Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ioannides, Y. M.
Right arrow Articles by Overman, H. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow C14 - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods
Right arrow R00 - General
Right arrow R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, and Changes
Right arrow R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity
Right arrow R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Economic Geography 4 (2004) pp. 131-156
Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 4, No. 2, © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved.

Spatial evolution of the US urban system

Yannis M. Ioannides* and Henry G. Overman**

* Department of Economics, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA. email <yioannid{at}tufts.edu>

** Author to whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. Also Centre for Economic Policy Research and the Centre for Economic Performance, LSE. email <h.g.overman{at}lse.ac.uk>

Abstract

We examine spatial features of the evolution of the US urban system using US Census data for 1900–1990 with non-parametric kernel estimation techniques that accommodate the complexity of the urban system. We consider spatial features of the location of cities and city outcomes in terms of population and wages. Our results suggest a number of interesting puzzles. In particular, we find that city location is essentially a random process and that interactions between cities do not help determine the size of a city. Both of these findings contradict our theoretical priors about the role of geography (physical and economic) in determining city outcomes. More detailed study suggests some solutions that allow us to restore a role for geography but a number of puzzles remain.

Keywords: urban growth, spatial evolution, economic geography, kernel estimation,
JEL classifications: R00, C14
Date submitted: 6 June 2002     Date accepted: 25 June 2003


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ECON GEOGRHome page
M. D. Partridge, D. S. Rickman, K. Ali, and M. R. Olfert
Lost in space: population growth in the American hinterlands and small cities
J. Econ. Geogr., November 1, 2008; 8(6): 727 - 757.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ECON GEOGRHome page
D. Yamamoto
Scales of regional income disparities in the USA, 1955 2003
J. Econ. Geogr., January 1, 2008; 8(1): 79 - 103.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.