1. Center-Periphery Analysis
EC 185
Center-Periphery Analysis

2. First Remainder of Parr Material Recommendations (in Part II)
Fewer poles
Larger and more impactul
Regional dispersion
Avoiding politics in situating poles
Encouragement of industrial development
Particularly specialization
More attention to regional effects, rather than just in targeted area

3. Usually Framed as a Negative
Center is where economic activity is highest
Periphery is lower income, lower development
Is relationship exploitive?
Global development economics frames it this way
Center is the Developed World
Peripheral nations provide natural resources to center
Incomes/development/industrialization poor in periphery
Coffee producers as an example

4. Prebisch-Singer
Commodity producers in perpetual battle to raise production
But, when production goes up, prices fall
Country not better off (Immiserizing growth)
Recommendations that come out of this are vague
Disengage from trade (e.g. North Korea)
Undo the current capitalist system (to be replaced by?)

6. In Regional Economics…..
Boston regarded as the “center”
Economic development declines as one moves farther away
Exploitive relationship is not really there
By mid-state, little or no development
Is this a problem?

7. Solutions Growth poles are supposed to spread out development
Reduce power of the Center
In international relationships, changing commodity trade is sometimes viewed as a solution
Make coffee pay (as in Fair Trade)

8. In Connecticut New York is the Core (Center) Near suburbs do very well
By Bridgeport, however, we are clearly in the periphery
Economic power of New York has little impact

9. Rural Development Considerations
Tend to be ignored
Farmers seem to be doing fine most of the time