National-, regional- and urban-scale population deconcentration in West Germany

Lanchzpe and (ibran Phnning, 22 ( I 992 ) 2 I 9-228 Elsevier Science Publishers R.V., Amsterdam

ational-, regional- and urban-scal

Thomas Kontuly

ABSTRACT Kot~tuIy, T.. 1992. National-, regional- and urban-scale population

deconcentration

in West Germany. Landscape L’rban

Pku?~l.. 22: 2 19-228.

Internal migration patterns during the second half of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s are ek aluated at a regional scale intermediate to those utilized in previous core-to-periphery and urbanization-to-counterurbanization studies of West GermanI-. A spatial deconcentratisn of the West German population is evident in the form of‘ redistribution down the rnetr~po~~ta~ size hierarchy. Net (internal) out-migration from both the Rhine-Ruhr and the Rhine-Main-Neckar agglomeration regions benefitted the bicentric metropolitan areas and the smaller sized urban areas. A spatial deconcentration of manufacturing and service employment partially explains the net migration losses experienced by the Rhine-Ruhr a& the RhitIe-Ma&N ec.4..gr. Ar! inv+=+tion _I. o-_- of nooulation deconcentration trends within each sfthcsz two po:pcentric metropolitan regions proved inconclusive. This st;dy provides an alternative core-periphery delimitation scheme .vhich can be applied to the metropolitan system in the western part of newly unified Germany.

A general north-to-south drift of population currently exists in West Germany. This regional imbalance presently co-exists with the traditional difference between rural and urban areas and a distinction based on the location of old vs. new industries (Friedrichs et al., 1986; Gaebe, 1988; Stiens, 1988 ). Identifying core-to-periphery, or national scale redistribution through an evaluation of temporal trends in net migration rates for states or aggregations of states, Cochrane and Vining ( 1988) documented this north-to-south drift through the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s. The southern state of Bavaria exhibited a positive net in-migration rate, while the core region of North-Rhine Westphalia showed net Correspondence to: T. Kontuly, University of Utah, Department of Geography, 270 Orson Spencer Hall, Salt Lake City, UT 84 112, USA.

out-migration; state-by-state migration data for 1986 and 1987 indicate a continuation of this national level population redistribution trend (Statistisches Bundesamt, 1988, 1989). At the individual urban area scale, studies focused on the West German urban system dated the start of counterurbanization to the 1970s and 1980s. An evaluation of the relationship between population growth rates and the population size/density of functional urban regions (FURS) identified a counterurbanization trend beginning in the 196Os, while an investigation of the associations between total net migration rates/internal net migration rates and the population sizes of FURS revealed the commencing of the phenomenon in the years 1979-l 980 (Kontuly et al., 1986; Vogelsang and Kontuly, 1986; Kontuly and Vogelsang, 1988, 1989). In addition, between 1980 and 1985, urban regions containing onehalf to one million people and regions with less

0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved 0169-2046/92/$05.00

220

than one-half million people gained population as the result of net internal migration, while all three size classes of urban regions with populations greater than one million decreased as the result of net out-migration (Kontuly and Vogelsang, 1989 ). For the purposes of this study, the term ‘counterurbanization’ will be restricted to a description of the patterns of regional population change, while the deconcentration theoretical perspective will be used to characterize the underlying processes leading to counterurbanization (Frey, 1987 ). This paper will evaluate regional patterns of population redistribution in West Germany during the second half of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s at a scale intermediate to those utilized in the core-to-periphery (national level) and the counterurbanization (urban level) studies of West Germany. A specification of the metropolitan size hierarchy which recognizes that West Germany contained several urban complexes which interacted and functioned as systems will be developed. Net migration exchanges between size categories of the hierarchy will be summarized, and a spatial deconcentration of population will be evident if net migration occurs down the West German metropolitan size hierarchy. If internal migration patterns are found to occur down the hierarchy. then the relevance of the deconcentration theoretical perspective will be evaluated. Popr;lation deconcentration trends within each of the two polycentric metropolitan regions will also be investigated, DEFINING THE METROP CHY The existence within West Germany of large urban complexes or agglomeration regions has been widely recognized in the literature (Wild, 1980; Gaebe, 1988; Irmen, 1989). In addition, at the Contmental scale of urban organization, the Ruhr-Rhine-Aachen, the Rhine-Main and

