Search

In the last 15 years, empirical evidence has emerged about the fact that European first-rank cities have not always led national economic performance, and when they did, the difference between first- and second-rank cities in explaining national growth has not been significant. A recent work [Dijkstra, L., Garcilazo, E. & McCann, P. (2013) The economic performance of European cities and city regions: Myths and realities, European Planning Studies,21(3), pp. 334–354] claims that second-rank cities have in fact outperformed first-rank cities, becoming the main driving forces in national economic performance. In the debate that emphasizes the role of second-rank cities in national growth, a simplified view of the role of agglomeration economies is provided; they are taken for granted in small- and medium-sized cities and only in large cities will the problem of a downturn in urban returns to scale emerge. In this paper, a more complex view is assumed, claiming that the oversimplified interpretation that urban economic performance simply depends on the exploitation of agglomeration economies and that these agglomeration economies merely depend on urban size alone should be abandoned. Some already existing theoretical frameworks in urban economics can help in recalling the role of possible bifurcations in the development path of cities, linked to the capability to attract or develop new and higher-order functions, increase internal efficiency and reach scale economies through cooperation networks with other cities (the city-network theory). All these elements work as conditions for fully exploiting agglomeration economies and ways to overcome urban decreasing returns. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]