Zipf’s Law for Russian Cities: Analysis of New Indicators
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2020-3-20Keywords:
Zipf's law, rank-size rule, city, city hierarchy, Federal District, city size, population density, average annual number of employees of enterprises, average monthly wage, number of enterprises in the cityAbstract
At the present stage, urban economists widely use Zipf ’s law to assess the urban regional and national systems. Zipf ’s law or the rank–size rule is a pattern linking the population of a city with its place in the hierarchy of cities arranged in descending order depending on their size. Using Zipf ’s law, the study aims to analyse the uniformity of the distribution of population, employees, enterprises and organisations in Russian cities. The research is based on the data of the Federal State Statistics Service. We selected a sample of cities from each Federal District and Russia as a whole. The sample included settlements with the status cities and more than 100 thousand inhabitants in 2016. The maximum values of the Zipf coefficient were calculated for the indicators “population size” and “average annual number of employees of enterprises”. Regarding the Federal Districts, the estimated Zipf coefficients ranges from 0.5 to 0.9 in terms of the population size; from 0.4 to 0.8 in terms of the average annual number of the employees of enterprises; from 0.4 to 0.8 in terms of the number of enterprises and organisations. For reducing the identified interregional differentiation in the Federal Districts of Russia, we advise to develop small and medium cities. Further research should focus on the application of Zipf ’s law to create a method for determining the optimal size of a city in a territorial space.
References
Auerbach, F. (1913). Das gesetz der bevölkerungskonzentration. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 59, 74‐76.
Singer, H. W. (1936). The “Courbe des Populations.” A Parallel to Pareto’s Law. The Economic Journal, 46, 254‐263.
Lu, M. & Wan, G. (2014). Urbanization and Urban Systems in the People’s Republic of China: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28, 671‐ 685.
Rastvortseva, S. & Manaeva, I. (2016). Zipf ’s law appearance in the Russian cities. Regional Science Inquiry, VIII(1), 51–59.
Manaeva, I. & Kanishteva, А. (2017). Estimation of factors for social and economic inequality of Russia’s towns. Regional Science Inquiry, IX(2), 147–159.
Manaeva, I. V. (2019). Distribution of Cities in Federal Districts of Russia: Testing of the Zipf Law. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of the Region], 15(1), 84–98. (In Russ.)
Eaton, J. & Eckstein, Z. (1997). Cities and growth: theory and evidence from France and Japan. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 27, 443–474.
Cristelli, M., Batty, M. & Pietronero, L. (2012). There is more than a power law in Zipf. Scientific reports, 2(812), 1–7.
Arshad, S., Hu, S. & Ashraf, B. N. (2018). Zipf ’s law and city size distribution: A survey of the literature and future research agenda. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 492(15), 75–92.
Krugman, P. (1996). Confronting the Mystery of Urban Hierarchy. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 10, 399‐418.
Gabaix, X. (1999). Zipf ’s law for cities: an explanation. Quarterly journal of Economics, 3, 739‐767.
Ioannides, Y. M. & Overman, H. G. (2003). Zipf ’s law for cities: an empirical examination. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 33, 127‐137.
Berry, B. J. L. & Okulicz–Kozaryn, A. (2012). The city size distribution debate: Resolution for US urban regions and megalopolitan areas. Cities, 29, 17‐23.
Ziqin, W. (2016). Zipf Law Analysis of Urban Scale in China. Asian Journal of Social Science Studies, 1, 53–58.
Schaffar, A. & Dimou, M. (2012). Rank-size City Dynamics in China and India, 1981–2004. Regional Studies, 46, 707–721.
Black, D. & Henderson, V. (2003). Urban evolution in the USA. Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 343‐372.
Eeckhout, J. (2009). Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities: Reply. The American Economic Review, 99(4), 1676‐1683.
Levy, M. (2009). Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities: Comment. The American Economic Review, 99, 1672‐1675.
Bee, M., Riccaboni, M. & Schiavo, S. (2013). The size distribution of US cities: Not Pareto, even in the tail. Economics Letters, 120, 232‐237.
Soo, K. T. (2007). Zipf ’s Law and Urban Growth in Malaysia. Urban Studies, 44, 1‐14.
Pérez‐Campuzano, E., Guzmán‐Vargas, L. & Angulo‐Brown, F. (2015). Distributions of city sizes in Mexico during the 20th century. Chaos, Solutions & Fractals, 73, 64‐70.
Duran, H. E. & Ozkan, S. P. (2015). Trade Openness, Urban Concentration and City‐Size Growth In Turkey. Regional Science Inquiry, 7, 35‐46.
Kolomak, E. A. (2014). Development of Russian urban system: tendencies and determinants. Voprosy ekonomiki, 10, 82–96. (In Russ.)
Kolomak, E.A. (2016). What does tell a deviation from Zipf ’s law? EKO [ECO], 11, 121–128. (In Russ.)
Andreev, V., Lukiyanova, V. & Kadyshev, E. (2017). Analysis of people territorial distribution in regions of the Volga Federal District on the base of Zipf and Gibrat laws. Prikladnaya ekonometrika [Applied econometrics], 4(48), 97–121. (In Russ.)
Gabaix, X. & Ibragimov, R. (2011). Rank — 1/2: A Simple Way to Improve the OLS Estimation of Tail Exponents. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29, 24–39.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Svetlana N. Rastvortseva, Inna V. Manaeva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