T. KONTIJLY

the Rhine-Neckar agglomeration regions, together with the Randstad of the Netherlands. have been delimited as the “northwest European megalopolis” ( Dicken and Lloyd, 198 1, p, 117 ). At a still broader level, the Ruhrgebiet and Frankfurt, as two of the *‘fifteen great UPban regions” of the world, comprise part oft *‘global polycenter” (Berry, 1990, p. 99 ). A specification of the West German metropolitan size hierarchy should recognize that t country contains several large-sized. polycentric and bicentric urban regions, and that these areas interact and function as systems. Michael’s ( 1979) delimitation of the West Germ.an urban system, which was based on the ‘Verdichtungsraume’ (agglomeration areas). provides the starting point for this study’s specification of the metropolitan size hierarchy. Verdichtungsr3ume represented the 24 largest urban centers with their urban-rural fringes (Bundesministerium fI_ir Raumordnung, 1975; Wild, 1980). This study modifies Michael’s scheme by defining metropolitan regions and areas as composed of one or more functional urban regions (FURS), and by adding West Berlin to his scheme. A functional urban region is a nodal region or individual metropolitan area defined as a ‘high-order’ central place and its surrounding hinterland. FURS are used as the building blocks for the metropolitan scheme developed in this study because functional urban regions better capture the suburbanization process of spatial decentralization occurring around each high-order cent ral place. The Rhine-Ruhr and the Rhine-MainNeckar comprise the two large polycentric metropolitan regions or urban complexes of west Germany. The Rhine-Ruhr includes not only the Duisburg, Essen, Duesseldorf, Dortmund, Bonn and Koeln FURS, but also Muenster, Koblenz and Aachen; the RhineMain-Neckar region combines the Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, Mannheim, Stuttgart and Karlsruhe FURS. In addition, this study’s scheme differentiates metropolitan areas into bicen-

POPl~L.4TlON DECONCENTR.4TION

0

m

50

1N WEST CERM4NY

1cxl

kilt

Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Re ion Rhine-Ruhr [ Duisburg (16 ?, Essen (17), Duesseldorf (18). Dortmund (19), Bonn (22), and Koeln (23) ] Muenster (14) Koblenz 29) Aachen (h 1)

Bicentric Metropolitan Areas Muenchen - Augsburg (54 and 50) Hannover - Braunschweig (11 and 12) Hamburg - Luebeck (4 and 3) Bielefeld - Osnabrueck ( 15 and 10) Bremen - Bremerhaven (8 and 7)

Rhine-Main-Neckar Metro olitan Region Rhine-Main [ Frankfurt (g 7) and Wiesbaden (30 1 Rhine-Neckar [ id arlnhelm (33) ] Stuttgart (37) Karlsruhe (34)

Monocentric Metropolitan Areas West Berlin [58] Freiburg (381 Kassel (25) Nuemberg (48) Saarbruecken (321 Kiel (2) Siegen (24)

Fig. 1. Metropolitan regions and metropolitan areas in West Germany.

tric or monocentric categories (Fig. 1). This study’s definition of metropolitan regions and metropolitan areas parallels the specification of or agglomeration re‘agglomerationr~ume’ gions currently used by the Bundesforschungsanstalt ftir Landeskunde und Raumordnung (BfLR), the West German Federal Research Institute for Regional Geography and Regional Planning (for example, refer to Irmen ( 1989, p. 8 12). In addition to including all of the BfLR agglomerationriume, this study’s scheme extends the notion of an agglomerated region by combining the appropriate secondary center with its dominant urban area, such as Augsburg with Muenchen, Braunschweig with Hannover, Luebeck with Hamburg, Osnabrueck with Bielefeld, and Bremerhaven with Bremen (Michael, 1979). This study’s scheme also includes a more extensive set of monocentric metropolitan areas, such as West Berlin, Freiburg, Kassel, Kiel and Siegen (Fig. 1). The Rhine-Ruhr and the Rhine-MainNeckar metropolitan regions cover most of the west-central portion of the country, while bicentric and monocentric metropolitan areas are dispersed throughout the nation. The south, especially the state of Bavaria, contains the fewest metropolitan areas (Fig. 1). TOTAL NET MI6

