This article reviews the development of Alonso’s systemic model and presents a seemingly meaningful new departure. It first traces the evolution of Alonso’s own views of the model and then surveys the various efforts of estimating the model and interpretations by other researchers. Issues and problems are identified. A model representing the observed data in terms of the variables in the systemic model is proposed. It is shown that the model is identifiable, interpretable without ambiguity, and can be used for predictive use as well. Further extensions and research issues are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alonso, W.1973. National interregional demographic account: A prototype. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.
2.
Alonso, W.1974. Policy-oriented interregional demographic accounting and a generalization of population flow models. Working Paper No. 247, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.
3.
Alonso, W.1976. A theory of movement: Introduction. Working Paper No. 266, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.
4.
Alonso, W.1978. A theory of movement. In Human settlements, edited by N. M. Hansen, 197-215. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
5.
Alonso, W.1986. Systemic and log-linear models: From here to there, then to now, and this to that. Discussion Paper 86-10, Center for Population Studies, Harvard University.
6.
Anselin, L.1982. Implicit functional relationship between systemic effects in a general model of movement. Regional Science and Urban Economics12: 365-380.
7.
Anselin, L.
, and W. Isard. 1979. On Alonso’s general theory of movement. Man, Environment, Space and Time1: 52-63.
8.
Armington, P. S.1969. A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Paper 17, 159-178. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
9.
Bikker, J. A.1987. An international trade flow model with substitution: An extension of the gravity model. Kyklos40: 315-317.
10.
Castells, M.1996. The rise of networks society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
11.
Choukron, J. M.1975. A general framework for the development of gravity-type trip distribution models. Regional Science and Urban Economics5: 177-202.
12.
De Vos, A. F.
, and J. A. Bikker. 1982. Interdependent multiplicative models. Research Report No. 80, Interfaculty of Acturaarial Science and Econometrics, Free University of Amsterdam.
13.
Dziewonski, K.
1979. Some comments on William Alonso’s general theory of movement. Paper presented at the European Congress of the Regional Science Association, August, University College, London.
14.
Erlander, D.1977. Accessibility, entropy, and the distribution and assignment of traffic. Transportation Research11: 149-153.
15.
Frotheringham, A. S.
, and T. Dingnan. 1984. Further contribution to a general theory of movement. Annals of the Association of American Geography74: 620-633.
16.
Hansen, N.
, ed. 1978. Human settlements. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
17.
Hua, C.1980. An exploration of the nature and rationale of a systemic model. Environment and Planning A12: 713-724.
18.
Hua, C.1990. A flexible and consistent system for modeling interregional trade flows. Environment and Planning A22: 439-457.
19.
Hua, C.1993. A derivation and a numerical solution to a systemic spatial interaction model. In Research and development in geography, edited by C. L. Su and C. Y. Chen, 393-402. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University. (in Chinese)
20.
Hua, C.
1999. An empirical model of Alonso’s theory of movement. Paper presented at the 16th meeting of Pacific Regional Science Conference Organization, Seoul, Korea, July.
21.
Hua, C.
, and F. W. Porell. 1979. A critical review of the development of the gravity model. International Regional Science Review4: 97-126.
22.
Kirby, H.1970. Normalizing factors of the gravity model: An interpretation. Transportation Research37-48.
23.
Kirby, H.1981a. Calibrating Alonso’s general theory of movement: The case of inter-provincial migration flows in Canada. Sistemi Urbani2/3: 327-358.
24.
Kirby, H.1981b. On the relationship between Alonso’s theory of movement and Wilson’s family of spatial interaction models. Environmental and Planning A13: 217-224.
25.
Merkies, H.Q.M.
, and T.V.D. Meers. 1989. Scope of the three-component model. Regional Science and Urban Economics19: 601-604.
26.
Nijkamp, P.
, and J. Poot. 1987. Dynamics of generalized spatial interaction models. Regional Science and Urban Economics17: 367-390.
27.
Poot, J.1986. A system approach to modeling the inter-urban exchange of workers in New Zealand. Scottish Journal of Political Economy33: 249-274.
28.
Porell, F. W.
, and C. Hua. 1984. An econometric procedure for estimation of a generalized systematic gravity model under incomplete information about the system. Regional Science and Urban Economics11: 585-606.
29.
Smith, T. E.1991. A simple decision theory of spatial interaction: The Alonso model revisited. Environment and Planning A23: 1274-68.
30.
Tabuchi, T.1984. The systemic variables and elasticities in Alonso’s general theory of movement. Regional Science and Urban Economics14: 249-264.
31.
Wilson, A. G.1970. Entropy in urban and regional modeling. London: Pion.
32.
Wilson, A. G.1971. A family of spatial interaction model and associated development. Environment and Planning3: 1-12.
33.
Wilson, A. G.1980. Comments on Alonso’s theory of movement. Environment and Planning A12: 725-727.
