Well-being optimization and spatial reorganization for sustainable economic growth indeveloped countries

Daisuke Nakamura
ICSEAD, The International Centre for the Study of East Asian Development, Kitakyushu, 11-4
Otemachi, Kokurakita, Kitakyushu, 803-0814, Japan, +81-93-5836202, Fax +81-93-5834602,
Email: nakamura@icsead.or.jp

1 Introduction-Severe international market competition and the value-added economic activity-

Agglomeration economies in non-central places and less centripetal force of population-

Attractiveness on well-being through public policies, coordinated wider-regionally fromthe standpoint of long-run sustainability-

The optimal system of spatial administrative hierarchical structure-

Population increase and a love of variety-

Well-being with proper scale and scope on economic and social activities-

A trade-off between the additional infrastructure investment for the attractiveness ofregion and the minimisation of expenditure on the local government-

The central-place system and spatial consumer exclusion-

The well-defined central-place system at the lowest hierarchy-

Various well-being or quality of life indicators; i.e., the OECD better life index

2 A location model-

The centripetal force to the central place for firms may have two types of incentive: thespatial proximity to the market for final goods, and the availability of inputs-

If a firm produces final goods to households, the firm prefers locating nearby the centre of
the market area-

If the firm uses two types of inputs, namely, physical input and labour, the optimal firm
location may be a place where transportation costs for shipping physical input are lower,and there are sufficient labour sources

u* 3at4 bt  3k 2  2c-The optimal market-area radius:-Producers determine their size of market area; there are consumers who are not available

2to obtain their goods and services beyond the optimal radius-

The spatial consumer exclusion as a part of centrifugal force of local population andeconomic activity in rural areas-

The attractiveness may have two factors: for producers as economic infrastructureelements; for households as social economic infrastructure elements-

Central place: has almost everything and well-being should be at a higher level due tourbanisation economies, sufficient population, labour market, accessibility to functional
and administrative systems-

Rural areas: lower level on well-being due to insufficient economies of scale, scope andcomplexity, less attractive labour market and centrifugal force of local population-The choice of local government is either to enhance interregional transportation andcommunication network or to complete self-sufficient regional system

3 Hypothetical analysis
Three types of hypothetical scenario:
Case 1 Monocentric system

Fig. 1 Completed interregional transportation networkCase 2 Self-sufficient regional system

Fig. 2 Community-level central place system

Case 3 An intermediate caseFig. 3 Complex spatial system

4 Well-being and sustainable growth-

An alternative spatial formation: wider-regional coordination among neighbour regions-

Case 2 and Case 3: well-being in rural areas and sustainable regional economic growth;these spatial patterns can create job opportunities in rural areas-

The demand for skilled labour requires the region to be with high quality of life, and forskilled labour may encourage to return of retired senior citizens to the society-

As senior citizens can be limited their maximum commuting distance, these spatial
coordination would utilise their job opportunities: related to supply-area analysis

5 An extension-

Estimated and predicted local population, specialised local economic activities, andaccessibility to other areas-

The regional econometric input-output model (REIM)-

The data envelope analysis (DEA)

6 Concluding comments-

Sustainable economic growth in developed countries, including the notion of well-being
elements; centripetal forces of population and economic activity at rural areas-

An enhancement of well-being in rural areas-

Well-balanced accessibility investment from rural areas to the central place andcommunity-level central-place system-

The optimisation of well-being attainments under the condition of given and predicted
local population, potential local economic activities and accessibility to other areasReferences
Blomquist, G. C., Berger, M. C., and Hoehn, J. P. (1988) “New estimates of quality of life inurban areas”, American Economic Review, 78/1: 89-107
Chalmers, J. A., Anderson, E. J., Beckhelm, T and Hannigan, W. (1978) “Spatial interaction insparsely populated regions: an hierarchical economic base approach”, International Regional
Science Review, 3/1: 75-92
Glaeser, E. L., Kolko, J., and Saiz, A. (2001) “Consumer city”, Journal of Economic Geography,
1:27-50
Greenwood, M. J. and Hunt, G. L. (1989) “Jobs versus amenities in the analysis of metropolitanmigration”, Journal of Urban Economics, 25: 1-16
Ifcher, J. and Zarghamee, H. (2011) “Happiness and time preference: the effect of positive affectin a random-assignment experiment”, American Economic Review, 101/ 3109-3129
Israilevich, P. R., Hewings, G. J. D., Sonis, M., and Schindler, G. R. (1997) “Forecasting
structural change with a regional econometric input-output model”, Journal of Regional Science,
37/4: 565-590
Jensen, M. J., and Leven, C. L. (1997) “Quality of life in central cities and suburbs”, Annals ofRegional Science, 31/4: 431-449
Lösch, A. (1938) “The nature of economic regions”, Southern Economic Journal, 5/1: 71-78
Lösch, A. (1944 [1954]) Die raümliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft, Jena, Germany: Fischer, 1944(2nd edn). English translation by W. H. Woglom and W. F. Stolper, The Economics of Location,
Yale University Press, New Haven
Mills, E. S. and Lav, M. R. (1964) “A model of market areas with free entry”, Journal of
Political Economy, 72/3: 278-288
Mulligan, G. F. (1979) “Additional properties of a hierarchical city-size model”, Journal ofRegional Science, 19/1: 57-66
Nakamura, D. (2007) “An integrated framework of market areas and supply areas: combining
market-area systems with supply-area systems” in REAL Discussion Paper, REAL 07-T-3:Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois
Nakamura, D. (2010) “Spatial competition and consumer exclusion: social welfare perspectives
in central-place system”, Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 3/3: 101-110

Parr, J. B., Denike, K. G., and Mulligan, G. (1975) “City-size model and the economic base: arecent controversy”, Journal of Regional Science, 15/1: 1-8
Robinson, M. H. (1997) “Community input-output models for rural area analysis with an
example from central Idaho” Annals of Regional Science, 31/3: 325–351
Sonis, M. (2007) “Central place theory after Christaller and Lösch: some further explorations”, inU. Blum, Funck, R.H., J.S. Kowalski, A. Kuklinski and W. Rothengatter (eds) Space-StructureEconomy: A Tribute to August Lösch, 2nd revised and extended edition, Nomos Verlag, Baden
BadenSonis, M. and Hewings, G. J. D. (2003) “Miyazawa meet Christaller: spatial multipliers within atriple decomposition of input-output central place system”, in REAL Discussion Paper, 03-T-30,
Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL), University of Illinois
Suzuki, S. and Nijkamp, P. (2011) “A stepwise-projection data envelopment analysis for public
transport operations in Japan”, Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 4: 139–156
Suzuki, S., Nijkamp, P., Pels, E., and Rietveld, P. (2012) “Comparative performance analysis ofEuropean airports by means of extended data envelopment analysis”, Journal of advanced
transportation, DOI: 10.1002/atr.204