Forty percent of the 1985 West German population resided in the two polycentric metropolitan regions; 25% (or 15.5 million people) lived in the Rhine-Ruhr and 15% (or 9.3 million) in the Rhine-Main-Neckar (Table I). On the next tier of the size hierarchy, the largest bicentric metropolitan area, MuenchenAugsburg, contained 5.5% of the national population (3.37 million). West Berlin, the largest monocentric metropoiitan area, contained 3% of the population ( 1.8 million). Migration data at the county (kreise) level for 1977, 1980 and 1983 were supplied by the

TABLE 1 1985 Populations for metropolitan areas in West Germany

regions and metropolitan

Area

Population in 1985

Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan region Rhine-Ruhr Duisburg Essen Duesseldorf Dortmund Bonn Koeln Muenster Koblenz Aachen

15551320 12129477 1419042 2344089 2758772 2493688 2221604 872282 1394374 1043271 984198

Rhme-Main-Xeckar region Rhine-Main Frankfurt Wiesbaden Rhine-Neckar Mannheim Stuttgart Karsh-uhe

metropolitan

9316093 3115733 2034460 1081273 2663259 2419496 1117605

Bicentric metropolitan areas Muenchen-Augsburg Hannover-Braunschweig Hamburg-Luebeck Bielefeid-Osnabrueck Bremen-Bremerhaven

3371428 3192143 3183787 2302<25 1462494

Monocentrk metropolitan areas West Berlin Freiburg Kassel Nuemberg Saarbruecken Kiel Siegen

1844’742 1181750 1177129 I153361 1051969 949499 522208

Total West German population

6 1049000

Source: Bundesforschungsanstalt fiir Landeskunde und Raumordnung (Dr. H.-P. Gatzweiler. private communication, 1985).

Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, (W. Frey, personal communications, 1987, 1988 ). Counties were then aggregated into FURS according to definitions established by the BfLR (Kroner, 1976; Kroner and Kessler, 1976). The 58 FURS or BfLR-

POPULATION DEC3’KENl-R.ATIQN

IN WEST GERMANY

223

Bereiche covered all of West Germany (Fig. 1). Total net migration balances for the different categories of metropolitan regions and metropolitan areas show a redistribution of the West German population disfavoring the two largest a omeration regions and favoring smaller sized areas. For completeness, FURS not included in the polycentric, bicentric, or monocentric metropolitan categories were a gated into the ‘urban areas’ class (Table 2 ). The five categories are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (Fig. 1) Tables 2-5 ). The ‘urban areas’ category includes the following FURS: Flensburg ( 1 ), Emden ( 5 ), Bldenburg (6 ), Lueneburg (9)) Goettingen ( 13 ), Giessen (26), Trier (28), Kaiserslautern (31), Heilbronn (35), Pforzheim (36), Konstanz (39 ), Reutlingen (40)) Ulm (4 1 ), Ravensburg (42 ) , Wuerzburg ( 43 ), Schweinfurt (44), Bamberg (45), Bayreuth (46), BnsTABLE 2 Total net migration balances for regions and areas Regions and areas

1977

1980

1983

Rhine-Ruhr Rhine-Main-Neckar Bicentric metropolitan areas Monocentric metropolitan areas Urban areas

