERGEN (1961, 1968) stands in con-
trast to the Christaller–Lösch tradition. TINBERGEN
(1968, p. 65), who was apparently unimpressed with
previous attempts at modelling the urban system,
offered an alternative structure. This considers N
goods (or N sets of goods), N levels of centre, as well
as N levels of market area (where m = 1, 2, …, N).
Also included is a level 0 good, which is supplied from
the rural area (level 0) to the rest of the system. Tinber-
gen introduced a successively inclusive hierarchy that
resembled the Christaller structure, but only to the
extent that a centre of level m supplies goods of levels
1 to m to itself. As far as exports are concerned, the
centre of level m only supplies the level m good to its
single market area (its level m market area), comprising
part of level 0 (the rural area) and centres of levels 1 to
m – 1. This assumption results in an arrangement of
centres and market areas different from that in the Chris-
taller system, and also a distinctive pattern of trade
(MULLIGAN , 1982). To appreciate this, we may con-
sider a household or firm within a rural area in the
immediate vicinity of a centre of level m. By the assump-
tions of the model this rural location would be supplied
with a level m – 1 good from the nearest centre of level
m – 1, and not from the closer centre of level m, despite
the fact that this centre would be supplying the level m –
1 good to itself.
Such a pattern indicates a relaxation, but not the
abandonment, of the requirement of centrality,
although it is not at all obvious how such a pattern
could be sustained in a market economy. What the Tin-
bergen model does illustrate, however, is that centres of
level m of the hierarchy have a particular export special-
ization, namely, the level m good. This is consistent with
the observed tendency for certain industries to be
located at particular size classes of centre. It is also con-
sistent with the presence of agglomeration economies of
the localization type (ISARD , 1956). These factors
suggest that the model is best suited to explaining the
location of intermediate goods that have a particular
input supply, that is, where the input is supplied from
level 0 or from a higher-level centre. As with the Chris-
taller model any centre of a level m < N only exports to
lower levels and only imports from higher levels. No
balance-of-payments problem arises, however, since it
is specifically assumed that there exists a rural area
(level 0), which exports the level 0 good to one or
more of the urban levels of the hierarchy.
Before moving to the next section, a general
comment is included, regarding a particular aspect of
the models outlined above. It will be observed that
each model treats the urban system as existing within
an unchanging equilibrium. The principal reason for
this is that in the development of these models it was
convenient for time to be held constant, so that atten-
tion could be focused on spatial structure. Obviously,
1934
urban systems can be expected to become modified over
time, and none of the models discussed can be con-
sidered inherently stationary. Moreover, the apparent
static bias of the models is largely overcome, if these
are reworked in dynamic terms or as multi-static
models. The various attempts along these lines are dis-
cussed elsewhere (PARR , 2002b).
REGIONAL URBAN SYSTEMS: THE
CONTEMPORARY CITY-REGION
In the light of these theoretical approaches to the urban
system, not all of which were originally presented by
their authors in an explicit manner, it is now possible
to explore the extent to which the models are able to
cast light on the modern-day city-region. Although
the major concern has been with the internal factors
influencing the organization of a regional urban
system, it is important to consider some of the changing
external forces that have continued to shape it. Over vir-
tually any period of economic history during the last
two to three hundred years, urban systems have been
undergoing transformations, affected in part by external
conditions. This is as true in the present era as it was in
the nineteenth century, for example, which saw the
continuation of the Industrial Revolution, the rise of
steam power and the expansion of overseas trade.
The decades following the Second World War
experienced considerable economic expansion, inno-
vation and modernization. Associated with these devel-
opments were fundamental changes in the technologies
of production and communications, overall improve-
ments in living standards, shifts in consumer preferences,
vastly different patterns of international trade (not only
in terms of volume, but also with respect to the location
of markets and sources of supply), substantial increases in
the international movement of capital, changed patterns
of corporate ownership and control both nationally and
internationally, etc. These various changes exerted an
influence (direct as well as indirect) on regional econ-
omies. But despite such a dramatic modification of the
general economic environment the regional urban
system endured, though inevitably in a modified form,
and this cannot be emphasized strongly enough. The
remainder of this section will be concerned with the
urban system of the major city-region, as discussed
above.
