Urban Industrial Relocation: The Theory of Edge Cities

Abstract

Urban economists have recently focused upon a 'newly recognised' phenomenon: edge cities. In the first part of this paper we review two main interpretations , originating from Krugman and Fujita and the Henderson and Mitra models of this urban phenomenon. After a concise review of these two approaches, we will introduce our model which represents a possible third way of explaining the edge city process. The objective is to examine the conditions under which we can observe a relocation of firms from an urban location to a new extra-urban location and then how this new location can generate a specific urban agglomeration pattern in the form of edge cities. Our methodological framework is based upon the model of monopolistic competition which examines the economic relationships among firms at each industrial location and the relationships among distinct firms at different locations. These intra/inter relationships are examined from the point of view of complementarity. Complementarity in our case combines the two notions of (i) firm interaction with cumulative and reinforcing effects and (ii) coordination among firms in local industrial structures. Our interest in this notion stems from the necessity to explain the spatial distribution of firms, particularly the reason why firms in their location decision often choose to cluster. In our model we analyse this aspect of location in clusters from the point of view of the elasticity of substitution.

Ties that Spatially Bind? A Relational Account of the Causes of Spatial Firm Mobility

“…The importance of the type of area a firm is located in is tied to the fact that certain types of areas face more congestion and face more problems with regard to accessibility regardless of Van Dijk & Pellenbarg, 2000). Firms located in a city center can face large congestion problems and might decide to relocate to a location with better accessibility at the edge of the city (Medda et al, 1999). Firms located in residential areas are very often start-ups, which also face a high propensity to relocate.…”

Assessing the Spatial Structure of Urban and Population Growth in the Greater Cairo Area, Egypt: A GIS and Imagery Analysis Approach

“…Change in the spatial structure of metropo-lises, and their regions, is a major theme within urban studies (Soja, 2000;Sassen, 1995;Knox, 1993;Castells and Hall, 1994). This literature encompasses a wide range of processes and dynamics, ranging from suburbanisation (Muller, 1981), edge cities (Beauregard, 1995;Medda et al, 1999) and sprawl (Brueckner, 2000;Squires, 2002) to economic relocation (Hartshorn and Muller, 1989). Of particular interest for the Cairo case is the subset of decentralisation research that examines metropolitan structure in cities in the less-developed world and how they respond to macroeconomic changes (Zhou and Ma, 2000;Lin, 2001;Lo, 1989).…”

El policentrismo se impone a la dispersión en el proceso de descentralización del empleo de las ciudades intermedias mexicanas.

“…Los subcentros de empleo tienen diferentes orígenes, uno de los cuales remite a la descentralización reciente de parte del empleo del centro histórico hacia localidades periféricas. La imposibilidad de encontrar el suelo necesario para llevar a cabo determinadas actividades en el centro histórico, sumada a los elevados precios del suelo y a la congestión, llevó a la formación de subcentros descentralizados periféricos alternativos al centro principal (Bodenman, 1998;Bogart & Ferry, 1999;Clark, 2000;Garreau, 1991;Henderson & Mitra, 1996;Manella, 2007;McDonald & Prather, 1994;McKee & McKee, 2004;Medda et al, 1999;Muñiz, Garcia-López & Galindo, 2008).…”

“…Solo Torreón y Tuxtla Gutiérrez escaparon a esta tendencia, con un número de subcentros que no cambia en Tuxtla Gutiérrez y decrece en Torreón. Otro resultado relevante muestra que, desde el año 1999, se presentaron subcentros de empleo en todas las ciudades intermedias mexicanas estudiadas, como lo plantean diversos autores respecto de la formación de subcentros descentralizados y periféricos (Bodenman, 1998;Bogart & Ferry, 1999;Clark, 2000;Garreau, 1991;Henderson & Mitra, 1996;McDonald & Prather, 1994;McKee & McKee, 2004;Medda et al, 1999;Manella, 2007;Muñiz, Garcia-López & Galindo, 2008). En algunas ciudades, como Matamoros, Acapulco y Culiacán, se identificó un número bajo de subcentros de empleo; pero en otras, como Mexicali, Mérida, Chihuahua y Torreón, se identificó una gran cantidad (ver Tabla 1).…”