The Urban System of Southeastern Europe: Evolution, Structure and Hierarchy

The Urban System of Southeastern Europe: Evolution, Structure and Hierarchy Sotiris Pavleas University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece George Petrakos University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece 1. Introduction Urban and regional researchers in various European countries have described the enhancement and the polarization between urban centres as a new form of spatially disparate development (Kratke 1993). Considerable interest has been observed, during the last years, in a large number of scientific studies concerning the characteristics of national urban systems and urban evolution in general. This specific interest, in the evolution of urban structure and urban hierarchy as well, derives from the fact that the process of structural changes and economic integration has not only influenced urban systems, through favouring mainly urban primacy, but it has also caused a variety of urban problems and urban disparities within the national urban systems. These particular changes (Suarez-Villa 1988) are considered to be part of the spatial evolution and have the ability to shape the urban and regional socio-economic structures even in non-reversible ways. According to Kratke (1993), significant contributions to the concept and configuration of urban system have been provided by the urban economists A. Pred (1977), E.S. Dunn (1980) and P. Hall (1993). Pred analyses the urban systems of highly developed economies in a historical perspective. Based on his views, the long-term development of the urban system can be seen as a process of cumulative reinforcement of structural differences among cities that either have remained stable or have already succeeded in gaining an early advantage in the train of growth and structural adaptation. In this context, close economic ties between cities are accentuated, as are also the spread effects of growth processes in a city within the wider urban system. Urban regions that have not managed to secure a favourable position have a rather instable development within this dynamic system and consequently could be controlled by external decision making centres. Dunn expressed the concept of urban system as an activity network structure. A major influence in the development of urban regions constitutes the change in activity transfer linkages. On a long-term basis, these can be internalized or externalized. In Dunn s view, the formation of new production complexes in areas surrounding urban agglomerations can be described as a process of internalization of activity transfer linkages. Similarly, the external deployment of certain production activities from centres in the urban system to peripheral cities can be seen as a process of externalization of transfer linkages. The urban system is to be understood as a network of activity centres within a national or a wider economic region, connected by means of physical transfers, of information flows, of directives as well as by means of capital (monetary) transfers. The quality of the links determines inequalities in the development of the individual activity centres. Finally, Hall focuses on an analysis of seven major forces, which are affecting the value of geographical space, and thus the form of urban structure in Europe, and on a presentation of the urban impacts of these specific forces. The seven major forces are: i) globalization and the formation of continental trading blocks, ii) the transformation of Eastern Europe (a factor which has constituted a significant stimulant for the concept of this article), iii) the shift to the informational economy, iv) the impact of transport technology v), the impact of information technology, vi) the new role of urban promotion and boosterism and vii) the impact of demographic and social change. 1

