Is distance really dead? Comparing industrial location patterns over time in Canada

International Regional Science Review

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 431-457

  Polèse, Mario ^a   Shearmur, Richard ^a  

^a CENTRE URBANISATION CULTURE SOCIÉTÉ   (Canada)

Author keywords

Distance; Industrial location; Location; Location theory; Regional development; Urban size

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; INDUSTRIAL LOCATION; LOCATION THEORY; SIZE EFFECT; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 4844223053     PISSN: 01600176     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0160017604267637     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Braczyk, H., P. Cooke, and M. Heidenreich, eds. 1998. Regional innovation systems: The role of governance in a globalized world. London: UCL Press.
2. Cairncross, F. 2001. The death of distance 2.0. How the communications revolution will change our lives. New York: Norton.
3. Castells, M. 1996. The network society. London: Blackwell.
4. Coffey, W. J., and M. Polèse. 1988. Locational shifts in Canadian employment, 1971-1981, decentralisation versus decongestion. Canadian Geographer 32: 248-55.
5. Coffey, W. J., and R. Shearmur. 1996. Employment growth and change in the Canadian urban system, 1971-1994. Working Paper no. 2, Canadian Policy Research Network, Ottawa.
6. Crévoisier, O., and R. Camagni, eds. 2001. Les milieux urbains: innovations, systèmes de production et ancrage. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: éditions EDES.
7. The Economist. 2001. Geography and the Net: Special report. August, pp. 18-21.
8. Florida, R. 1995. Toward the learning region. Futures 27: 527-36.
9. Gaspar, J., and E. Glaeser. 1998. Information technology and the future of cities. Journal of Urban Economics 43: 136-56.
10. Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, September, pp. 131-47.
11. Glaeser, E. L. 1998. Are cities dying? Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 139-60.
12. Gordon, R. J. 2000. Does the "new economy" measure up to the great inventions of the past? Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 49-74.
13. Graham, D., and N. Spence. 1997. Competition for metropolitan resources: The "crowding out" of London's manufacturing industry. Environment and Planning A 29: 459-84.
14. Hall, Peter. 2000. Creative cities and economic development. Urban Studies 37: 639-49.
15. Henderson, J. V. 1997. Medium sized cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27: 583-612.
16. Ingram, G. K. 1998. Patterns of metropolitan development: What have we learned? Urban Studies 35: 1019-35.
17. Kotkin, J. 2001. The new geography: How the digital revolution is reshaping the American landscape. New York: Random House.
18. Maillat, D. 1998. From the industrial district to the innovative milieu: Contribution to an analysis of territorialised production organizations. Working Paper, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
19. McNiven, C., H. Puderer, and D. James. 2000. Census metropolitan areas and census agglomeration influenced zones (MIZ): A description of the methodology. Geography Working Paper Series, no. 2000-02. Statistics Canada, Geography Division, Ottawa.
20. Polèse, M., and E. Champagne. 1999. Location matters: Comparing the distribution of economic activity in the Mexican and Canadian urban systems. International Regional Science Review 22: 102-32.
21. Polèse, M., and R. Shearmur. 2002. The periphery in the knowledge-based economy: The spatial dynamics of the Canadian economy and the future of non-metropolitan regions in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Montreal: INRS-UCS. http://www.inrs-ucs.uquebec.ca.
22. Quigely, J. M. 1998. Urban diversity and economic growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12:127-38.
23. Sassen, S. 2000. The global city. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
24. Shearmur, R. 2001. Economic development in Canadian peripheral regions: A statistical overview. Research Report. Montreal: INRS-UCS. http://www.inrs-ucs.uquebec.ca.