Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size’

Abstract

Abstract'Borrowed size' is an emerging policy concept in several European countries, presenting theoretical potential to explain contemporary urban dynamics unaddressed through conventional urban growth theories that emphasise the role of agglomeration economies. In its original conceptualisation by Alonso, the concept describes and explains the situation that especially smaller cities that are located in a larger 'megapolitan complex' do perform better because they have access to agglomeration benefits of larger neighbouring cities. This paper scrutinises the concept of borrowed size, thereby focusing on its conceptualisation and reviewing its empirical justification thus far. Our empirical analyses show that the concept must be stretched in terms of scale and scope to enhance its policy value. Borrowed size occurs when a city possesses urban functions and/or performance levels normally associated with larger cities. This is enabled through interactions in networks of cities across multiple spatial scales. These networks serve as a substitute for the benefits of agglomeration.Theoretically, the borrowed size concept demands a recasting of the geographical foundations of agglomeration theory.

Urbanization and start-up rates in different geographies: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden

“…Meijers and Burger (2015) term this Bborrowed performance.^The distance of a given area from an urban center determines the relative access to these urbanization benefits (Partridge et al 2007). Rural areas within daily commuting distance can benefit from urban proximity when urban growth spreads to the hinterlands (Partridge et al 2007).…”

“…First, we measure distance from the geographical centroid of the municipality to the centroid of the nearest urban municipality. If a municipality is located close to a major urban center, it may benefit from urban spillovers as well as Bborrowed size^effects (Partridge et al 2008;Meijers and Burger 2015). If a municipality is classified as urban, the distance to the nearest urban municipality is zero for this municipality.…”

“…Moreover, entrepreneurial people are likely to reside in urban areas (Glaeser et al 2010;Duranton 2014;Westlund et al 2014). Cities do not function in a vacuum, however, and the benefits or disadvantages of a city may very well depend on the configuration of the settlement pattern it is in (Eliasson and Westlund 2013;Meijers and Burger 2015). Two similar cities, one a functional center in a mostly rural area, the other part of large conurbation, may have distinct start-up patterns as a result.…”

“…Originally applied to the situation where smaller cities borrow some of the urbanization benefits of their larger neighbors, it can be applied to rural-urban relationships as well. Access to the functions and networks of large cities can lead to higher average urbanization benefits in nearby areas, even though these functions are not present locally (Camagni et al 2015;Meijers and Burger 2015;Meijers et al 2016). As an illustration, Partridge et al (2007) have shown that employment growth in rural areas is higher if the rural area is within daily commuting distance from an urban center.…”

Megaregions and regional sustainability

“…This reinforces the value of the megaregion framework for the investment of transportation infrastructure at the national level which would be of benefit to both the economy and equity considerations. Regarding the relationship between the core areas and the hinterlands, Meijers and Burger (2015) suggest the concepts of 'borrowed-size' and 'agglomeration shadows'. While the traditional concept of 'borrowed-size' describes that smaller cities in a megaregion borrow size from their nearby larger cities through the benefits of agglomeration, authors argue that 'borrowed size occurs when a city possesses urban functions and/or performance levels normally associated with larger cities' emphasizing the interactions in networks of cities.…”