Cities are the most dynamic centres of economic change in national economies. Changes in the world economy thus are likely to have their most radical effects in restructuring the urban economy and in refashioning old settlement patterns (Harris 1997). That is perhaps the reason why important current theoretical and empirical work has been produced regarding the economics of the cities, urban evolution and urban restructuring (Cheshire 1990, Cheshire 1995, McCann 1995, Mills and Labuele 1995, Cheshire and Carbonaro 1996, Hall 1997, Moomaw and Shatter 1996, Moomaw 1998, Ciccone 2000, Puga 2002, Glaeser and Shapiro 2003, Smith and Zenou 2003). Focusing mainly on the conceptualization of the metropolis, the economics, the evolution and the structure of metropolitan areas, and investigating on the relations between a metropolitan centre and the rest of a national or a broader urban system, a considerable number of academics and researchers has presented significant results (Suarez-villa 1988, Frey 1988, Petrakos and Brada 1989, Batten 1995, Simon 1998, Ingram 1998, Champion 2001), providing the scientific sector of metropolitan economics with motivation for further and deeper analysis. Most modern scholars of urban development acknowledge that trans-national processes are having an increasingly important influence of the evolution of cities. An early observation was the recognition of an emerging system of world cities, a kind of urban elite, which is shaped in part by the new international division of labor. An investigation of the hierarchical tendencies and the patterns of this world city network that seems to prevail comes from Taylor (1997) and Derruder et al. (2003). These cities are also thought to be controlling and coordinating global finance and producer and business services. The view of world cities as the key nodes of the international urban system is a widely held one, underpinned in particular by rapid advances in the development of information technology and telecommunications (Batten 1995). So, in a globalized environment dominated by the need of exchanging critical information and productive technology, in a European economy where the older and mostly the new member states chase the train of economic integration and, lastly, in an intensive socioeconomic transition period for the countries of eastern Europe, trans-national forces are having an impact not only on the largest urban centres, but internally on each national system of urban settlements as well. Existing disparities are expected to increase further as the creation of an enlarged market favours leading enterprises in large economically strong urban regions, whereas the economically weaker regions logically will try to apply economic strategies (probably based on low wage labour) with no ensured positive outcome. In this framework, considerable interest derives for the investigation of the evolution and the interactions of the urban systems of the four neighbour countries of Southeastern Europe, Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece. This specific interest could be aggrandized by the different characteristics of each country s national status in an international context. Analytically, Greece constitutes a full member of the European Union and the Single Market, while Albania, Bulgaria and FYROM constitute three transition countries in a socioeconomic and political level. Of course, it should be pointed out that Bulgaria s particular feature is that the negotiations for its European Union s candidacy have already begun. In this article, the research focuses on the examination of the characteristics and the evolution of the national urban system and hierarchy of Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece. The main purpose is to investigate whether this quite new economic and political environment for the four countries has favoured urban concentration and urban primacy or it has set off reverse urban dynamics of urban deconcentration. In this framework, the idea of a wider regional system of urban centres is also adopted, that is, the evolution of the four urban systems as one is examined. A depiction of the area under analysis is shown in Picture 1. This research is also injected with additional analysis and comments on the final findings based on a questionnaire survey in the metropolitan areas of Tirana, Sofia, Skopje and Thessalonica. This complementary information concerns the relations, the interactions and the spread effects between the metropolitan regions and the larger and smaller cities of each urban system. The article ends with several concluding remarks. Moreover, it needs to be stressed out that for the completion of this research we have regarded as cities or urban centres all the urban settlements that exceed the 10.000 population limit. In parallel, it should be noted that the metropolitan area of Thessalonica is the second in hierarchy city of the Greek urban system, while the rest three metropolitan areas constitute the first in hierarchy city in their national system of urban centres. 2. Description of Albania s, Bulgaria s, FYROM s and Greece s urban systems 2a. The evolution of Rank-Size distribution of Albania s, Bulgaria s, FYROM s and Greece s urban systems A new economic environment is established globally and European national economies have become increasingly integrated within a global system of production, distribution and exchange. Globalization, the need for an informational diffusion and reduction of transportation costs that have accrued, have contributed to the rapid economic and social restructuring of the majority of the European cities to the creation of a new urban 2

hierarchy and to significant changes in the internal hierarchy of national urban systems. Especially for Albania, Bulgaria and FYROM, which constitute three transition countries that fall in our space of study, it is quite interesting to trace the bearing of this great political and social change in each country s system of urban centres. As for Greece, it is equally important to follow how the increasing openness of its economy to world, European and even more specifically to Balkan markets and perhaps the lack of a general urban strategy, have affected the hierarchy and the distribution of the urban system. However, it should be noted that the evolution and structure of the urban systems in Southeastern Europe is virtually unknown in the international literature, and with the exception of some research in Greece (Petrakos, Pavleas and Anagnostou 2003), the information about the national urban systems in the other countries has been restricted to national documents. In addition, the evolution of the wider regional urban system (of the four countries) has never been examined before as a whole. Reports on the European system of urban places (Cheshire 1995) have ignored Southeastern Europe due to lack of relevant data. In Table 1, the national population share of the domineering metropolitan regions for the four countries and for available statistics is presented. It is obvious that of all the countries, only Greece is characterized by a relatively high degree of metropolitan concentration. The rest of the countries demonstrate a degree that fluctuates between 10 and 20% of the national population. This proportion cannot be characterized as high by international standards. Observing Table 2, one can see that, with the exception of Athens, which has a population of over three million residents, all other capital cities are relatively small by European standards. Consequently, one can realize that among the four countries of Southeastern Europe only Greece has developed a large metropolitan area. The same conclusions derive by observing the rank-size distribution of the four countries urban systems. In order to observe any significant changes in the diachronic evolution of each country s urban hierarchy we present, in a logarithmic form (about size), the rank-size distribution of cities with population over 10.000 residents for the years that we have data availability. 3

