This paper challenges the idea that city-size control strategies can be used to correct for interpersonal inequities. Doubts about the effectiveness of these strategies do not imply a commitment to unbridled economic growth. Neither input-output analysis nor national accounting systems is a suitable technique for evaluating Professor Johnston's ‘welfare/illfare’ model. Population-distribution policies are not the most efficient means of combatting negative externalities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlonsoW, 1971“The economis of urban size”Papers and Proceedings of Regional Science Association2667–83
2.
BaumolW JOatesW E, 1975The Theory of Environmental Policy (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
3.
CameronG CWingoL, (Eds), 1973Cities, Regions and Public Policy (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh)
4.
CumberlandJ H, 1966“A regional interindustry model for analysis of development objectives”Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association1765–94
5.
GilbertA, 1976“The arguments for very large cities reconsidered”Urban Studies1327–34
6.
HochI, 1972“Urban scale and environmental quality” in Research Reports, Volume III, Population, Resources and the Environment Ed. RidkerR G (Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC) pp 231–284
7.
IsardWChoguillCKissinJSeyforthR HTatlockR, 1972Ecologic—Economic Analysis for Regional Development (Free Press, New York)
8.
JohnstonR J, 1976“Observations on accounting procedures and urban-size policies”Environment and Planning A8327–339
9.
LeontiefW W, 1970“Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input—output approach”Review of Economics and Statistics52262–271
10.
MiernykW H, 1973“A regional input—output pollution abatement model”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cyberneticsvolume SMC-3, number 6
11.
NordhausWTobinJ, 1972Economic Growth (National Bureau of Economic Research, New York)
