Polycentric Urban Areas; Cooperation, Competition or Co-competition? (An Overview Analysis)

Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی

Authors

• Sedigheh Lotfi ¹
• Mojtaba Shahabi Shamiri ²
• Sasan Rooshenas ²

¹ University of Mazandaran

² University of Tarbiat Modaress

https://doi.org/10.22067/geography.v17i1.71654

Abstract

Extended Abstract

 Introduction

While polycentric development policies are applied to a variety of spatial scales, they are also having special interprepertation on a regional scale. Polycentric development on regional scale refers to the development of regional cluster functionality relationships of cities. Issues such as regional competitiveness, regional spatial-functional structure, and cooperation among the cities have been addresed in polycentric urban areas. Polycentic urban regions are composed of clusters of neighboring cities that are separated politically and historically, and do not illustrate a clear hierarchy of economic, political, and demographic order but they are well connected by infrastructures. In all Europe, spatial planners are deploying policies that promote the spatial, economic, and social development of such polycentric urban regions. Since the 1990s, the term of "polycentric" has attracted the attention of planners and policymakers to urban planning once again, not as an urban structure in the region, but rather as a strategic concept. Nevertheless, the planners' perspective on these areas was different. Some believed that cooperation among cities in a polycentric urban region in the form of network logic would place them along the greater monocentric city-regions. In contrast, others emphasized the strengthening of the competitiveness of each city in achieving the functional, economic, and cultural diversity of the polycentric urban region. While cooperative strategies have a stronger theoretical basis, strengthening the competitive position of each city has higher potential as excutive strategy.

 Review of Literature

Planners and decision-makers believe polycentric areas have high potential. However, the literature considers two approaches to confronting and improving the competitive position of these regions: The first assumption is that sets of small and medium-sized cities together can create opportunities for regional economic growth. While each city is ignored alone, they can work together to achieve a better position in the list of cities in the international competition. However, the fact is that the polycentric region is not necessarily competitive. It needs to form an integrated urban network, to compete in this region. In fact, the term "network" emphasizes the strong and complex relationships between cities and the cohesion and integrity of the region. In addition, networks have a strong link with economies of scale, efficient size for economic critical mass and synergistic activities. Therefore, it has become part of the standard vocabulary of managers, planners, and decision makers for dealing with polycentric urban regions. In particular, synergy is one of the central goals in many polycentric urban policies. The second approach, although accepting these areas as a coherent urban network takes a different method. This group of policy makers believe that the best way to enhance the competitive strengths of a region as a whole is to concentrate each of the smaller functional cities and towns on their comparative advantages and thereby turn their spatial, economic, and cultural diversity into capital. This means that central economic zones are considered as the main places to create the economy of agglomeration, and the diversity of the region as a key point of international competition.

Method

The research is qualitative. Polycentric urban regions have been reviewed and analyzed regarding the various documents and secondary informations.

Results and Discussion

The research sought to introduce the concept of "co-competition" as the third way by using the literature of marketing networks and marketing, which can combine the benefits of each strategy of cooperation and competition. In this regard, In this regard, a variety of co-competitive strategies can occur in two forms in polycentric urban areas: horizontal and vertical co-competition. In Horizontal co-competition, cities collaborate in a particular performance or in a collaborative project, while competing in other sections. Vertical coopetition in a polycentric urban region means that a city in the region serves as a provider of some of the other city resources in a particular activity, while continuing to compete in their geography of demand.

Conclusion

Polycentric urban regions are products of a historical process that has caused conflicting interests among multiple actors due to overlapping of different layers of space. In some cases, levels of local, regional, national, and sometimes international levels are involved. Therefore, co-comptition strategies can be an executive option that also has the theoretical underpinnings of cooperation.But for the implementation of these strategies, two schools of thought were introduced. Pasquinelli (2013) and Guess, De Jong and Mijers (2016), both focusing on the activity-based approach, expanded coopetition in city branding and polycentric urban regions, but they didn’t show the logic of the interaction of actors or cities in each of the games and in different circumstances. Utilizing two schools of thought through game theory can extend our understanding of the contradictions and complexities of the polycentric urban regions of the country on particular topics, especially in the absence of upper level layers of information such as Amol-Babol-Ghaemshahr-Sari (Central part of Mazandaran). So, it is suggested that future studies focus on the decisions of each actors and city and its implementing mechanisms in a particular activity.

