Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Economic Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Economic Review.
http://www.jstor.org
the
Sizes
and
By
Types
of
Cities
J. V. HENDERSON*
This paper presents a general equilibrium model of an economy where production and consumption occur in cities. The
paper solves for equilibrium and optimum
city sizes, discussing under what situations
the equilibrium size differs from the optimum. Optimum city sizes are defined as
those which maximize potential welfare of
participants in the economy. Equilibrium
city sizes are determined by the location
or investment decisions of laborers and
capital owners, each attempting to maximize their own perceived welfare.
Some of the basic concepts underlying
the model are contained in the following
propositions. We observe population agglomeration or cities because there are
technological economies of scale in production or consumption and because these
activities are not space or land intensive
(relative to agriculture). Scale economies
may occur at the final output level, at the
marketing level, or at the intermediate
input level, such as in transportation systems or capital and labor market development.
Given the existence of scale economies,
what limits city size? The following argument is developed by Edwin Mills, and I
utilize his basic argument in this paper.
Mills assumes urban production of traded
goods to occur in a central business district (CBD). In addition to traded goods,
housing is produced in the city and workers commute to the CBD from their sites
VOL. 64 NO. 4
HENDERSON:
641
1-
(1)
X1-PlX
a, + 1 + 61+
$1
6i
Li K1 Nl
1,
0 < P1 <
642
63
33 a3
X3 = N3K3 L3,
63 +
+ a3
SEPTEMBER 1974
Sites are produced with labor or commuting time inputs and used in X1 and X3
production. That is,
(3)
(L1 +
L3)1-z
L1z = No
z< 0
VOL. 64 NO. 4
(4)
HENDERSON:
No+ N1+
K1 +
L1 +
N3
=N
K3
L3 =
643
K
L
B. Consumption Conditions
To close the model, consumption conditions must be specified in order to derive
the demand equations for three consumer
goods. In addition to goods produced in
their own city, X1 and X3, city inhabitants
consume a good X2 imported from other
economies at fixed price q2. Consumers
have identical tastes and maximize logarithmic linear utility functions subject to
their income and prices ql, q2, and q3. Income spent in the city and city demand
for Xi, X2, and X3 is determined as follows.
Laborers live in the cities where they
work and spend their income. Capital
owners are not constrained to live in the
city where their capital rentals are earned.
They may live in the countryside, in other
cities, or in other countries. Cities may be
net borrowers or lenders with respect to
the proportion of capital rentals earned
versus spent in the city. Given these problems and varieties of situations, two alternative polar assumptions are made. These
assumptions play a crucial analytical role
later in the paper.
A ssumption A. All capital owners live
in the cities of this economy and also work as
laborers. For simplicity it is assumed capital ownership is evenly divided among
laborers. If the cities in our economy have
the same K/N ratio in production (which
they will as long as they are identical or until Section IV), they are neither net borrowers nor net lenders. However, they may
be gross borrowers or lenders since capital
owners need not invest in the city they
live in.
a b c
U=a b Cyqi
-a
X3 =
c Y/q3
-b -c
q2 q3
Equation (6) for the indirect utility function is used extensively throughout the
paper. In (5), the superscript C(P) refers
to goods consumed (produced) in the city.
This distinction is crucial for the balance
of trade equation for the city Xl'ql - X'ql
=X2 q2+kPKK where k= 1 under Assumption B and k =0 under Assumption A if
cities are not net lenders or borrowers.
