The Relationship between Income Inequality and City Size: A General Equilibrium Model of an Open System of Cities Approach

Gershon Alperovich
Additional contact information
Gershon Alperovich: Department of Economics, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900 Israel and the Department of Economics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Urban Studies, 1995, vol. 32, issue 6, 853-862

Abstract: A conclusion which emerges from studies of the factors affecting income inequality among cities is that many are connected through a number of different mechanisms with city size. The explanations are derived from partial equilibrium models of the labour market and ignore considerations associated with labour mobility among cities. To remedy this deficiency our paper employs a well developed general equilibrium model of an open system of cities to characterise the relationship between city size and income inequality that emerges. An outstanding conclusion derived is that, unlike existing explanations which provide justifications only for a unidirectional—positive or negative—rotation between city size and income inequality, the general equilibrium model applies no restrictions on the direction of the relation. Additional restrictions are therefore needed to justify a positive or negative relation. For instance, if households with high income have relative preferences for non-traded goods, whose prices are shown to rise with city size, while households with low income have relative preferences for traded goods, inequality will rise with city size. Conversely, if households with low income have relative preferences for non-traded goods while high-income households have relative preferences for traded goods, income inequality will decline with city size. The model is employed to derive a few propositions regarding the direction of the relation under diverse conditions. These propositions provide plausible explanations for certain relations which may prove to be useful for testing the relevancy of our model. The explanations are more flexible than previous explanations since they can cope with a wider range of predictions, including a reversal of the relation, compatible with empirical observations.

Date: 1995
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00420989550012681 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:32:y:1995:i:6:p:853-862

DOI: 10.1080/00420989550012681

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Urban Studies from Urban Studies Journal Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().