
The thesis of Jane Jacobsʹ The Economy of Cities remains remarkably fresh and provocative three decades later. Cities, she asserts, are not the result of processes most scientists and economists have assumed they were: Cities do not develop because a pre-existing rural economic base develops and eventually becomes strong enough to support an essentially parasitic urban growth. Instead, Jacobs argues, cities are the prerequisite for any kind of rural economy. Where there are no cities, there are no sustainable rural economies, and the rural economy depends on the city rather than the other way around. Jacobs defines "city" as a "settlement that consistently generates its economic growth from its own local economy"; population centers of any size that have never done this do not meet her definition of city. Likewise, Jacob defines "urban" as "pertaining only to cities..."--Review from (Oct. 18, 2012).
A major difference between cities and computers is that cities self-organise. (the larger ones organise not only themselves but also their suburbs and rural hinterlands; for the US context see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area but note that countries are ephemeral with regard to cities)
see also Jane Jacobs, The Economy of Cities (1969)
(at least according to Jane Jacobs, "The Economy of Cities". Most of her books are good, and "Systems of Survival" might even be relevant to the current US administration)
Germany used the post-Plaza strong DM for reunification. Even after adding NIIP to accumulated GDP, I can't figure out what large aggregate in Japan the post-Plaza strong JPY has benefited.
Her approach was almost the direct opposite of Wrights (and of many urban reformers). Her focus was the street and interactions between residents, shopkeepers, and other inhabitants of the city. Her realization (mirrored well by Garrison Keillor in a biographical documentary I caught a year or so back) was that cities are collections of neighborhoods or villages. rglover her contrasts his impression of Chicago with the small towns of Ohio in which he grew up. My experience with large cities is that frequently their downtowns are impersonal (though even there I've found my niches), but it's in the neighborhood that their character really shows. Sometimes it's a character you don't much care for, but often there's a sense of place and community, even in dynamic and rapidly changing cities, which can persist for years, decades, or even generations. It does take time to appreciate and find, though.
Back to Jacobs: finding her The Life and Death of Great American Cities was a watershed for me (and I can still remember the marginalia in my uni's copy at one of her common-sense observations: "God bless you, Jane"). Cities and the Wealth of Nations and The Economy of Cities changed many of my perceptions of what economics was about and where its real centers lay (it's rarely nations or states, cities and metropolitan areas, yes).
Wright's interesting. But he's no authority on cities or urban planning.
Jane Jacobs's three city books: The Death and Life of Great American Cities, The Economy of Cities, and Cities and the Wealth of Nations.
Jane Jacobs on cities as the economic entities that really matter: The Death and Life of Great American Cities, The Economy of Cities, and Cities and the Wealth of Nations.
Peter Drucker: Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
and the classic textbook:
Paul Samuelson: Economics
