This note is a reply to Kim's critique on my paper concerning Simon's city-size distribution model. First, Kim's critique is shown not to be relevant. Second, to make the debate constructive, a possible direction toward a more general city-size distribution model is shown in the context of a Markov population process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HaranE G PViningD RJr, 1973“A modified Yule-Simon model allowing for inter-city migration and accounting for the observed form of the size distribution of cities”Journal of Regional Science13421–437
2.
KellyF P, 1979Reversibility and Stochastic Networks (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
3.
KimY, 1982“Simon's steady state assumption: A critique of Okabe's critique”Environment and Planning A141113–1120
4.
KingmanJ F C, 1969“Markov population processes”Journal of Applied Probability61–18
5.
OkabeA, 1977“Some reconsiderations of Simon's city-size distribution model”Environment and Planning A91043–1053
6.
OkabeA, 1979“Population dynamics of cities in a region: Conditions for a state of simultaneous growth”Environment and Planning AW609–628
7.
SimonH A, 1955“On a class of skew distribution functions”Biometrika42425–440
8.
WhittleP, 1967“Nonlinear migration processes”Bulletin, The Institute of International Statistics42642–647
9.
WhittleP, 1968“Equilibrium distributions for an open migration process”Journal of Applied Probability5567–571
10.
YuleG U, 1924“A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr J C Willis, FRS”Philosophical Transactions213B21–87
