8
R. Camagni et al.
to seek for more broadly defined dependent variables in agglomeration economy
regressions (this is the case of the recent wave of studies on urban wellbeing and
quality of life; see Lenzi and Perucca 2016, for a recent review) and independent
variables (i.e. how to measure sources of urban efficiency).
4 Conclusions
The main goal of the present work is to present a selection of highlights from the
scientific study of urban economics as carried out by the research group in regional
science active at the Politecnico di Milano over the last thirty years, with a particular
focus on optimal city size theory and on the empirics of central place theory. The
specificity of this long-term research programme lies in taking the challenge launched
by Alan Wilson in the early 1980s, i.e. the need to develop a unitary approach to urban
economics, bringing together theoretical areas which were developed in total isolation. These have been labelled the five principles of urban economics (agglomeration,
accessibility, interaction, hierarchy and development; Camagni 1992, Introduction).
The starting point of this journey was the construction of a theoretical and simulation model of urban system dynamics, driven by the capability to innovate in the
functions hosted by each city (SOUDY model; Camagni et al. 1986). Schumpeterian
innovation, generated both by private entrepreneurship and public leadership, and the
consequent structural dynamics, were suggested as the main driving forces of urban
growth. Subsequently, other issues were explicitly inserted into the picture: agglomeration economies, urban and environmental quality, city networks and high-level
urban functions.
Attention was also paid to pinpointing the logical shortcuts of an automatic relationship between agglomeration economies and growth. Again, structural change
is identified as the factor allowing faster growth of urban benefits to overcome the
increase of urban costs, rather than sheer size. Remarkable empirical results have
been achieved to prove these assumptions.
References
Allen, P. M., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization and decision-making. Environment and Planning A, 13, 167–183.
Alonso, W. (1971). The economics of urban size. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science
Association, 26, 67–83.
Beckmann, M. J. (1958). City hierarchies and the distribution of city size. Economic Development
and Cultural Change, 3, 243–248.
Bertuglia, S., Leonardi, G., Ocelli, S., Rabino, G., Tadei, R., & Wilson, A. (Eds.). (1987). Urban
Systems: Contemporary approaches to modelling. London (UK): Croom Helm.
Camagni, R. (1992). Economia Urbana: principi e modelli teorici. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. French
translation (1996): Principes et modèles de l’économie urbaine, Paris: Economica.
R. Camagni et al.
to seek for more broadly defined dependent variables in agglomeration economy
regressions (this is the case of the recent wave of studies on urban wellbeing and
quality of life; see Lenzi and Perucca 2016, for a recent review) and independent
variables (i.e. how to measure sources of urban efficiency).
4 Conclusions
The main goal of the present work is to present a selection of highlights from the
scientific study of urban economics as carried out by the research group in regional
science active at the Politecnico di Milano over the last thirty years, with a particular
focus on optimal city size theory and on the empirics of central place theory. The
specificity of this long-term research programme lies in taking the challenge launched
by Alan Wilson in the early 1980s, i.e. the need to develop a unitary approach to urban
economics, bringing together theoretical areas which were developed in total isolation. These have been labelled the five principles of urban economics (agglomeration,
accessibility, interaction, hierarchy and development; Camagni 1992, Introduction).
The starting point of this journey was the construction of a theoretical and simulation model of urban system dynamics, driven by the capability to innovate in the
functions hosted by each city (SOUDY model; Camagni et al. 1986). Schumpeterian
innovation, generated both by private entrepreneurship and public leadership, and the
consequent structural dynamics, were suggested as the main driving forces of urban
growth. Subsequently, other issues were explicitly inserted into the picture: agglomeration economies, urban and environmental quality, city networks and high-level
urban functions.
Attention was also paid to pinpointing the logical shortcuts of an automatic relationship between agglomeration economies and growth. Again, structural change
is identified as the factor allowing faster growth of urban benefits to overcome the
increase of urban costs, rather than sheer size. Remarkable empirical results have
been achieved to prove these assumptions.
References
Allen, P. M., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization and decision-making. Environment and Planning A, 13, 167–183.
Alonso, W. (1971). The economics of urban size. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science
Association, 26, 67–83.
Beckmann, M. J. (1958). City hierarchies and the distribution of city size. Economic Development
and Cultural Change, 3, 243–248.
Bertuglia, S., Leonardi, G., Ocelli, S., Rabino, G., Tadei, R., & Wilson, A. (Eds.). (1987). Urban
Systems: Contemporary approaches to modelling. London (UK): Croom Helm.
Camagni, R. (1992). Economia Urbana: principi e modelli teorici. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. French
translation (1996): Principes et modèles de l’économie urbaine, Paris: Economica.