The location of economic activity within the city-region
The urban system of the major city-region typically
possesses certain features of the L-system of Christaller,
particularly in terms of the hierarchical structure of
urban centres.8 One such feature is the size, spacing
and frequency of centres, which distinguishes the city-
region from other types of region, for example, the
PUR. Although Christaller identified seven hierarchical
John B. Parr
levels of centre, only three of these had centre popu-
lations that could be considered urban in any practical
sense, that is, in excess of 10 000 people (ULLMAN ,
1941). With some exceptions, the present-day hierarchy
of urban centres typically consists of three or four levels.
The successively inclusive hierarchy continues to be
present, but it is less clearly defined, being partially
obscured by the supply of non-central goods.
It will be recalled that in the urban system of Chris-
taller the location of all non-rural economic activity is
governed exclusively by the principle of centrality
with respect to the location of demand. As a conse-
quence a given level of urban centre only supplies
central goods, with the number of sets of goods supplied
corresponding to the number of market areas being
served. For the modern city-region this pattern tends
to hold for centres of lower levels. Centres of
medium-to-high levels, however, commonly supply
particular non-central or specialized goods (to national
and international markets), in addition to central
goods (largely to regional markets). It will be argued
shortly that the structure of the hierarchy is not immu-
table, and may thus be subject to change.
Non-central or specialized goods comprise a highly
diverse and evolving group of activities, which includes
mineral exploitation, a wide array of manufacturing
industry, a range of business and commercial services,
as well as numerous specialized consumer services. In
the case of non-central goods the locational orientation
of production or supply is not primarily to the market
but variously to sources of raw materials and manufac-
tured inputs, to major ports and international airports,
to supplies of skilled or semi-skilled labour, etc. (BECK-
MANN , 1968). However, the predominant location of
these kinds of economic activities is in urban centres.
This is largely a reflection of the co-location of firms,
in order to gain agglomeration economies, not simply
of the urbanization type but also of the activity-
complex type (PARR , 2002a). In addition, there is a ten-
dency (consistent with the Tinbergen analysis) for
certain activities to be associated with particular levels
of the urban system, suggesting that the relevant firms
benefit from agglomeration economies of the localiz-
ation type (BERRY and HORTON , 1970; EVANS ,
1972; ISARD , 1956). This tendency is not present in
all city-regions, however.
Economic flows within the city-region
Since the nature of economic activity and its overall
locational pattern in the modern city-region are more
complex than in the Christaller structure, it is not sur-
prising that more intricate patterns of interaction are
present. Consumer accessibility continues to be impor-
tant for many goods, but its influence is no longer as
decisive as in the past. Improved mobility and the exten-
sion of product differentiation have meant that supply
from the nearest relevant centre is no longer a
 The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and Regional Urban Systems
requirement. And in the case of trade among firms,
reductions in the cost of transport have reduced the
importance of centrality in gaining access to markets
and inputs to production. Under these conditions it is
certainly possible for a low-level centre to export to a
high-level centre (and therefore for a high-level centre
to import from a low-level centre), a feature of the
Lösch system. It is also possible for centres of approxi-
mately the same level to trade with each other, regard-
less of their respective locations with the city-region.
In recent decades, information flows have rightly
been accorded an importance among many researchers.
Unfortunately, flows of this kind are difficult to acquire,
hard to measure and not readily interpreted (HALL ,
1991; HALL and PAIN , 2006). Of particular interest
here is the extent to which information flows are sensi-
tive to distance, and the evidence on this is not clear. It
should not be forgotten that the city-region exists
within the wider territory, be this the nation, a trading
bloc or the world economy, and in discussions of the
city-region external linkages sometimes go unrecog-
nized or underemphasized. Of relevance at the national
level is the location of a city-region in relation to other
city-regions. One aspect of this, which was considered
by Lösch, is the development of inter-metropolitan
axes or corridors between the dominant metropolitan
cores of adjacent city-regions, and the accompanying
interaction based on trade flows, the movement of
people and information, as well as the diffusion of
innovations.
Another category of flows in the urban system of a
city-region (though one not present in the models dis-
cussed above) concerns the daily movement of labour
from centres of one level to centres of a higher, a
lower or the same level. For each of these flows of
labour there is a reverse flow of wages and salaries,
which may be an important part of the economic base
for many urban centres in the city-region. Daily flows
of labour to (and also from) the dominant metropolitan
core continue to be important, but there is an increase in
flows among centres within the hinterland, which are
unrelated to the core. There is, of course, some upper
limit on the daily distance travelled between centres
(whether between levels or within a level), but this
has exhibited a steady increase over recent decades due
to the expansion of car ownership, reduced travel
costs and shorter travel times.