Picture 1:The urban systems of Southeastern Europe 4

The logarithmic form of size makes the figures more visible and at a further level the comparison easier. Looking at Figures 1 to 3 successively, and paying, firstly, attention to the rank-size distribution for each country separately, one can see for Albania that the trend for every year of study is relatively the same. Moreover, one can notice that the number of cities that exceeds the 10.000 residents limit increases over time, so more cities enter our field of analysis. There is a more intense population increase of the cities that are placed between 13 and 20 of the rank scale (with population between 10.000 and 20.000 inhabitants), for the year 2001, and this means that these particular cities grew faster the last 12 years of analysis. Table 1: Metropolitan Concentration in the four countries Capital region Country Year Share of national population (%) Tirana Albania 1990 2001 11,5 15,1 Sofia Bulgaria 1980 1991 1998 12,0 13,0 14,0 Skopje FYROM 1981 1991 2002 Attica Greece 1981 1991 2001 Source: Own estimates from SEED database * Estimate on the basis of the Atticon Metron study. 23,0 20,0 20,0 34,6 34,7 38,0* Table 2: Size distribution of cities over 50.000 residents (for the last available year for each country) Number of cities in size group (in millions) Country >3 3>2 2>1 1>0,5 0,5>0,2 0,2>0,1 0,1>0,05 Albania 1 5 Bulgaria 1 2 6 14 FYROM 1 4 Greece 1 1 4 10 Total 1 1 1 4 10 33 Source: Own estimates from SEED database LN(SIZE) 15 14 13 12 11 FIGURE 1: Rank-Size Distribution of cities over 10.000 residents of Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece for 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1981 respectively Albania 1979 Bulgaria 1980 FYROM 1981 Greece 1981 10 9 8 1 21 41 61 81 RANK In the case of Bulgaria, there is a clear trend of population loss for the Bulgarian cities and it is of great interest the fact that for some cities in 1998 the decrease of the population brings them at the size levels of 1980, 5

especially the cities with rank places between 21 and 31 and the smaller in the hierarchy cities. Concerning FYROM, one can see that for years 1981 and 1991 there is a common general trend. However, the population size of cities tends to increase rapidly for year 2002 and especially for cities that rank after the 3rd position. Finally, regarding the hierarchy of the Greek urban system, one can notice that the number of cities that exceeds the 10.000 residents limit increases over time. The hierarchy lines follow indeed a more common tendency among the reference years, although one should not ignore that after the first city (capital city Athens), the ranksize curve drops significantly until the second (Thessalonica), while also important is the further drop until the third in hierarchy Greek city (Patra). Indicant of this trend is the fact that the population of Thessalonica is more than four times larger than the population of Patra in 2001. In terms of a spherical analysis, one can realize that all countries exhibit a core-periphery pattern to some degree. The rank-size curve drops importantly and abruptly after the first city, until it meets the second city, which in most cases is much smaller in size. Especially, in the case of Greece the abrupt route of the curve continues until the third city, since, as it was mentioned before, Thessalonica (2 nd in hierarchy) is about four times larger than Patra (3 rd in hierarchy). 15 FIGURE 2: Rank-Size Distribution of Cities over 10.000 residents of Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece for 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1991 respectively LN(SIZE) 13 11 Albania 1989 Bulgaria 1990 FYROM 1991 Greece 1991 9 1 21 41 RANK 61 81 15 FIGURE 3: Rank-Size Distribution of Cities over 10.000 residents of Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece for 2001, 1998, 2002 and 2001 respectively LN(SIZE) 13 Albania 2001 Bulgaria 1998 FYROM 2002 Greece 2001 11 9 1 21 41 RANK 61 81 Consequently, it is obvious that a lack of medium sized cities prevails in every country s urban system. Although the removal of the first city reveals a much more normal distribution, this, however, consists of relatively small 6

