Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-jkvpf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-21T03:10:36.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peripheral Cities and Their Regions in the Dutch Urban System until 1900

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Pim Kooij
Pim Kooij
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Netherlands a kind of urban system emerged very early in the sea provinces, but inland the country cities functioned as regional capitals without many links to cities outside their regions. After 1800 political and economic unification accelerated and the peripheral towns lost their independence. Using two indicators—the division of labor and migration—the article analyzes how this process of integration took shape after 1850.

Information

Type
Papers Presented at the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 357 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Christaller, W., Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland (Jena, 1933).Google Scholar

2 de Vries, Jan, European Urbanization, 1500–1800 (London, 1984).Google Scholar

3 According to the rank-size rule, the first city is twice as large as the second city, three times as large as the third, and so on.Google Scholar

4 See Lampard, Eric, “The evolving system of cities in the United States”, in Perloff, H. S. and Wingo, L., eds., Issues in Urban Economics (Baltimore, 1968), pp. 81–139;Google ScholarKooij, P., “Urbanization: What's in a Name?” in Schmal, H., ed., Patterns of European Urbanisation since 1500 (London, 1981), pp. 31–61.Google Scholar

5 Hohenberg, Paul M. and Lees, Lynn Hollen, The Making of Urban Europe, 1000–1950 (Cambridge, Mass., 1985) chap. 2.Google Scholar

6 Hohenberg, Paul M. and Lees, Lynn Hollen, The Making of Urban Europe, 1000–1950 (Cambridge, Mass., 1985) pp. 238–47.Google Scholar

7 de Vries, Jan, European Urbanization, pp. 29, 39.Google Scholar

8 Alkmaar, Enkhuizen, and Hoorn lost their rank mainly due to the rise of Amsterdam. Newcomers were Zwolle and Amhem. In a way these changes announced the events to come.Google Scholar

9 Boyer, Jean-Claude, L'Evolurion de l'organisarion urbaine des Pays Bas (Lille, 1978);Google Scholarde Vries, Jan, “Barges and capitalism: Passenger transportation in the Dutch economy 1632–1839,” in A.A.G. Bijdragen, 21 (1978), pp. 33–139. The books were issued at almost the same time.Google Scholar

10 de Vries, “Barges and capitalism,” pp. 347–54.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., pp. 64–65.

12 Ibid., p. 119.

13 Boyer, L'Evolution, pp. 163–69.Google Scholar

14 In the international literature there is no consensus on the size of regions. In Dutch economic history the term is used to indicate an area of limited scale, mostly a province or a part of it.Google Scholar

15 Holthuis, Paul, “Deventer in oorlog: Economische aspecten van de militaire conjunctuur 1591–1609,” in Economisch- en Sociaalhistorisch Jaarboek, 50 (1987), pp. 32–51.Google Scholar

16 Boyer, L'Evolution, p. 166.Google Scholar

17 Nusteling, Hubert, Binnen de vesting Numegen (Zutphen, 1979).Google Scholar

18 de Jonge, J. A., “The role of the outer provinces in Dutch economic growth in the 19th century,” in Bromley, J. S. and Kossmann, E. H., eds., Britain and the Netherlands, vol. 4: Metropolis, dominion, and province (Den Haag, 1971) pp. 208–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 van der Knaap, G. A., Population Growth and Urban Systems Development: A Case Study (Boston, 1980) p. 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Ibid., p. 105. Correlation analysis to distinguish a dependent and an independent variable gave insignificant results.

21 van Zanden, J. L., “Economische groei in Nederland in de negentiende eeuw: Enkele nieuwe resultaten,” in Economisch- en Sociaalhisiorisch Jaarboek, 50 (1987), pp. 51–77.Google Scholar

22 See for the “industrial revolution” in the Netherlands: de Jonge, J. A., De industrialisatie in Nederland tussen 1850 en 1914 (Amsterdam, 1968).Google Scholar

23 Kooij, Pim, “Stad en platteland,” in van Holthoon, F. L., ed., De Nederlandse samenleving sinds 1815 (Assen, 1985) pp. 93–117, esp. 111–12.Google Scholar

24 van der Knaap, Population Growth, p. 68.Google Scholar

25 Gastelaars, R. Engelsdorp and Wagenaar, M., “The rise of the Randstad 1815–1930,” in Schmal, Patterns, pp. 229–47.Google Scholar

26 Maenen, A. J. F., Perrus Regour (Nijmegen, 1959).Google Scholar

27 Robson, Brian, “The impact of functional differentiation within systems of cities,” in Schmal, ed., Pauerns, pp. 111–31.Google Scholar

28 See for the concentration numbers of 1889 and 1909, Kooij, “Urbanization,” pp. 52–53.Google Scholar

29 Willemsen, J.Th.W., De volkshuisvesting in Arnhem (Amhem, 1969).Google Scholar

30 Buursink, Jan, Centralireit en hiërarchie (Assen, 1971), pp. 116–39.Google Scholar

31 de Vnes, Johan, Nieuw Nijmegen, 1870–1970: Moderne economische geschiedenis van de stad Nijmegen (Tilburg, 1969).Google Scholar

32 Buursink, Jan, Centraliteir, pp. 139–70.Google Scholar

33 A full account is given in Kooij, Pim, Groningen 1870–1914: Sociale verandering en economische ontwikkeling in een regionaal centrum (Groningen, 1986).Google Scholar

34 Drenthe was never a full member of the Republic. It was covered with large peat fields which were mainly exploited in the second half of the nineteenth century. Groningen had a central place in the peat trade.Google Scholar

35 Real mobility was even higher because the sample in Table 4 also includes people arriving at the end of the decade and perhaps departing at the beginning of the next.Google Scholar