| Literature DB >> 32937361 |
Inho Hong1, Morgan R Frank2,3, Iyad Rahwan1,4,5, Woo-Sung Jung6,7,8,9, Hyejin Youn10,11,12,13,14.
Abstract
Is there a universal economic pathway individual cities recapitulate over and over? This evolutionary structure-if any-would inform a reference model for fairer assessment, better maintenance, and improved forecasting of urban development. Using employment data including more than 100 million U.S. workers in all industries between 1998 and 2013, we empirically show that individual cities indeed recapitulate a common pathway where a transition to innovative economies is observed at the population of 1.2 million. This critical population is analytically derived by expressing the urban industrial structure as a function of scaling relations such that cities are divided into two economic categories: small city economies with sublinear industries and large city economies with superlinear industries. Last, we define a recapitulation score as an agreement between the longitudinal and the cross-sectional scaling exponents and find that nontradeable industries tend to adhere to the universal pathway more than the tradeable.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32937361 PMCID: PMC7442357 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aba4934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Fig. 1City size determines characteristic economic structure.
(A) The characteristic industries of the three smallest, medium, and largest cities in the industry space (see Materials and Methods). Each industry (node) is sized by its comparative advantages and colored by the cross-sectional scaling exponent (β). Every value is averaged over the 16-year time span reflected in our dataset. Empty nodes are noncharacteristic industries. Two industries are connected when they are likely to exist in the same city (ψ > 0.15). The histogram shows the frequency of scaling exponents of characteristic industries in each industry space. (B) The average scaling exponent of characteristic industries in each U.S. city (y axis) compared to population (x axis). (C) We compare the importance of industries (y axis) with different scaling exponents (color) across cities of different sizes (x axis). A vertical section denotes the economic profile of a city of that population. We observe a critical population (N* ≈ 1.2 million) that divides small city economies from innovative large city economies. (D) After ordering U.S. cities in decreasing size (x and y axes), we measure the pairwise Pearson correlation of economic profiles I of cities averaged for the entire time span. As in (C), N* corresponds to a critical population size that separates cities based on economic profile.
Urban recapitulation is common across industries.
List of recapitulation scores S, cross-sectional scaling exponents β, scaled growth coefficients , and nationwide trends of industry sectors in the order of S. The cross-sectional scaling exponent is averaged over the 16-year time span. The scaled growth coefficient and the nationwide trend are measured for the difference between 1998 and 2013 according to Eq. 2. The recapitulation score captures how much the scaled growth is associated with the cross-sectional scaling according to Eq. 3.
| Educational services | 0.90 | 1.21 | 1.09 | 0.18 |
| Retail trade | 0.86 | 0.96 | 0.82 | −0.12 |
| Construction | 0.82 | 1.05 | 0.86 | −0.28 |
| Utilities | 0.79 | 0.99 | 1.20 | −0.30 |
| Wholesale trade | 0.78 | 1.12 | 0.88 | −0.18 |
| Real estate and rental and | 0.76 | 1.12 | 0.85 | −0.09 |
| Other services (except public | 0.74 | 1.02 | 0.76 | −0.15 |
| Arts, entertainment, and | 0.71 | 1.09 | 0.77 | 0.06 |
| Management of companies | 0.71 | 1.46 | 1.03 | 0.02 |
| Accommodation and food | 0.69 | 1.00 | 0.69 | 0.10 |
| Health care and social | 0.69 | 0.96 | 0.66 | 0.15 |
| Manufacturing | 0.66 | 0.94 | 0.62 | −0.47 |
| Transportation and | 0.65 | 1.11 | 0.72 | 0.14 |
| Professional, scientific, and | 0.64 | 1.22 | 0.78 | 0.07 |
| Information | 0.58 | 1.16 | 0.67 | −0.23 |
| Finance and insurance | 0.50 | 1.17 | 0.59 | −0.07 |
| Administrative and support | 0.37 | 1.17 | 0.44 | −0.06 |
| Agriculture, forestry, fishing, | 0.28 | 0.65 | 1.13 | −0.31 |
| Mining, quarrying, and oil and | 0.06 | 0.78 | 1.51 | −0.30 |
Fig. 2Cities recapitulate the industrial employment of larger cities.
(A) The trajectory of each city’s Educational Services employment and population size. The scaling relations are denoted by the lines for 1998 (dashed) and 2013 (solid). Arrows depict the change in population and industry size of each city from 1998 to 2013. The detrended trajectory of each city is depicted in the inset. We decompose the nationwide trend and subtract it from the employment growth of each city. (B) Similar to (A), the trajectory of each city by employment in manufacturing. (C) Decomposition of a city’s trajectory. A city’s trajectory (black arrow) can be decomposed into scaled growth (red arrow) and nationwide trend (blue arrow). (D) The recapitulation score for each industry in the 2-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) classification. For industries that are well described by urban scaling (i.e., R2 > 0.65), the average industrial recapitulation score of 0.70 is reasonably high.
Fig. 3Urban recapitulation is common across city sizes and leads small cities to follow the economic path of larger cities.
(A) The recapitulation score for each city group using industries with strong scaling relationships. Cities are binned into 20 equal-sized groups according to population size. A longitudinal scaling effect explains about 60% of employment growth in most cities except for a few very small cities. The dashed line denotes the average recapitulation score over all groups. (B) The lead-follow matrix demonstrates increases (red) or decreases (blue) in industrial similarity between cities ranked and grouped by size (i.e., group 1 denotes the largest cities and group 20 denotes the smallest cities). Each cell represents the similarity change over 10 years of an observed city group (y axis) with respect to a reference group (x axis). The positive upper triangle means that smaller cities in the future become more similar to larger cities at the present.