cities. One should also notice that in Albania and FYROM, the second largest city fluctuates at size levels less than one or two hundred thousand people. In addition, examining the three figures successively, it is clear that because of the smaller number of cities over 10.000 residents of Albania and FYROM (which is related with their relatively smaller size) and due to their more abrupt curves, these two countries follow a more common trend. Respectively, due to Bulgaria s and Greece s bigger number of cities over 10.000 residents and their more balanced distribution (excluding the first in hierarchy city), their urban systems exhibit similar tendencies. In this framework, comparing FYROM s and Albania s distributions over time, one can realize that there is a reversal of the initial situation. At the beginning of our analysis, the cities of FYROM exhibited higher population sizes, especially after the 6 th ranking place. This particular trend changed until the second phase of our study, where notable is the better performance of Albanian cities between the 2 nd and 7 th ranking position, and finally at the third phase, they create additional antecedence between the 15 th and the 21 st ranking city. In terms of the two larger countries of our research, the situation is more obvious. The Bulgarian urban system presents less asymmetries concerning its urban structure and comparing to the rest urban systems, since it shows a more normal distribution (after the 1 st city). Moreover, diachronically, the Bulgarian cities over 10.000 residents maintain a higher population level than this of the other countries (except for the 1 st city), and only in Figure 3 of our analysis the Greek cities seem to recover, especially after the 32 nd ranking position. 2b. Estimation of the Pareto co-efficient for the urban system of Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece Over the last years, a large part of the literature on the urban development has supported the idea that the longrun changes in the urban systems are influenced, to a large degree, by the changes that happen in the biggest or in the first in the hierarchy metropolitan centre (Vining and Kontuly 1978, Dacey 1979, Parr 1985). Urban economic changes can possibly produce transformations in the inter-urban spatial structure via the concentration, or the deconcentration of the population and economic activities. Interactions between the two factors, the urban economic change and the evolution of spatial structure, have constituted an important challenge in the academic and research area (Parr and Jones 1983, Guerin-Pace 1995, Krugman 1996, Brakman et al. 1999, Gabaix 1999, Reed 2002, Black and Henderson, 2003). Respectively, it is necessary to inspect the evolution of Albania s, Bulgaria s, FYROM s and Greece s urban system and identify whether the new economic environment have led them to tendencies of concentration or deconcentration. In order to achieve that, we introduce a methodology that has been presented in many important theoretical and empirical studies (Beckmann 1958, Parr 1985, Rossen and Resnick 1981). To be more specific, these studies have shown that a hierarchic structure of a closed urban system can be described more generally by the function of rank-size distribution: S = A R a (1) where S is the population of an urban centre and R is its position in the hierarchy (e.g.. 1 st, 2 nd,.. 27 th, e.t.c). The a power is a positive parameter (Pareto coefficient), close to one (bigger or equal or smaller to one) and it expresses the degree of concentration or deconcentration of the population in upper part of hierarchy. The parameter A represents the expected size of the largest urban centre (Petrakos and Mardakis, 1999). Therefore, based on the rank-size distribution, the first and biggest in the hierarchy urban centre will have population S 1 =A, the second, S 2 =A/2 a, the third S 3 =A/3 a, and so on. Obviously, when a = 1, each city in the hierarchy of system has population equal with the population of the largest city divided by the position in the hierarchy; that is to say the second city has population S 2 = A / 2 = S 1 / 2, the third city has population S 3 = A / 3 = S 1 / 3, while the n th city in the hierarchy has population equal to Sn = A / n = S 1 / n. Also, one can realize that when the Pareto parameter a takes values greater than one (a > 1), then the population distribution tends to more concentrated patterns. When a takes values smaller to one, the proportion of big cities grows in the national urban system. Consequently, a parameter could be considered as an indicator of the metropolitan concentration degree that could quantify the cross-correlation between the biggest and the smaller cities. Transforming equation (1) into a stochastic relationship by adding an error term ε, where ε is normally distributed and (ε ~Ν (0, σ ε )) and represents the not systematic or accidental factors that influence the size of urban centre. At the same time, the equation is expressed in logarithmic terms and the equation (2) derives ln (S t ) = ln (A) a ln (R t ) + e t (2) where e t = lnε t. Estimating equation (2) using ordinary least squares method, we are able to estimate the Α και a parameters for all the reference years and for the four countries under analysis. At this point, we should emphasize that the estimated results of all the regressions for all four countries have been corrected for heteroskedasticity (using the White test). The values in the parentheses present the t-statistics, which indicate of their high value and that the estimated coefficients are statistically significant. Further, the reported values of R 2 show high explanatory power in the estimated econometric model. 7

So, observing the behaviour of a parameter in Table 3, one can support that the Albanian urban system tends to less concentrated patterns. With the exception of the value of year 1979, when we had a major increase of the Pareto co-efficient, there is a general decreasing tendency from 1969 to 2001, showing that the metropolitan dominance of Tirana is weakening over time. Concerning the Bulgarian urban system, the small values of a parameter (not close to 1) show a very small level of urban concentration, although according to Table 4 this situation tends to reverse diachronically because of the light increasing trend of the Pareto co-efficient. In Table 5, the evolution of the Pareto co-efficient demonstrates a clear but extremely light trend of FYROM s system of urban centres towards deconcentration. Table 3: Trend of Albanian urban system using Pareto co-efficient ln (Ŝ) = ln (Â) + â ln (R) Year ln (Â) â R 2 N 1969 12,193 (56,983) 1979 13,687 (19,494) 1989 12,529 (70,36) 2001 12,983 (94,159) Source: Own estimates -1,158 (-13,577) -1,503 (-5,566) -1,042 (-15,655) -1,038 (-19,381) 0,932 12 0,739 15 0,950 22 0,958 22 Table 4: Trend of Bulgarian urban system using Pareto co-efficient ln (Ŝ) = ln (Â) + â ln (R) Year ln (Â) â R 2 N 1980 13,773 (179,0832) 1990 13,974 (159,1985) 1998 13,846 (170,3695) Source: Own estimates -0,990 (-50,099) -1,000 (-45,114) -1,020 (-48,062) 0,982 84 0,978 84 0,985 84 Table 5: Trend of FYROM s urban system using Pareto co-efficient ln (Ŝ) = ln (Â) + â ln (R) Year ln (Â) â R 2 N 1981 12,586 (55,395) 1991 12,618 (63,644) 2002 12,735 (64,959) Source: Own estimates -1,115 (-12,517) -1,105 (-5,566) -0,985 (-13,468) 0,948 22 0,958 26 0,948 26 8

