15.08.2012 Views

Document file:///D|/Export1/www.netlibrary.com/nlreader/nlreader.dll ...

Document file:///D|/Export1/www.netlibrary.com/nlreader/nlreader.dll ...

Document file:///D|/Export1/www.netlibrary.com/nlreader/nlreader.dll ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Document</strong><br />

Page 53<br />

outweighs any other tradition in spatial economics. Mark Blaug devotes almost half of his review of<br />

spatial economics to von Thünen and his successors and even this does not take account of the influence<br />

of von Thünen-based models in the analysis of the internal structure of urban areas, which I turn to<br />

below. Von Thünen has attracted favorable attention from many modern economists, from Herbert<br />

Giersch to Paul Samuelson.<br />

All of this is in many ways amply justified. The von Thünen model (even if it was Launhardt who really<br />

first got it right) is a beautiful thing. It illustrates in a surprising context many of the key concepts of<br />

neoclassical economics: the idea of equilibrium; the idea that "value" does not inhere in some hidden<br />

essence, but is instead an emergent consequence of a market process (would that Marx had read von<br />

Thünen); the simultaneous determination of goods and factor prices; the ability of markets to achieve<br />

efficient out<strong>com</strong>es; and the role of prices, even for nonproduced, "underserving" factors like land, in<br />

providing the incentives that promote efficiency.<br />

The one thing that the von Thünen model does not tell you much about, unfortunately, is the central<br />

issue of spatial economics. Or let me be more precise: if you regard it as essential that you be able to<br />

understand why and how the economy avoids "backyard capitalism," the von Thünen model provides<br />

absolutely no help. It simply assumes the thing you want to understand: the existence of a central urban<br />

market. Indeed, the whole thrust of the model is to understand the forces that spread economic activity<br />

away from that center, the "centrifugal" forces if you will. About the "centripetal'' forces that create<br />

centers, that pull economic activity together, it can and does say nothing.<br />

Why should a model with such a powerful limitation bulk so large in location theory? Why, in<br />

particular, should<br />

<strong>file</strong>:///<strong>D|</strong>/Export2/<strong>www</strong>.<strong>netlibrary</strong>.<strong>com</strong>/<strong>nlreader</strong>/<strong>nlreader</strong>.<strong>dll</strong>@bookid=409&<strong>file</strong>name=page_53.html [4/18/2007 10:30:19 AM]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!