Commuting represents an important lubricant for
both labour-market flexibility and residential adjust-
ment. It not only allows the separation between resi-
dence and workplace, but also permits changes in the
location of the workplace, with the location of residence
remaining unaffected, as well as changes in the location
of residence with the location of the workplace unaf-
fected. In the typical city-region of Northwest Europe
and the Eastern Seaboard of North America, where
population density is relatively high and the accompa-
nying spacing of urban centres is correspondingly low,
1935
adjustments of this kind are possible, particularly since
commuting may be a temporary or even a permanent
substitute for migration (TERMOTE , 1978). In addition,
the joint-location problem of dual-income households
(VAN OMMEREN et al., 1999) becomes a less pressing
one. In this way the spatial structure of the city-region
permits or even facilitates economic adjustment. It
must be stressed, however, that this spatial-structure
advantage in the process of adjustment would be less
prominent and perhaps even non-existent in city-
regions that are more extensive, with low overall popu-
lation densities.
Spatial-structure change in the city-region
It will be apparent that the urban system of the modern
city-region is to be seen as something other than a static
structure, although there may be intervals when the
pace of change is relatively slow. As already mentioned,
the urban system of a city-region is subject to the effects
of external as well as internal change, these taking the
form of shocks. Obviously, there can be no question
of the urban system being rebuilt de novo. Instead,
there is a process of self-adjustment on the part of the
system, which takes place over the short-to-medium
run. For example, as the result of a given shock, an indi-
vidual good may now need to be supplied from fewer
centres or from more centres. Under these conditions
there is a hierarchical redefinition of the relevant sets
of goods, but the hierarchy remains unchanged in
terms of its number of levels and the number of
centres of each level. However, the shock may be suffi-
ciently great that the hierarchy, itself, is transformed.
One case involves the formation of a new level. In
another case the level continues to exist but becomes
less extensive (with fewer centres) or more intensive
(with a greater number of centres), while in a further
case there is complete disappearance of a level, this
former level being combined with the next higher or
next lower level. It follows that these different adjust-
ments all involve changes in the structure of trade
flows. The effect of such shocks is to modify the size dis-
tribution of centres within the regional urban system.
Within most city-regions of the developed world the
spatial structure continued to undergo a process of con-
centration well into the first quarter of the twentieth
century, up to which time the metropolitan core grew
at a faster rate than its hinterland in terms of population,
employment and income. In more recent times,
however, the trend has been toward deconcentration,
with the growth rate of the hinterland (most of this
growth being in urban centres) exceeding that of the
core. In part, this has resulted from households and
firms relocating from the metropolitan core to locations
beyond it, often as part of a mutually reinforcing shift of
population and employment. Such shifts include reloca-
tions among levels of the urban hierarchy, which increas-
ingly take place from the highest level (the metropolitan
1936 John B. Parr
core) to lower levels, and also from the highest level to
urban centres located within a particular distance range.
There seems to be every indication that the nature of
economic and technological change will continue to
favour the broad trend toward deconcentration.
CONCLUSIONS
Attention may now be drawn to some of the main issues
that have emerged from this discussion, beginning with
the notion of the region. This represents an important
scale of analysis (intermediate between the locality or
urban centre and the nation), although its significance
and utility have been called into question. Unfortu-
nately, the region as a unit of analysis is not always
well defined and can thus become a source of confusion.
At the very least, it would seem desirable that whenever
the term ‘region’ is being used, some working definition
should be provided. More generally, it would be helpful
if urban and regional analysis had at its disposal a
language (or simply a grammar) by which this confusion
could be avoided. Various fields of the medical and bio-
logical sciences, for example, have availed themselves of
such a facility for centuries, and to good effect.
It has long been maintained that for economic (and
other kinds of) analysis the nation is too unwieldy a
unit, which should be disaggregated into regions, in
order to understand more adequately the spatial and sec-
toral variability of economic performance. By exten-
sion, it may be claimed that the region is too crude a
focus, and that its economy should be considered at a
sub-regional scale or preferably in spatial-structure
terms, so as to gain insight into its internal operation
and evolution over the long run. As was argued,
spatial structure represents a partial determinant of
regional economic change as well as a reflection of it,
the latter emphasis being the more conventional view.