Table 6: Trend of Greece s urban system using Pareto co-efficient ln (Ŝ) = ln (Â) + â ln (R) Year ln (Â) â R 2 N 1971 13,248 (33,926) 1981 13,524 (38,601) 1991 13,617 (43,910) 2001 13,711 (49,894) Source: Own estimates -0,976 (-8,476) -1,020 (-10,155) -1,020 (-11,831) -0,991 (-13,504) 0,903 57 0,921 63 0,940 71 0,944 83 Table 7: Trend of the wider regional urban system of southeastern Europe using Pareto co-efficient ln (Ŝ) = ln (Â) + â ln (R) Year ln (Â) â R 2 N 1980 14,840 (74,216) 1990 14,527 (221,259) 2000 14,570 (221,634) Source: Own estimates -1,030 (-50,099) -0,977 (-45,114) -0,966 (-48,062) 0,984 181 0,987 199 0,985 215 Regarding the Greek urban system and examining the evolution of the estimated a parameter in Table 6, we observe that there is an increasing tendency from 1971 to 1981, then there is stabilization for the next decade and lastly there is a light-decreasing tendency until 2001. More specifically, the Greek urban system showed signs of concentration until 1981, stabilized and then tended to deconcentration until the last year of analysis. Of course, one should not forget that in terms of the Greek situation Thessalonica is the second in hierarchy city and the heavy concentration pattern refers mostly to the domineering capital city of Athens. However, according to a study carried out by Petrakos, Pavleas and Anagnostou (2003), the trend of urban deconcentration, which the Pareto co-efficient shows for the last decade of analysis is misleading, because if one examines the broader urban regions of Athens and Thessalonica and the evolution of the cities population that locate into these areas, one should not refer to an urban deconcentration but to a restructuring, an amplification and enhancement of the wider metropolitan regions of Athens and Thessalonica. Finally, the comparison among the four countries, concerning each one s urban system tendency to concentrate or deconcentrate and based on the behaviour of the Pareto co-efficient, follows. Although different characteristics of each country s system of urban centres prevail and the outcomes of the applied regressions distinguish each case, one could support that the two smaller countries of our analysis, Albania and FYROM, demonstrate a trend of urban deconcentration. In the case of FYROM, the specific trend is very light. A light tendency is also shown by Bulgaria s urban system, but towards further concentration. In terms of the Greek situation, although the a parameter showed signs of deconcentration, as explained in the relative paragraph before, the realistic version is related with an expansion and an enhancement of the metropolitan regions of Athens and Thessalonica. Examining the wider regional urban system of the four countries as one (Table 5), a clear diachronic tendency of urban deconcentration is derived and it is accompanied with an increase of the urban settlements that exceed the 10.000 population limit over time. 3. Findings based on the Questionnaire Survey in the metropolitan regions of Tirana, Sofia, Skopje and Thessalonica Interesting views emerge based on the final findings of the questionnaire survey in the four metropolitan areas regarding mainly the performance of the four metropolises and its interrelations with the other smaller urban areas in each country. This questionnaire survey was executed in the framework of RIMED project (Regional Integration and Metropolitan Development in Southeastern Europe, INTERREG III B CADSES) and is based on 261 questionnaires distributed to selected individuals related with organizations and institutions of administration and planning in each metropolis. 9

