Inversion at the
metropolitan level
A process of inversion can occur within metropolitan
regions as one or more districts overturn the predominant order of influence. The districts may be undeveloped, lagging or
disadvantaged areas within a metropolitan region. As with regional inversion, metropolitan inversion is
multidimensional. Economic,
political, social and cultural factors may come together to make inversion
possible, overturning the predominant position of an area within the larger
metropolitan region. All of the factors at work in the process of
regional inversion are likely to play significant roles in metropolitan
inversion. The smaller scale of
a metropolitan region and its component districts, compared to that of a
national territory and its sub-national regions, does not diminish the
importance of the elements discussed previously. In some respects, metropolitan inversion might be attained
more easily than regional inversion, because of its more limited claim on
resources and smaller scale.
However, the structure of the metropolitan region within which it
occurs may influence greatly the dynamic of metropolitan inversion. How does
metropolitan structure influence inversion? There are two basic types of metropolitan
structure. One of them is the
monocentric structure.
Typically, a very strong central district dominates most aspects of politics,
economics and culture in the monocentric metropolis. From that central area communications
and movement spread in radial fashion, linking all districts to the
center. Monocentric metropolises typically grew large when rail provided the main means of movement. In many respects, rail-based technology conditioned this metropolitan structure. The predominance of the central area, the arrangement of districts, and most aspects related to economic value and political influence can be traced to this technology of movement. Even when a monocentric structure is weakened by suburban centers, the predominance of the central district remains formidable. The polycentric structure, in contrast, typically
includes a weaker central area and many districts that vie for predominance
within the larger metropolitan region.
Competition of districts with the central area and with one another is
a fundamental aspect of this metropolitan structure. It encompasses virtually all aspects
of the metropolis, and particularly the more salient economic, political and
cultural features. As a result,
the central district may be less
influential in the polycentric than in the monocentric structure. Polycentric metropolises typically grew large with
the automobile. The emergence of
the automobile as a mass consumption product, and its associated road
infrastructure, greatly conditioned the polycentric structure. The sprawling mosaic of competing districts in the
polycentric metropolis reflects the dispersion that the automobile and road
infrastructure technologies made possible. In the polycentric metropolis, therefore, mass rail
transit is usually not cost effective due to the vast dispersion of
districts, activities and residential areas, and their relatively low
densities. The polycentric structure may be more conducive to
inversion than the monocentric one.
The fact that districts compete more intensively with one another and
with the predominant central area may be an important support for the dynamic
of inversion. Moreover, the sort
of inter-district competition that is typical of the polycentric structure
usually encompasses most economic, social, educational and cultural
activities. The impact of
heightened inter-district and central versus non-central district competition
is therefore likely to be multidimensional. This kind of multifaceted competition can provide
non-central districts with many resources that support inversion. Second, the fragmentation of authority and political power that is typical of the polycentric structure may accelerate the inversion process. Fragmentation means that the predominant central district cannot exercise as much control over the metropolitan region as it would in the monocentric structure. Fragmentation devolves or decentralizes authority to districts. It can provide opportunities to districts to fashion their own strategies for advancement, in an economic, political, educational and cultural sense. The fragmentation of authority and control may
therefore breed autonomy or even
independence. It may also
provide opportunities to gather resources that would not be available in the
more centrally controlled monocentric structure. Fragmentation in the polycentric structure may reach a
point where districts act independently of the central area, fiscally and in
other functions, devising their own initiatives to, for example, provide
incentives to certain activities or levy taxes independently of the rest of
the metropolitan region. Such
independence may be harnessed to support inversion. Third, the greater flexibility provided by the
polycentric structure to districts may help the process of inversion. Flexibility is largely a product of
the fragmentation induced by polycentrism. Any significant devolution of central control to districts
will create flexibility.
Flexibility may provide more options for districts to, for example,
decide how they want to design their own strategies for advancement, and when
to act on any opportunities.
Fourth, polycentrism may
encourage greater diversity among districts, to support inversion. Some districts may choose to
specialize in certain activities.
For example, a district may target technology industries, while
another chooses retail commercial activities, and yet another decides on a
combination of health and educational services. Diverse choices for specialization between districts may
support the process of inversion as non-central districts gather influence
through the higher value activities they capture. Specialization is also likely to lead to opportunities
for creating clusters. Clusters
may deepen specialization by bringing together many linked activities in one
or several districts. As those
activities take root, they are bound to attract other, possibly complementary
or support activities, thereby creating a critical mass that can serve as a
platform for the process of inversion.
Fifth, polycentrism may provide stronger and more
versatile networks to support inversion. This may be a product of the fragmentation and flexibility
that are so characteristic of the polycentric structure. Polycentric fragmentation and
flexibility may advance the dilution of hierarchies that is so typical of
networks. This may, for example,
help a non-central district overcome the barriers that a predominant central
district created to protect its position. Similarly, the decentralization of control that is so typical of networks may be deepened by polycentric fragmentation. Both of these features, working in concert, may produce greater autonomy for non-central districts. Greater autonomy may allow some districts to build up a platform of resources from which the inversion process can be launched. The relationship between the process of inversion
and metropolitan structure is largely unexplored. Much remains to be discovered if we are to develop a
better understanding of how inversion occurs at the metropolitan level. Hopefully, this brief discussion will
be of help to those who choose to look into this aspect of the process of
inversion. For
publications on regional inversion and related topics by this author, please see the Publications section of this website. Copyright
© Luis Suarez-Villa |