Keywords

• Competition
• co-operation
• co-competitive
• polycentric urban areas

20.1001.1.20081391.1398.17.1.9.2

References

1. میرجانی، ح. (1389). استدلال منطقی به مثابة روش پژوهش. مجلة صفه، 20 (50)، 50-35.

2. Afuah, A. (2000). How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 387–404.

3. Albrechts, L. (1998). The Flemish Diamond: Precious gem and virgin area. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 411-424.

4. Albrechts, L. (2001). How to proceed from image and discourse to action: as applied to the Flemish Diamond. Urban Studies, 38(3), 733-745.

5. Alonso, W. (1971). The economics of urban size. Papers of the Regional Science Association International, 26, 67–83.

6. Alonso, W. (1973). Urban zero population growth. Daedalus, 102(4), 191–206.

7. Anas, A., Arnott, R., & Small, K. A. (1998). Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 1426–1464.

8. Bailey, N., & Turok, I. (2001). Central Scotland as a polycentric urban region: Useful Planning Concept or Chimera? Urban Studies, 38(4), 697-715.

9. Batten, D. F. (1995). Network cities: Creative urban agglomerations for the 21st century. Urban Studies, 32(2), 313 - 327.

10. Beeson, P. E. (1992). Agglomeration economies and productivity growth. In E. S. Mills, & J. F. McDonald (Eds.), Sources of metropolitan growth (pp. 19-35). New York, Center for Urban Policy Research.

11. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks — to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.

12. Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Co-opetition dynamics-an outline for further inquiry. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 20(2), 194–214.

13. Berry, B., & Kim, H. M. (1993). Challenges to the monocentric model. Geographical Analysis, 25, 1-4.

14. Boix, R. (2003). Networks of cities and growth: Theory, network identification and measurement of the network externality, Teaching materials for the European Business Module, University of Firenze, November 2003.

15. Boix, R. (2003, October 15-17). Networks of cities and growth: Theory, network identification and measurement of the network externality. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/.(Accessed October 27, 2018).

16. Boix, R., & Trullen, J. (2007). Knowledge, networks of cities and growth in regional urban systems. Papers in Regional Science, 86(4), 551–574.

17. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

18. Burger, M. J., & Meijers, E. (2012). Form follows function? Linking morphological and functional polycentricity. Urban Studies, 49(5), 1127-1149.

19. Burger, M. J., Meijers, E. J., Hoogerbrugge, M. M., & Masip Tresserra, J. (2015). Borrowed size, agglomeration shadows and cultural amenities in North-West Europe. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1090–1109.

20. Camagni, R. (2007) City networks as tool for competitiveness and sustainability. In P. J. Taylor, B. Derudder, P. Saey, & F. Witlox (Eds.), Cities in globalization: Practices, policies and theories (pp. 102-123). London, England: Routledge.

21. Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2004). The city network paradigm: Theory and empirical evidence. In R. Capello, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Urban dynamics and growth: Advances in urban economics (pp. 495-529). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

22. Camagni, R., Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2016). Static vs. dynamic agglomeration economies: Spatial context and structural evolution behind urban growth. Papers in Regional Science, 95(1), 133-158.

23. Capello, R. (2000). The city network paradigm: measuring urban network externalities. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1925-1945.

24. Champion, A. (2001). A changing demographic regime and evolving poly centric urban regions: Consequences for the size, composition and distribution of city populations. Urban Studies, 38(4), 657-677.

25. Clark, W. A., & Kuijpers-Linde, M. (1994). Commuting in restructuring urban regions. Urban Studies, 31(3), 465 - 483.

26. Czakon, W. (2009). Power asymmetries, flexibility and the propensity to coopete: an empirical investigation of SMEs’ relationships with franchisors. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 8(1), 44–60

27. Dieleman, F. M., & Faludi, A. (1998). Randstad, Rhine‐Ruhr and Flemish diamond as one polynucleated macro‐region? Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 89(3), 320-327.

