I’m not a geographer/economist, but I assume the historical productivity benefit of cities has all boiled down to proximity, hence transport—people close enough that they can work together, trade, etc. People who choose to de-urbanize will explicitly take into account these effects in their decision—can they still conveniently get to work (if they need to visit an office once a week, say), see friends, get to a cinema/mall, etc. If they find the rural life too quiet (i.e. too far from places they want to be) they won’t move, or will move back to a town/city.
So I assume people will choose their own optimum; leaving only the problem of externalities, primarily indeed climate change. I can see de-urbanization would increase at least some driving, e.g. further to get to stores (though online shopping will increase), and thereby have a climate effect. So I’ve added a mention of that.
If climate change is dealt with in a suitable way, e.g. carbon taxes, that would however internalize this externality and so people would respond in an appropriate way—e.g. by cutting down on unnecessary trips to the mall.
Could certainly go either way. I was trying to emphasize that the productivity loss has an externality associated with it though. I wholeheartedly agree that individuals may be better off—they are optimizing, but with more information. At most, their predictions about locational preferences have changed but reality hasn’t (outside the next couple of years at least). But if that reduces aggregate productivity growth, people alive in 100 years may be suffering—their utility isn’t being accounted for by individual decisions.
A secondary effect, which I failed to mention I thought you should add (I don’t think you have it) -- is that I suspect people will move closer to family. I’ve been comfortably living a 12 hour drive from any family for 5 years now—and I was happy to fly to see them frequently—but flight is not a robust transport method—and going forwards I’ll be thinking about locales within more like 4 hours of them.
Whether that is good or bad, I don’t know. Closer family bonds, which are good for many reasons. but the models around people moving towards work involve largish productivity growth again.
I see your point re reduced productivity growth affecting future generations. Though how much difference that will make to the present generation’s vs future generation’s wellbeing isn’t clear.
Indeed I hadn’t thought of the family point, and will add it.
Thanks for this.
I’m not a geographer/economist, but I assume the historical productivity benefit of cities has all boiled down to proximity, hence transport—people close enough that they can work together, trade, etc. People who choose to de-urbanize will explicitly take into account these effects in their decision—can they still conveniently get to work (if they need to visit an office once a week, say), see friends, get to a cinema/mall, etc. If they find the rural life too quiet (i.e. too far from places they want to be) they won’t move, or will move back to a town/city.
So I assume people will choose their own optimum; leaving only the problem of externalities, primarily indeed climate change. I can see de-urbanization would increase at least some driving, e.g. further to get to stores (though online shopping will increase), and thereby have a climate effect. So I’ve added a mention of that.
If climate change is dealt with in a suitable way, e.g. carbon taxes, that would however internalize this externality and so people would respond in an appropriate way—e.g. by cutting down on unnecessary trips to the mall.
Could certainly go either way. I was trying to emphasize that the productivity loss has an externality associated with it though. I wholeheartedly agree that individuals may be better off—they are optimizing, but with more information. At most, their predictions about locational preferences have changed but reality hasn’t (outside the next couple of years at least). But if that reduces aggregate productivity growth, people alive in 100 years may be suffering—their utility isn’t being accounted for by individual decisions.
A secondary effect, which I failed to mention I thought you should add (I don’t think you have it) -- is that I suspect people will move closer to family. I’ve been comfortably living a 12 hour drive from any family for 5 years now—and I was happy to fly to see them frequently—but flight is not a robust transport method—and going forwards I’ll be thinking about locales within more like 4 hours of them.
Whether that is good or bad, I don’t know. Closer family bonds, which are good for many reasons. but the models around people moving towards work involve largish productivity growth again.
I see your point re reduced productivity growth affecting future generations. Though how much difference that will make to the present generation’s vs future generation’s wellbeing isn’t clear.
Indeed I hadn’t thought of the family point, and will add it.