II. Solution of the Model for a City
From the consumption and production
equations of the model, city output, exports, factor prices, and the price of sites
and housing can be solved for in terms of
city employment of capital K and labor N
and the fixed prices of traded goods, qi and
q2. City employment of capital and labor
will be determined in Section III when we
solve for city size. In this section we simply
explore how equilibrium factor prices,
housing prices, and, in particular, utility
levels vary as we vary K and N. To solve
for equilibrium movements of factor and
housing prices as we vary city employment
644
SEPTEMBER
1974
VOL. 64 NO. 4
HENDERSON:
a b c
U = a bc (PN + PKK/N)ql
-a
-b -c
q2 q3
-a
UN = a b C PNqi
-b -e
q2 q3
plus
a b c -
UK = a b c PK K/Nql
-b -c
q2 q3
645
are
log
PN=
log (CNql) + Nm
P-
log I
l(l - Nm) - p1
log N
+p-
log q3
log K/N
log (C,q1l)+ Nm
33 -
wher
-1
(a -
aO(
I3P1
+ Pi - -log N
and C.3ar constant
(C)+N
+(al
whr +Plog
C ndC
aO(
PO
log))
Pi))(l
recnsat
Nm) -
P
K/N
646
(7) log
UN =
log (WNq2
+
-b 1-c-a)
q1
-
(-01
C/3
(8)
(a(l
C) +
C1
UK =
(1
?+
ql
aiX+51+
pi
P
P1-
Ci3l
c) ? a3C(l
) + N
((i
-i
C)
log N
ad(l
1 log K/N ?
+
1
Nn) -_ PIo
)
log N
P1-Pl)
))
C13(pl
ca3(-
Pi))logI
log K/N
log KIN
pi)) (l
1i
Nm) - pi(l
log N
identical to (7) and (8) except the constants IVN, CK, and t are replaced by WN,
CK, and s-1 where s= [(1-33C-a3c)ai
<1. It can be shown that
*(ai+?)-'-a3C]
normally s- > t.
?t~(+? ?3
N ) -
pi(l
(K/N)
1
a, ~
1log t ?
Pi
/(al(l
(l
-pi))
cax3(1
P l))
C/3pO)
-log
P1-
(9)
ca3(1
1974
NmPloI
Pi -
(ad(l - c) +
SEPTEMBER
>
)
(a3+53)
VOL. 64 NO. 4
(10)
(0dN
UK
(11)
NmlpK
Ilogt-
PiL- 1
n(a
Ca -
dUk-Nm-N
+ (1
m
aUN
UN
aN
UK
?
1/M +
Ca3(pi
c)(al
M(al
-P1 N-
al - m
-
647
log
P1-i
[l~~ t
(12)
HENDERSON:
I Nl
UK
aN
648
SEPTEMBER
1974
PKuN
K' N
UN: Assumption A
c2
/
PK Assumption A
Cl
I=
UN Assumption B
02 IC
KA
Assumpio
IC
N(P*)
FIGURE
prevail: aPKla(KIN),
<0,
aUKla(KIN)
all
with
derivatives
and
>0,
aUNla(KIN)
respect to qi are positive. A change in KIN
or qi shifts the factor reward paths up or
down as indicated by the sign of the derivations. Further, from (lO)-(12) equated
to zero, it can be seen that the city sizes
where the factor reward paths attain a
maximum are invariant with respect to
changes in KIN and ql.
To examine factor reward paths under
Assumption B, log t is replaced by -log s
in equations (10) and (12). The above discussion in terms of relative values of a1 and
pi and the shape of the utility and capital
rental paths applies directly. However,
given the values of t and s cited above,
because -log s has replaced the smaller
log t in equations (10)-(12), the city sizes
where UN and PK are maximized are larger
than under Assumption A. This is not surprising. Under Assumption B, no capital
rentals are spent in cities nor thus devoted
to increasing the demand for housing produced and consumed in the city. Since the
amount of housing and hence number of
sites produced relative to X1 is smaller, the
cost of sites rises more slowly to offset the
VOL. 64 NO. 4
paths. For example, in Figure 1 under Assumption B, suppose there are two cities
of size N(C). A random movement of a
small amount of capital and labor from
one city to the other would move us from
C to C1 in the receiving city and from C to
C2in the losing city. Since UN and PKboth
rise in the receiving city this will induce
further movements of factors to the receiving city. That is, the initial equilibrium
is unstable with respect to factor movements. However it is stable to have two
cities on the rising part of the UN path and
falling part of the PK path. Throughout the
649
UN UK
UN
IUK
B. OptimumCity Size
We now determine optimum city size.
The discussion serves only to solve for
optimum city size and does not reflect or
indicate behavior on the part of capital
owners and laborers. There is initially one
city in the economy and the economy is
growing. We want to know when it is optimal to form a second, then a third, etc.,
city. For the initial discussion the K/N
ratio and q1 are held constant by assumption. In solving for optimum city size
Assumptions A and B play a crucial role.