Table 8: The economic performance of the metropolitan regions in the last 10-15 years in comparison with the average performance of the National economy. Metropolitan Much better Better than the Same as the Worse than the Much worse than the national national national than the national average average average average national average Skopje 25,9% 50,0% 22,4% 1,7% 0,0% Sofia 75,8% 21,2% 3,0% 0,0% 0,0% Thessalonica 16,2% 57,4% 16,2% 10,3% 0,0% Tirana 46,2% 50,8% 3,1% 0,0% 0,0% Total 41,2% 44,7% 10,9% 3,1% 0,0% In Table 8 we present the opinion of our sample regarding the performance of the four metropolitan areas, in comparison with the average performance of the National economy. The great majority (85,9%) of the respondents in our sample believe that metropolitan areas have done during the last 10-15 years much better or better than the national average. This view is more wide spread among people in Sofia and Tirana, than among people in Skopje and Thessalonica. Table 9. The economic relations of the metropolis with the smaller cities in each country are unbalanced, favoring mainly the metropolis Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 47,5% 47,5% 5,1% 0,0% 0,0% Sofia 25,4% 49,3% 20,9% 4,5% 0,0% Thessalonica 29,0% 58,0% 11,6% 1,4% 0,0% Tirana 53,8% 41,5% 4,6% 0,0% 0,0% Total 38,5% 49,2% 10,8% 1,5% 0,0% In Table 9, our respondents evaluate the type of relations the metropolis develops with the smaller cities. An overwhelming majority in our sample considers that these relations are unbalanced favouring mainly the metropolis (87,7%). Can these unbalanced relations and the resulting unbalanced development be cured by a central government that concentrates most powers (Table 10)? Although a significant minority of our sample (about 26,1%) would tend to agree with this option, the majority would either disagree (45%), or be uncertain (28,8%). More favourable views for a strong central government have the people in Tirana, while less favourable view have the people in Thessalonica. Responses are also divided when the question comes to the role of the public sector in reducing regional inequalities (Table 11). Although a majority group of about 43,2% tends to consider that a strong public sector can help to reduce regional inequalities, an equally large group (37,5%) is in doubt. We should note however, that a relatively small share of the respondents (19,3%) openly disagrees with this proposition. Most people in favour of the proposition are in Tirana and Skopje, most people against the idea are from Sofia, while most people in doubt are in Sofia and Thessalonica. 10

Table 10. Balanced development is more likely to take place if central government is strong and concentrates most powers Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 8,3% 11,7% 26,7% 41,7% 11,7% Sofia 3,0% 19,4% 49,3% 25,4% 3,0% Thessalonica 7,2% 4,3% 11,6% 53,6% 23,2% Tirana 18,8% 32,8% 28,1% 18,8% 1,6% Total 9,2% 16,9% 28,8% 35,0% 10,0% Table 11. Maintaining a strong public sector may be a way to reduce regional inequalities Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 5,1% 45,8% 27,1% 20,3% 1,7% Sofia 7,5% 11,9% 53,7% 20,9% 6,0% Thessalonica 4,3% 33,3% 42,0% 13,0% 7,2% Tirana 12,5% 54,7% 25,0% 7,8% 0,0% Total 7,3% 35,9% 37,5% 15,4% 3,9% Table 12 sets the question whether size maters in terms of growth and development level. Behind this question is an effort to investigate whether the driving forces of development of the metropolitan regions are agglomeration economies and own market size, both related to the population size of the cities. While the majority of the respondents (51,%) seem to reject this idea, around 33% of them are uncertain. Obviously, these responses have been affected by the problems of quality of the urban environment that the four cities already have (congestion, pollution). Beyond some level, these problems are expected to become worse with size. This may also indicate that the sources of growth and development of the four cities are related more closely to qualitative factors (human capital, infrastructure) that improve productivity and to trade relations with other areas and not so much on own demand. Table 12. The metropolis would be more developed if it was larger in terms of population size Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 1,7% 5,1% 16,9% 57,6% 18,6% Sofia 1,5% 6,0% 40,3% 44,8% 7,5% Thessalonica 2,9% 17,4% 30,4% 39,1% 10,1% Tirana 4,7% 23,4% 43,8% 26,6% 1,6% Total 2,7% 13,1% 33,2% 41,7% 9,3% 11

Table 13. Further growth of the metropolis will affect positively the growth prospects of smaller cities Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 3,3% 15,0% 25,0% 45,0% 11,7% Sofia 3,0% 29,9% 35,8% 23,9% 7,5% Thessalonica 1,4% 30,4% 34,8% 30,4% 2,9% Tirana 0,0% 30,8% 33,8% 23,1% 12,3% Total 1,9% 26,8% 32,6% 30,3% 8,4% Will a growing metropolis generate growth for the smaller cities also? In other words, are there any spread effects accruing to smaller cities due to metropolitan growth (Table 13)? This is obviously a difficult question, which divides the responses of our sample. Something less than 30% of our sample think that spread effects are possible, about 40% of the people disagree and another 32% is uncertain. In relative terms, this idea finds more support in Sofia, less support in Skopje and more undecided people in Sofia and Thessalonica. Table 14. Cities closer to metropolitan areas are positively affected by their growth Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 3,3% 53,3% 30,0% 11,7% 1,7% Sofia 9,0% 59,7% 22,4% 7,5% 0,0% Thessalonica 8,7% 73,9% 11,6% 4,3% 0,0% Tirana 15,4% 76,9% 6,2% 1,5% 0,0% Total 9,2% 66,3% 17,2% 6,1% 0,4% Table 15. The development of the metropolis is going to increase immigration from smaller cities and rural areas Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 48,3% 48,3% 0,0% 3,3% 0,0% Sofia 19,4% 68,7% 11,9% 0,0% 0,0% Thessalonica 19,1% 75,0% 4,4% 1,5% 0,0% Tirana 28,6% 52,4% 15,9% 3,2% 0,0% Total 28,3% 61,6% 8,1% 1,9% 0,0% 12