28. Dieleman, F. M., & Musterd, S. (Eds.). (1992). The Randstad: A research and policy laboratory. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.

29. Egermann, M. (2009). The Saxon triangle – a polycentric metropolitan region from an actor-oriented perspective. Urban Research and Practice, 2(3), 269-286.

30. Fernandez, A. S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.

31. Finka, M., & Kluvankova, T. (2015). Managing complexity of urban systems: A polycentric approach. Land Use Policy, 42, 602-608.

32. Fyall, A., Garrod, B., & Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: A critical review of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 1(1-2), 10-26.

33. Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663.

34. Goess, S., De Jong, M., & Meijers, E. (2016). City branding in polycentric urban regions: identification, profiling and transformation in the Randstad and Rhine-Ruhr. European Planning Studies, 24(11), 2036-2056.

35. Hall, P., & Pain, K. (2006). The polycentric metropolis. Learning from mega-city regions in Europe. London, England: Earthscan.

36. Hohenberg, P. M., & Lees, L. H. (1995). The making of urban Europe, 1000–1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

37. Ipenburg, D., & Lambregts, B. (2001). Polynuclear urban regions in North West Europe: A survey of key actor views. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.

38. Johansson, B., & Quigley, J. M. (2003). Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 165–176.

39. Kloosterman, R. C., & Lambregts, B. (2001). Clustering of economic activities in polycentric urban regions: the case of the Randstad. Urban studies, 38(4), 717-732.

40. Kloosterman, R. C., & Musterd, S. (2001). The polycentric urban region: Towards a research agenda. Urban Studies, 38(4), 623-633.

41. Kluvankova T., & Finka, M., Jilkova, J. (2011). Polycentrism: Institutional innovation in regional management? Ekonomicky Casopis, 59(10), 1050-1066.

42. Kühn, M., Bernt, M., & Colini, L. (2016). Power, politics and peripheralization: Two Eastern German cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3), 258 - 273.

43. Lambooy, J. (1998). Polynucleation and economic. European Planning Studies, 6, 457–466.

44. Lambregts, B. W. (2009). The polycentric metropolis unpacked: Concepts, trends and policy in the Randstad Holland. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies.

45. Lambregts, B., & Roling, R. (2005). Synthesis report on the Dutch Spatial Vision Study No. 1. Workshop on Polycentric Territorial Development in NWE. Amsterdam, Netherlands: AMIDSt.

46. Lambregts, B., Kloosterman, R. C., van der Werff, M., Roling, R. W., Kapoen, L. L. (2006). Randstad Holland: Multiple faces of a polycentric role model. In P. Hall & K. Pain (Eds.), The polycentric metropolis: Learning from mega-city regions in Europe (pp. 137–145). London: Earthscan.

47. Luo, Y. (2007). From foreign investors to strategic insiders: Shifting parameters, prescriptions and paradigms for MNCs in China. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 14–34.

48. Meijers, E. (2005). Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts? Urban Studies, 42(4), 765-781.

49. Meijers, E. (2007). Synergy in polycentric urban regions: complementarity, organising capacity and critical mass. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

50. Meijers, E. J., & Burger, M. J. (2015). Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size’. Urban Studies, 54(1), 269-291.

51. Meijers, E., & Romein, A. (2003). Realizing potential: building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 173-186.

52. Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Hollande, K. (2014). Twin cities in the process of metropolisation. Urban Research and Practice, 7(1), 35-55.

53. Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Hollander, K. (2012). A strategic knowledge and research agenda on polycentric metropolitan areas. The Hague, Netherlands: European Metropolitan Network Institute.

54. MEZ (Ministerie van Economische Zaken). (2004). Pieken in de Delta; Gebiedsgerichte Economische Perspectieven (Peaks in the Delta; Regional economic perspectives). The Hague, Netherlands: MEZ.

55. Münter, A., & Volgmann, K. (2014). The Metropolization and Regionalization of the Knowledge Economy in the Multi-Core Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Region. European Planning Studies, 22(12), 2542-2560.

56. MVROM (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer). (2004). Nota Ruimt (National spatial strategy). Den Haag, Netherlands: MVROM.