Consideration of spatial structure thus goes some way
to understanding the nature of the regional economy
and its ability to adjust to external influences.
In the analysis of spatial structure the contributions of
location theory are substantial, although there has been a
tendency for these to be underestimated. While particu-
lar aspects of location theory have assisted our under-
standing of urban systems, the formulation of a general
theory has nevertheless proven elusive. Further progress
can be expected, and the continued development of the
‘New Economic Geography’ (NEG), stimulated by the
work of KRUGMAN (1995, 2009) and FUJITA et al.
(1999), is of potential importance in this connection.
It must be added, however, that while NEG models
are able to provide powerful insights into the operation
of an economy over space, the treatment of the region
requires further elaboration and specification, not least
in terms of its spatial structure (GARRETSEN and
MARTIN , 2010; OVERMAN and IOANNIDES , 2001).
For the developed world, and to an increasing extent
the developing world, the city-region has emerged as a
dominant spatial form, and it is common for a national
space economy to comprise a set of city-regions,
usually hierarchically differentiated. Over recent
decades the city-region has become the arena in
which the processes of economic development and
economic change are being played out, the implications
of which are likely to be considerable. As a consequence
the spatial structure of the city-region (particularly when
viewed as a regional urban system) will assume an
obvious importance in public as well as private
decision-taking. With regard to the future structure of
the city-region, the outcome is anything but certain.
HALL (2009, pp. 808–811), while warning of the
dangers of prediction, has offered a thoughtful account
of the more important tendencies (what he terms
changes in the ‘basic parameters’) that are likely to influ-
ence the form of the city-region in coming decades.
These range from environmental modification and
demographic evolution to the impacts of economic
and technological change, along with greatly altered
patterns of consumption. While there is an obvious
need for information about future trends (in order to
assist the policy-maker, the planner and the analyst), it
would probably be imprudent (and also very difficult)
to pursue matters concerning the future beyond this
point.
Acknowledgements – The author wishes to thank
D. Batten, C. Wren and two anonymous referees for their
comments on earlier versions of this paper. Thanks are also
due to the Guest Editors of this special issue of Regional
Studies, and to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
NOTES
1. As an economic unit, the origins of the nodal region can be
traced back to the work of von Thünen (VON THÜNEN /
WARTENBURG , 1842/1966). In Part I of this study his
Isolated State consisted of a single urban core and a hinter-
land, the core representing the single market for agricul-
tural commodities produced in the hinterland, to which
it supplied goods and services.
2. Currently, the term ‘polycentric’ tends to be employed
indiscriminately. Naturally, all regions can be regarded as
polycentric, in the narrow sense that each contains a
number of (sometimes many) urban centres, and to this
extent the term is redundant. On occasions the term ‘poly-
centric’ is used as a shorthand means of describing a region
that is not ‘monocentric’, that is, not excessively domi-
nated by a particular centre.
3. Two further L-systems were included: those based on
Frankfurt and Strasbourg. Since these extended beyond
the boundary of the area of the case study (Southern
Germany), only part of the L-system was included in
each case.
4. Christaller was certainly aware that goods and services
were produced in Southern Germany which were not
 The Regional Economy, Spatial Structure and Regional Urban Systems
central goods, and that many goods were manufactured
there (particularly in the regional capitals) for national
and international markets. Given the paucity of prior
work on urban systems, Christaller appears to have
excluded non-central goods in order to isolate the influ-
ence of centrality in the process of urbanization and in
the formation of the urban system.
5. This correspondence is particularly strong when demand
for a set of goods is influenced by high transport costs,
and supply is subject to minimal economies of scale, so
that the frequency of centres is high, and each of their
market areas is relatively small. By contrast, the corre-
spondence is far less strong (though still present) when
the demand for a set of goods is only mildly affected
by transport costs, and economies of scale are substantial,
in which case the frequency of centres is low, and each
of their market areas is large. Not all goods tend to
one or other extreme, and this is a basis for a hierarchy
of more than two levels, which will be considered
shortly.
1937
6. In Christaller’s theoretical model of the urban system, the
size of the characteristic market area increases from one
level to the next by a constant factor, usually denoted as
K. This is consistent with, though not required by, the exist-
ence of a successively inclusive hierarchy (PARR , 2002b).