Table 16. Emigration is going to affect negatively small cities and rural areas Metropolitan Absolutely true True Uncertain False Absolutely false Skopje 40,0% 46,7% 11,7% 1,7% 0,0% Sofia 43,3% 49,3% 6,0% 0,0% 1,5% Thessalonica 17,6% 38,2% 33,8% 7,4% 2,9% Tirana 29,0% 33,9% 19,4% 17,7% 0,0% Total 32,3% 42,0% 17,9% 6,6% 1,2% When, however, the question is specified for nearby cities, responses are more positive (Table 14). About 75% of our sample believes that cities closer to metropolitan areas will eventually benefit for their growth. Finally, Tables 15 and 16 deal with migration issues. A large majority (89,9%) considers that metropolitan growth will eventually increase immigration from smaller cities and rural areas. A similar majority (74,3%) considers that this type of development will have negative effects on the areas loosing population. 4. Concluding notes and policy implications The analysis of the previous sections has revealed a number of important features of the spatial structure of Southeastern Europe. The four countries exhibit to some degree a core-periphery pattern and at the same time a lack of medium sized cities prevails in every national urban system. This phenomenon is more intense in the case of Greece. Albania s urban system shows a tendency of deconcentration, which is mainly expressed by a strong dynamic of population growth of smaller and larger cities. In the case of FYROM, there is also a light tendency of deconcentration. It seems that the concentrating forces of internationalization promoting urban primacy have not begun in these two countries yet. Concerning Bulgaria, the general population loss of cities is accompanied by a dim enhancement of Sofia s metropolitan dominance or else by a light trend of concentration. This specific loss is clearer in the larger cities of the urban system, while the smaller cities preserve a steady performance. Greece demonstrates a clear tendency of further urban concentration, which is composed by an internal restructuring of Athens and Thessalonica s metropolitan regions. The examination of the wider regional urban system and the trend of urban deconcentration that derived may expresses the fact that the economic relations among the metropolitan centres of the four countries are still not importantly developed so as to augment the level of attractiveness of each metropolis in a regional sense. The analysis of the findings based on the questionnaire survey seems to reveal that the relations of the metropolitan regions with the other spatial units in the urban system of each country are not necessarily harmonious and that growth may not always be a balanced process leading necessarily to win-win situations. A significant share of respondents consider the relations of the metropolis with smaller cities to be unbalanced, spread effects to be limited (in the best case) only to nearby smaller cities and traditional policies of reducing inequalities through a strong state and the concentration of powers at the central level outdated and undesired. These finding are consistent with the experience of other places and countries and also consistent with the international literature, which indicates that metropolitan growth and regional cohesion may be conflicting goals. Policies aiming to deal with the problems of urban disparity and underdevelopment in several cases first have to address its causes at the domestic and international levels. Good international relations and intensive cross-border interaction in trade and investment, as well as E.U. funded policies of cross-border cooperation may prove to be effective ways to deal with rising spatial asymmetry in the region. While the macroscopic view is important in order to realize the extent of the problem and its causes, a development policy for border regions needs to take a microscopic approach and deal with the specific problems and difficulties faced at the local level. 13