-22818 I8879 31798

-31921 - 12037 13779

- 28730 -7175 20812

-21895

- 12300

1839

42485

13274

- 5964

bath (47 ), Amberg (49 ), Ingolstadt ( 5 1). Regensburg (52 ), Kempten (53 ), Landshut ( 55 ), Nassau ( 56 ), and Rosenheim ( 57 ) ( Fig. 1). During 19’77, net (interna!) in-migration increased the population size of the gro,~p of bicentric metropolitan areas and the RhineMain-Neckar region while reducing the sizes of the Rhine-Ruhr, the monocentric metropolitan areas, and the urban areas (Table 2 ). The Rhine-Ruhr continued to lose population, as the result of net out-migration in 1980 and 1983, and the level of the loss remains approximately the same. The Rhine-MainNeckar region showed net out-migration as well, starting in 1980 ( - 12 037 ) and continuing through 1983 ( - 7 175 ). Positive (net ) inmigration added population to the bicentric metropolitan areas. This group showed net in-migration in 1977 (+3: 798), 1980 (+ 13 779) and 1983 (+20 812). The urban areas, on the lowest tier of the hierarchy, also showed (net ) in-migration in 1980 ( + 42 485 ) ad in 1983 ( =i-13 274: (Table 2). The monacentric metropolitan group showed net outmigration in 1977 ( -21 895) and 1980 ( - 12 300) but showed improvement in 1983 (+1839).

TABLE 3 Net migration balances for pairs of regions and areas: 1977 Regions and areas

To: Rhine-Ruhr

Rhine-Main-Neckar

Bicer?tric metropolitan areas

Monocentric metropolitan areas

Urban areas

0

-5317

-11260 642 0

- 536 5968 11343 0

- 5705 6952 9837 -5120 0

FKWtl:

Rhine-Ruhr Rhine-Main-Neckar Bicentric metropolitan areas Monocentric metropolitan areas Urban areas

0

224

T.KONTULY

TABLE 4 Net migration balances for pairs of regions and areas: 1980 Regions and areas

To: Rhine-Ruhr

Rhine-Main-Neckar

Bicentric metropolitan areas

Monocentric metropolitan areas

Urban areas

0

- 2405 0

-11138 -1587

- 3225 782 8048 0

-15159 - 13637 - 6994 - 6695 0

From:

Rhine-Ruhr Rhine-Main-Neckar Bicentric metropolitan areas Monocentric metropolitan areas Urban areas

0

TABLE 5 Net migration balances for pairs of regions and areas: 1983 Regions and areas

To: Rhine-Ruhr

Rhine-Main-Neckar

Bicentric metropolitan areas

Monocentric metropolitan areas

Urban areas

0

-2691

-11413 -2651

-4787 -848 2553 0

- 9859 -6367 4195 - 1243 0

From.

Rhine-Ruhr Rhine-Main-Neckar Bicentric metropolitan areas Monocentric metropolitan areas Urban areas

0

0

s NS AN

Only net migration balances to the right of the main diagonal are shown in Tables 3-5, with region of origin (from ) appearing along the rows (i ) and region of destination (to ) dc~ the columns (j). A negative net migration balance represents a net redistribution out of region i and into region j. Tables 3-5 are symmetrical so that a negative balance on the right-hand side of the main diagonal represents a positive balance on the left-hand side of the main diagonal. For example, in 1977 (Table 3) the Rhine-Ruht’s negative net balance ( - 53 17) with the RhineMain-Neckar means that, in the net, popula-

tion redistributed itself out of the Rhine-Ruhr dnd into the Rhine-Main-Neckar. if shown on the left-hand side of the main diagonal (Table 3 ), this exchange would appear as positive (net) in-migration to the Rhine-Main-Neckar ( + 53 17) from the Rhine-Ruhr. Migration balances between pairs of categories in the West German metropolitar size hierarchy show the Rhine-Ruhr losing population, through net out-migration, to each ofthe other classes during 1977, 1c C’Oand 1983 (Taain -X,:clzar changed bles 3-5 ). The Rhinefrom a region experiencing tq:!a’l (net) in-migration in 1977 to one showing total out-migration in 1980 and I983 (Table 2 ) 1 hine-Mi::m-Ncckar mctroIn 1377, the poCi;lr? i.e&i.in gained, in the net, from all of th; other ~:.;_~*;t?(Table 3 ), i.e. from the urban

areas ( +6952), from monocentric metropolitan areas ( + 5968 ), from the Rhine-Ruhr ( + 53 I? 1, and from bicentric metropolitan areas ( + 642 ). However, during 19 41, the Rhineain-Neckar experienced net oMt-migration i ts exchanges with the urban areas ( - 13 637) and with the bicentric metropolitan areas ( - 1587). In 1983 (Table 51, tric metropolitan region gained e Rhine-Ruhr and lost to the bicentric metropolitan areas ( - 265 t ), the rno~o~e~t~~ metropolitan areas ( - 848 ) and the urban areas ( - 6367 ). The urban areas category benefits as a result of the internal redist~bution of the West Geran ~opu~atio~ (Table 2 1. In E977 (Table 3 ), ue to exchanges ) and the monacentric metropolitan category ( + 5 120). In 1980, this category gained, in the net, from all of the other groups (Table 41. During I983 -Table 5 ), urban areas gained population from anges with the Rhine-Ruhr ( + 9859 ), the ain-Neckar ( + 6367 ), and the monacentric metropolitan areas ( 9 1243 ). BALANCES WITHIN