7. This argument does not apply in the case of certain kinds of
multipurpose trips, for example, when a consumer travels to a
level m centre to purchase a level m good, but uses this oppor-
tunity to buy a level m – 1 good, which could have been pur-
chased at a centre of m – 1 located closer to the consumer.
8. For this reason the city-region is sometimes likened to a
‘central place model’ of the Christaller type (CAMAGNI
and CAPELLO , 2004), while BATTEN (2011) has referred
to it as a ‘central place region’. Such characterizations of
the city-region may create the wrong impression,
however. As will be demonstrated, the urban system of
the modern city-region departs from the Christaller
central place structure in several fundamental respects,
while also displaying most of the attributes of the
Camagni–Capello ‘urban network model’.

REFERENCES
ALONSO W. (1973) Urban zero population growth, Daedalus 109, 191–206.
BATTEN D. F. (1994) Network cities: creative urban agglomeration of the 21st century, Urban Studies 32, 313–327.
BATTEN D. F. (2011) On creative network cities, in ANDERSSON Å. E., ANDERSSON D. E. and MELLANDER C. (Eds) Handbook of
Creative Cities, pp. 284–306. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
BECKMANN M. J. (1968) Location Theory. Random House, New York, NY.
BERRY B. L. J. and HORTON F. (1970) Geographic Perspectives on Urban Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
BOGUE D. (1950) The Structure of the Metropolitan Community. Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
BRUNEL D. (Ed.) (2002) Cahiers de l’Institut d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme de la Région Île-de-France (IAURIF) Number 135,
Economic Performance of the European Regions. IAURIF, Paris.
BURGER M. and MEIJERS E. (2012) Form follows function? Linking morphological and functional polycentricity, Urban Studies 49,
1127–1149.
BURTON I. (1963) A restatement of the dispersed city hypothesis, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 63, 285–289.
CAMAGNI R. and CAPELLO R. (2004) The city network paradigm: theory and empirical evidence, in CAPELLO R. and NIJKAMP P.
(Eds) Urban Dynamics and Growth, pp. 495–529. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
CHESHIRE P. C. and HAY D. G. (1989) Urban Problems in Western Europe: An Economic Analysis. Unwin Hyman, London.
CHRISTALLER W. (1933/1966) Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland [1933]. Gustav Fischer, Jena; trans. BASKIN C. (1966) as Central
Places in Southern Germany. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
DAVOUDI S. (2003) Polycentricity in European spatial planning: from an analytical tool to a normative agenda, European Planning
Studies 11, 980–999.
DICKINSON R. E. (1947) City, Region and Regionalism. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
DUNCAN O. D., SCOTT W. R., LIEBERSON S., DUNCAN B. and WINSBOROUGH H. H. (1960) Metropolis and Region. Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, MD.
EVANS A. (1972) The pure theory of city size in an industrial economy, Urban Studies 9, 49–77.
FUJITA M., KRUGMAN P. R. and VENABLES A. J. (1999) The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
GARRETSEN H. and MARTIN R. (2010) Rethinking (new) economic geography: taking geography and history seriously, Spatial
Economic Analysis 5, 27–60.
GARRISON W. L. (1960) Connectivity of the interstate highway system, Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association 6,
121–137.
GLAESER E. L. (2008) Cities, Agglomeration, and Spatial Equilibrium. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
HAGGETT P. (1968) Trend surface analysis in the interregional comparison of intra-regional structures, Papers of the Regional Science
Association 20, 19–28.
HALL P. (1991) Moving information: a tale of four technologies, in BROTCHIE J., BATTY M., HALL P. and NEWTON P. (Eds) Cities of
the 21st Century: New Technologies and Spatial Systems, pp. 1–21. Longman, Melbourne, VIC.
HALL P. (2009) Looking backward, looking forward: the city-region of the mid-21st century, Regional Studies 43, 803–817.
HALL P. and PAIN K. (Eds) (2006) The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-City Regions in Europe. Earthscan, London.
HOOVER E. M. and FISHER J. L. (1949) Research in regional economic growth, in Problems in the Study of Economic Growth, pp. 173–
250. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), New York, NY.
ISARD W. (1956) Location and Space-Economy. Technology Press of MIT and Wiley, New York, NY.
1938 John B. Parr
KARLSSON C. and OLSSON M. (2006) The identification of functional regions: theory, methods and applications, Annals of Regional
Science 40, 1–18.