57. MVROM. (2004). Nota Ruimte (National spatial strategy). Den Haag: MVROM.

58. Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy and Leadership, 25(6), 28–33.

59. Olof Berg, P., & Björner, E. (Eds.). (2014). Branding Chinese Mega-cities: Policies, practices and positioning. Cheltenhamn, England: Edward Elgar.

60. Park, B. J., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Impact of coopetition in the alliance portfolio and coopetition experience on firm innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26(8), 893–907.

61. Parr, J. (2004). The polycentric urban region: A closer inspection. Regional Studies, 38(3), 231-240.

62. Parr, J. B. (2002). Agglomeration economies: Ambiguities and confusions. Environment and Planning A, Economy and Space, 34, 717–731.

63. Pasquinelli, C. (2013). Competition, cooperation and co-opetition: Unfolding the process of inter-territorial branding. Urban Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–18.

64. Pathak, S. D., Wu, Z., & Johnston, D. (2014). Toward a structural view of co-opetition in supply networks. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 254–267.

65. Phelps, N., Fallon, R., & Williams, C. (2001). Small firms, borrowed size and the urban-rural shift. Regional Studies, 35, 613–624

66. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free Press.

67. Priemus, H. (1994). Planning the Randstad: Between economic growth and sustainability. Urban Studies, 31(3), 509-534.

68. Priemus, H. (1998). The Randstad and the Central Netherlands Urban Ring: Planners waver between two concepts. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 443–456.

69. Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.

70. Reicher, C., Kunzmann, K. R., Polivka, J., Roost, F., Utku, Y., & Wegener, M. (2011). Zukunftswege und besondere Potenziale der Raumentwicklung: Die Ruhrbanität, [Paths to the future and special potential in spatial development: The Ruhrbanity], In C. Reicher, K. R. Kunzmann, J. Polivka, F. Roost, & M. Wegener (Eds.). Schichten einer Region. Kartenstücke zur räumlichen Struktur des Ruhrgebietes (pp. 217–233). Berlin, Germany: Jovis.

71. Ritala, P., Golnam, A., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 236-249.

72. Scott, A. J. (1988). Metropolis: From the division of labour to urban form. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

73. SMUL. (1994). Landesentwicklungsplan Sachsen [State development plan for Saxony]. Dresden, Germany: Druckhaus Dresden Gmb H.

74. Stamboulis, Y. A. (2007). Towards a systems approach to innovation systems and policy. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 3(1), 42–55.

75. Taylor, P. J. (2014). Competition and cooperation between cities in globalization. In P. Ni, & Z. Qiongjie (Eds.), urban competitiveness and innovation (pp. 139-156). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

76. Tidstrom, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261–271.

77. Trullen, J., & Boix, R. (2001). Economia della conoscenza e reti cittadine [Knowledge economy and city networks]. Sviluppo Locale, 8(18), 41-60.

78. Van der Werff, M., Lambregts, B., Kapoen, L., & Kloosterman, R. C. (2005). POLYNET Action 1.1 – Commuting and the Defi nition of Functional Urban Regions: The Randstad. London, England: Institute of Community Studies/The Young Foundation and Polynet Partners.

79. Van Meeteren, M., Boussauw, K., & Derudder, B. (2016). Flemish Diamond or ABC-Axis? The spatial structure of the Belgian metropolitan area. European Planning Studies, 24(5), 974-995.

80. Van Meeteren, M., Poorthuis, A., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2015). Pacifying Babel's Tower: A scientometric analysis of polycentricity in urban research. Urban Studies, 53(6), 1278–1298.

81. Vanhaverbeke, W. (1998). An economic analysis of the Flemish Diamond. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 425-442.

82. Vapola, T. J., Tossavainen, P., & Gabrielsson, M. (2008). The battleship strategy: The complementing role of born globals in MNC's new opportunity creation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 1–21.

83. Wang, Y. (2008). Collaborative destination marketing: Understanding the dynamic process. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 151-166.

84. Zheng, X. P. (2007). Economies of network, urban agglomeration, and regional development: A theoretical model and empirical evidence. Regional Studies, 41(5), 559–569.