We solve first for Assumption A.
Under Assumption A, all capital owners
work as laborers in this economy and hence
endure the cost of living in the city when
spending their income. Although capital
owners invest to maximize capital rentals,
we are concerned with their utility from
spending capital rentals (and labor wages)
when solving for optimum city size. As explained above, to solve for optimum city
size we maximize laborers' utility from
wage and rental income or we maximize
the vertical sum of the UN and UK paths.
In Figure 2, holding K/N constant as
city size grows beyond N(U*, U*), the
N (%U*,)
FIGURE
2.
3/2NiU*N'U*)
k2N(
fLs)
co,
650
(13)
log t-1/m
+
(1 -C)(al-P1)
m(al-Cal-
+Ca3(1 -P1)
-N-rn
ca3(Pi-1))
-log N=O
A change in the K/N ratio as the economy grows would not affect city size. Regardless of KIN, UN and UK always attain a maximum at the same city size and
hence optimal city sizes as well as equation
(13) are unaffected.
In the discussion here and in particular
for the discussion of market equilibrium to
follow, we are discussing abstract solutions
in which new cities form instantaneously.
In the real world this would not happen, of
course. For example, assume a growing
economy with one city. When it is appropriate to form a second city in the
economy, the second city would start off
very small growing over time until the
two cities were the same size. Given in
reality the nonmalleability of capital, the
actual population decline in the first city
when a second city forms might be very
small. This would be particularly true if
growth in the economy was accompanied
by technological change that increased efficient city sizes. Then the first city might
not decline in size, but the second city
would grow more rapidly over time until
the two cities were the same size.
Note finally the city size N(U*, U*)
indicates the maximum benefits of scale
economies or welfare for our economy. The
benefits of scale economies are limited by
the costs of agglomeration or the rising
costs of homesites or commuting in a
spatial world. In a certain sense, at
N( UN, UR) we approach a constant returns to scale case in production. Doubling
the size of the economy would only double
the number of cities and would bring no
further scale economy benefits.
Under Assumption B, if capital owners
live in the countryside or abroad in other
countries, the price they pay for housing is
SEPTEMBER 1974
El
Totalbenefits
PK(E)E
Loss at E
/
<---
PK(E')ElP
UN(E')
Gain at El
UN(E)
N
N(UF)
N(E'J N(J)
2N(US
) MP
TI
N(E)
FIGUTRE3. OPTIMWAL
CITY SIZE: ASSUMPTIONB
VOL. 64 NO. 4
K/N(PK(E)
PK(E'))
a b c-a
UN(E')
UN(E) = ab cq
--b-c
q2
q3 M(N)
or
(15)
M (N)
= a
-a
-b -c
b c
*(UN(E')
a b c
qlq2q3
- UN(E))
651
Iab_
a
M(N)
>
-b-cab
c q1q'2qc3
(GIUN/a0N)
K/N
pK/aN) I = M(K)
652
7 [r
)
m(l
|C2V
ac
Pi
1
[
a lm [
Pi
1))
ca3(pl
-
SEPTEMBER 1974
log s
logs _
m(al
+
m
c)(ax-
(1-
NN
Pi)
-
-cal
-log
1)
ca3(pI
ca3(pl-
1))
-m
aim
VOL. 64 NO. 4
653
PK,UN
PK(Small)
Proft
PK(Large)
\UN(SmoiI)~
Profits
UN-(Large)
N(smoll)
N(U')
N (E)
654
SEPTEMBER
1974
HENDERSON:
VOL. 64 NO. 4
a UK/aN
= a b C ql
-b
q2
a-ab-b
a b
-c
qlq2q3
UN,UK,PK
UK
-c
PK K/Na(q3
)/aN
655
(aUN 1(+U
aA?aUK/aK) oK
> I apK/aN
K/IN
I
N(UN,UK) N(J)
FIGURE
5.
EQUILIBRIUM
~~UN
N(PK)
N
A
656
SEPTEMBER
1974