References BATTEN D. (1995), Network Cities: Creative Urban Agglomerations for the 21 st Century, Urban Studies, vol.32, pp.313-327 BECKMANN M. (1958), City hierarchy and the distribution of city size, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol.6, pp.243-248 BLACK D. and HENDERSON V. (2003), Urban Evolution in the USA, Journal of Economic Geography, 3, pp.342-372 BRAKAMAN S., GARRETSEN H., MARREWIJK van C. and BERG van den M. (1999), The return of Zipf: towards a further understanding of the rank-size distribution, Journal of Regional Science, vol.39, no.1, pp. 183-213 CHAMPION A.G. (2001), A Changing Demographic Regime and Evolving Polycentric Urban : Consequences for the Size, Composition and Distribution of City Populations, Urban Studies, vol. 38, no.4, pp. 657-677 CHESHIRE P. (1990), Explaining the Recent Performance of the European Community s Major Urban, Urban Studies, vol.27, pp.311-333 CHESHIRE P. (1995), A New Phase of Urban Development in Western Europe? The Evidence for the 1980s, Urban Studies, vol.32, pp.1045-1063 CHESHIRE P. and CARBONARO G. (1996), Urban Economic Growth in Europe: Testing Theory and Policy Prescriptions, Urban Studies, vol.33, pp.1111-1128 CICCONE A. (2000), Agglomerations in Europe, European Economic Review, vol.46, pp.213-227 DACEY M. (1979), A growth process for Zipf s and Yule s city size laws, Environment and Planning A, vol.11, pp.361-372 DERUDDER B., TAYLOR P.J., WITLOX F. and CATALANO G. (2003), Hierarchical Tendencies and Regional Patterns in the World City Network: a global Urban Analysis of 234 Cities, Regional Studies, vol. 37.9, pp. 875-886 DUNN E.S. (1980), The Development of the U.S. Urban System, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. FREY W. (1988), The Re-emergence of Core Region Growth: A Return to the Metropolis?, International Regional Science Review, vol.11, pp.261-267 GABAIX X. (1999), Zipf s law for cities: an explanation, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, no. 3, pp. 739-767 GLAESER E. and SHAPIRO J. (2003), Urban growth in the 1990s: Is city living back?, Journal of Regional Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 139-165 GUERIN-PACE F. (1995), Rank-size Distribution and the Process of Urban Growth, Urban Studies, vol.32, 551-562 HALL P. (1993), Forces shaping Urban Europe, Urban Studies, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 883-898 HALL P. (1997), The Future of the Metropolis and its Form, Regional Studies, vol.31, pp.211-220 HARRIS N. (1997), Cities in a global Economy: Structural Change and Policy Reactions, Urban Studies, vol. 34, 10, pp. 1693-1703 14

INGRAM G. (1998), Patterns of Metropolitan Development: What Have We Learned?, Urban Studies, vol.35, pp.1019-1035 KRATKE S. (1993), Hierarchization of urban regions in the New Europe, in Getimis P. and Kafkalas G. (eds) Urban and regional development in the Europe, Topos Special Series, pp. 107-132 KRUGMAN P. (1996), Confronting the Mystery of Urban Hierarchy, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 10, pp. 399-418 McCANN P. (1995), Rethinking the Economies of Location and Agglomeration, Urban Studies, vol.32, pp.563-577 MILLS E. and LABUELE L.S. (1995), Projecting Growth of Metropolitan Areas, Journal of Urban Economics, vol.37, pp.344-360 MOOMAW R. and SHATTER A. (1996), Urbanization and Economic Development: A Bias towards Large Cities?, Journal of Urban Economics, vol.40, pp.13-37 MOOMAW R. (1998), Agglomeration economies: Are they exaggerated by industrial aggregation?, Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol.28, pp.199-211 PARR J. (1985), A note on the size distribution of cities over time, Journal of Urban Economics, vol.18, pp.199-212 PARR J. and JONES C. (1983), City size distribution and urban density functions: some interrelationships, Journal of Regional Science, vol.23, pp.283-307 PETRAKOS G. and BRADA J. (1989), Metropolitan concentration in Developing countries, Kyklos, vol.18, 4, pp.557-578 PETRAKOS G. και MARDAKIS P. (1999), The Recent Changes in the Greek Urban System in The Growth of Greek Cities (eds.) Economou D. and Petrakos G., University of Thessaly Press Gutenberg PETRAKOS G., PAVLEAS S. and ANAGNOSTOU A. (2003), The Greek Urban System: Concentration or Deconcentration and Estimation of Metropolitan Concentration in the The City and the Region, publication coming from the 3 rd Euroconference, Weimar 13-15 November, Germany (forthcoming) PRED A. (1977), City Systems in Advanced Economies, New York: Halsted Press PUGA D. (1998), Urbanization patterns: European versus less developed countries, Journal of Regional Science, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 231-252 REED W. (2002), On the rank-size distribution for human settlements, Journal of Regional Science, vol. 42, no.1, pp. 1-17 ROSSEN K. and RESNICK M. (1980), The size distribution of cities: An examination of the Pareto Law and Primacy, Journal of Urban Economics, vol.8, pp.165-186 SIMON C. (1998), Human Capital and Metropolitan Growth, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 43, pp.223-243 SMITH E.T. and Zenou Y. (2003), Spatial mismatch, search effort, and urban spatial structure, Journal of Urban Economics, no 54, pp.129-156 SUAREZ-VILLA L. (1988), Metropolitan Evolution, Sectoral Economic Change and City Size Distribution, Urban Studies, 25, pp. 1-20 TAYLOR P. (1997), Hierarchical tendencies amongst world cities: a global research proposal, Cities, vol. 14, no.6, pp. 323-332 15

VINING D. and KONTULY T. (1978), Population dispersal from major metropolitan regions: an international comparison, International Regional Science Review, vol.3, pp.49-74 16