The concept of counterurbanisation has evoked criticisms. Some are technical, to do with terminology and analytical design. More serious criticisms stem from disquiet with the theoretical foundations. It is this issue that the present paper aims to address. We begin by discussing some problem areas related to techniques and concepts and lead on to an argument that the weakness in counterurban research arises from its preoccupation with population trends and with patterns rather than processes. The paper conclude that alternative approaches are needed which treat counterurbanisation as an element of regional restructuring rather than as an end in itself.

No abstract

Book Reviews I 349 niques are usually employed at a high level of aggregation, it cannot be denied that they are cheaper than input-output studies-ften by several orders of magnitude. As a result, Richardson and other proponents of input-output analysis have a responsibility t o demonstrate that their preferred technique is worth its extra cost.-tion (2) on page 334 should read with the range-1.0 < c, < k1.0.

No abstract

No abstract