Population redistribution occurs down the West German metropolitan size hierarchy and the exchange process favors the bicentric metropolitan aa-eas and the group of urban areas. This section of this study explores whether deconcentration occurs within each of the polycentric metropolitan regions, in the form of (net) migration exchanges down the size hierarchy within each metropolitan region. In 1977, 1980 and 1983, the Rhine-Ruhr portion of this metropolitan region, (i.e. the Duisburg, Essen, Duesseldorf, Dortmund, Bonn and Koeln subgroup of functional urban regions) lost population as the result of net outmigration to the other FURS in the region (i.e. to Muenster, Koblenz and Aachen ) (Table 6 ) . However, redistribution from the Rhine-Ruhr

TABLE 6 Net migration baian~m wiUm the Rhme-Ruhr

mtttropohtdn

region: 1977. I980 and 1983 Xrea Rhine-Ruhr

sub-group

1977

i 980

1983

-6.160

-7.01: f 4.296 t 1.712 4 l.oQ9

- 5.834 + 3.957 f2.11 I -234

Muenster

+ 4.05 1

Koblenz Aachen

+ 1.165 + 944

sub-group occurred up the metropolitan region’s size hierarchy. For example, in 1983 (Table 6), the Rhine-Ruhr sub-group lost population due to net lnigration exchanges within the region ( -5834), and the larger sized FURS in the region benefitted. i.e. Muenster ( + 3957) and Koblenz ( S2111) (Tab!e 1). During the same period, redistribution within the Rhine-Main-Neckar metropolitan region showed a pattern of both spatial population concentration and deconcentration within this region. Migration exchanges within the region occurred both up and down the Rhine-Main-Neckar size hierarchy. ILITY OF THE TION THEORETICAL DECONCEN PERSPECTIVE The deconcentration theoretical perspective “expects large metropolitan areas of all functional types to exhibit sustained growth reductions as residents and activities continue to de(Frey, 1987, p. 244). The concentrate” relevance of this perspective to West Germany was suggested in a previous naoer (Kontuly, 1991). Based on a d::i:nie~o~: of bhe West German urban system comp,:srd of individual FURS, a spatial decor,.::%;ation of manufacturing and service sector employment during the 196Os, 1970s and 1980s preceded a regional deconcentration of the population in the 1980s. Fielding ( 1988) argues that changes in the geography of production, the “new” spatial di-

T. KONTULY

126

vision of labor, partially explain the regional deconcentration of population found since the 1960s in several highly industrialized nations. Migration tendencies evident in West Germany, at least until the mid-1980s, confirm Fielding’s hypothesis of an employment-led spatial deconcentration of population (Kontuly, 1991). Industrial and service sector changes between 1970 and 1985 document an employment-led deconcentration of population in West Germany. National level employment deconcentration, the southern drift of jobs, is shown by the fact that the northern and the central states plus West Berlin lost 62 1 985 jobs while southern states gained 485 202 (Nuhn and Sinz, 1988 ). In Nuhn and Sinz ( 1988 ), the group of northern federal states (Lander) includes Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Lower Saxony and Bremen; the central states are North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse, RhinelandPalatinate, and Saarland; the group of southern states includes Baden-Wtirttemterg and Bavaria. The southern states were more than able to compensate for their industrial sector’s decline ( - 43 1 829 jobs) with expansion of their service sector ( + 9 17 03 1 jobs). The northern and central states plus West Berlin were not as fortunate; growth in t eir service sector ( 1 125 949 ) could not match losses in their industrial sector ( 1 747 934). Also, the north-to-south shift in employment growth favored smaller-sized and medium-sized areas, and disfavored larger centers. Fifty-five percent of the south’s employment expansion (of 485 202 jobs) occurred in smaller-sized areas (the ‘rural regions’). with another 35% in the medium-sized areas (the ‘regions in initial stages of urban concentration’) (Nuhn and Sinz, 1988, pp. 75 and 77 ). Also, large-sized areas (the ‘regions with large agglomerations’) in the northern and the central states plus West Berlin experienced the brunt of the decline in employment; largesized areas lost 657 336 jobs, medium-sized