KRUGMAN P. R. (1995) Development, Geography and Economic Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
KRUGMAN P. R. (2009) The increasing returns revolution in trade and geography, American Economic Review 99, 561–571.
KRUMBEIN W. C. (1959) Trend surface analysis of contour-type maps with irregular control-point spacing, Journal of Geophysical
Research 64, 823–834.
KRUTILLA J. V. and ECKSTEIN O. (1958) Multiple Purpose River Development. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
LASUEN J. R., LORCA A. and ORIA J. (1967) City size distribution and economic growth, Ekistics 24, 221–226.
LÖSCH A. (1944/1954) Die raumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft, 2nd Edn [1944]. Gustav Fischer, Jena; trans. WOGLOM W. H. and
STOLPER W. F. (1954) The Economics of Location. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
MALECKI E. J. (1980) Growth and change in the analysis of rank-size distributions: empirical findings, Environment and Planning A
12, 41–52.
MEIJERS E. J., ROMEIN A. and HOPPENBROUWER E. C. (Eds) (2003) Planning Polycentric Regions in North West Europe: Value. Feasi-
bility and Design. Delft University Press, Delft.
MEYER J. R. (1963) Regional economics: a survey, American Economic Review 53, 1–54.
MULLIGAN G. F. (1982) Tinbergen-type central place systems, International Regional Science Review 7, 83–91.
MUSTERD S. and VAN ZELM Z. (2001) Polycentricity, households and the identity of places, Urban Studies 38, 769–796.
NORTH D. (1955) Location theory and regional economic growth, Journal of Political Economy 63, 243–258.
OHLIN B. (1933) Interregional and International Trade. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
OVERMAN H. G. and IOANNIDES Y. M. (2001) Cross sectional evolution of the US city size distribution, Journal of Urban Economics
49, 543–566.
PARR J. B. (2002a) Missing elements in the analysis of agglomeration economies, International Regional Science Review 25, 151–168.
PARR J. B. (2002b) The location of economic activity: central place theory and wider urban system, in MCCANN P. (Ed.) Industrial
Location Economics, pp. 32–82. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
PARR J. B. (2007) On the spatial structure of administration, Environment and Planning A 39, 1255–1268.
PARR J. B. (2008) Cities and regions: problems and potentials, Environment and Planning A 40, 3009–3026.
RUSHTON G. (1972) Map transformation of point patterns: central place patterns in areas of variable population density, Papers of the
Regional Science Association 28, 111–129.
STOPLER W. F. (1955) Spatial order and the economic growth of cities: a comment on Eric Lampard’s paper, Economic Development
and Cultural Change 3, 137–146.
STORPER M. (1995) The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies,
European Urban and Regional Studies 2, 191–221.
TERMOTE M. (1978) Migration and commuting in Lösch’s central place system, in FUNCK R. and PARR J. B. (Eds) The Analysis of
Spatial Structure: Essays in Honour of August Lösch. Karlsruhe Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 2, pp. 83–90. Pion, London.
TINBERGEN J. (1961) The spatial dispersion of production: a hypothesis, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik 97,
412–419.
TINBERGEN J. (1968) The hierarchy model of the size distribution of centres, Papers of the Regional Science Association 20, 65–68.
ULLMAN E. L. (1941) A theory of location for cities, American Journal of Sociology 46, 835–864.
VAN OMMEREN J., RIETVELD P. and NIJKAMP P. (1999) Job moving, residential moving, and commuting: a search perspective,
Journal of Urban Economics 46, 230–253.
VAN OORT F., BURGER M. and RASPE O. (2010) On the economic foundation of the urban network paradigm: spatial integration,
functional integration and economic complementarities within the Dutch Randstad, Urban Studies 47, 725–778.
VINING R. (1955) A description of certain spatial aspects of an urban system, Economic Development and Cultural Change 3, 147–195.
VON THÜNEN J. H. (1842/1966) Der isolirte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirthschaft und Nationalökonomie, 2nd Edn [original spelling,
1842]. Leopold, Rostock; trans. WARTENBURG C. M. (1966) Von Thünen’s Isolated State, Intro. by P. HALL . Pergamon,
Oxford.
WREN C. (2009) Onward the spatial: an essay on the nature and relevance of regional economics, Spatial Economic Analysis 4,
447–465.