The Importance of the Central City to the Regional and National Economy: A Review of the Arguments and Empirical EvidenceAbstractIn the postwar period, population and employment have been growing rapidly in suburban areas, whereas in most central cities they have been declining or growing slowly. Fifty-seven percent of metropolitan statistical area (MSA) residents and 70 percent of MSA jobs were located in central cities in 1950. Today central cities contain only about 37 percent of MSA residents and 45 percent of MSA jobs (Mieszkowski and Mills, 1993).The rapid suburbanization of jobs and people and, in particular, the maturation of "edge cities" (Garreau, 1994) have led to a debate, which started in the popular press and spread to the academic community, over the importance of the central city to the regional economy. A number of journalists (Turque and Washington, 1991; Louisville Courier-Journal, 1991; Philadelphia Inquirer, 1991; Garreau, 1991) and academics (Hartshorn and Muller, 1989; Fishman, 1987) have argued that suburbs are no longer dependent on central cities. The relationship between central cities and their suburbs is seen as competitive rather than complementary. The implication is that the destiny of suburban communities is not tied to the fortunesor more appropriately, the misfortunesof their central cities. Others (Persky et al., 1991; Savitch et al., 1993; Voith, 1992; Ledebur and Barnes, 1992) have argued that central cities and their suburban areas remain closely interconnected. The fortunes of suburban communities are tied to those of their central cities, and the policy implication is that both cities and suburbs could improve their welfare through cooperative actions to arrest urban decline. This article reviews the arguments that have been made on both sides of the debate. Evidence that has a bearing on the validity of each argument is also reviewed. The Importance of the Central City to the Regional and National Economy: A Review of the Arguments and Empirical Evidence (*.pdf, 100 KB)
|