areas lost 22 030, while smaller-sized areas added 57381 jobs between 1970 and 1985 (Nuhn and Sinz, 1988 ). CONCLUSIONS In this study, regional population concentration or deconcentration tendencies are measured in terms of redistribution occurring either up or down the urban/metropolitan size hierarchy, with deconcentration evident when redistribution benefits smaller-sized places at the expense of larger ones. During the last part of the 1970s and the first part of the 198Os, net migration exchanges in West Germany occurred down the size hierarchy of metropolitan regions, metropolitan areas and urban areas. Population redistribution tendencies down the size hierarchy are evident when the urban system of West Germany is specified as a collection of individual functional urban regions (urban scale) (Kontttly et al., 1986; Kontuly and Vogelsang, 1988, 1989 ), or defined as an aggregation of FURS into a set of (large-sized) metropolitan regions and metropolitan areas (regional scale ) , or specified using a core-periphery dichotomy (national scale) (Vining and Kontuly, 1978; Vining and Pallone, 1982). Spatial population deconcentration occurred at several levels in West Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. Conclusions derived from the core-to-periphery studies of Vining and his colleagues have been challenged in general (Gordon, 1979; Champion, 1988) and for West Germany in particular (Koch, 1980). The specification of the West German metropolitan size hierarchy developed in this study provides an alternative to the core-periphery delimitation (Vining and Kontuly, 1978; Vining and Pallone, 1982). Our regional scheme recognizes that West Germany exhibits several large spatially separated urban agglomerations, rather than a single urban core region or metropolitan complex. It pays attention to the ‘niceties

POPlU_ATION DECONCENTRATION

IN WEST GERMANY

and nuances’ (Champion, 1988, p. 254) of the West German urban system, and incorporates these factors into the definitional scheme. If the core of West Germany is defined as the RhineRuhr and the Rhine-Main-Neckar polycentric metropolitan regions, then population deconcentration is evident during the last part of the I XHls and the first part of the 1980s. According to Frey, it is logical to connect the core-to-periphery and the urbanization-tocounte~rbanizatio~ trends of the 197Os, hut the link between t wo “would appear to be more tenuous for e new post-l 980 shifts” (Frey, 1988, p. 26 1). This study shows that the link remains appropriate for West Germany throu e mid-l 980s with the association provided by the deconcentration theoretical perspective. A deconcentration of manufacturing and service sector employment during the 196Os, 197Os, and 1980s preceded a spatial deconcentration of the West German population during the first half of the 1980s. e political unification of Germany in 1990, the investigation of West German regional demographic shifts and the evaluation of urbanization-to-counterurbanization redistribution must be put on hold. Population redistribution will, after unification, occur within a single nation formerly composed of two separate countries. Also, it is not clear whether the strong counterurbanization tendencies in West Germany seen in the last half of the 1970s and the first part of the 198Os, continued through the second half of the 1980s. Based on migration data for the period 198% 1986, Fielding ( 1990) has observed a reduction of counter-urbanization tendencies in West Germany. Regional geographers and planners in Germany believe that past trends and tendencies, based on the separate experiences of the western (the former Federal Republic of Germany) and the eastern parts (the former German Democratic Republic) of their country, are irrelevant as predictors of spatial demographic change in their newly unified country.

227

Spatial population redistribution trends for unified Germany will only become evident through an analysis of migration data for the years 1990 and beyond, and these data will be available no earlier than 1992 or 1993. ACKNOWLEDGE

The author thanks David A. Huth for assistance with computer programing and J&n W. Fanning for helpful comments and suggestions. REFERENCES Berry, B.J.L., 1990. Urban systems by the third millennium: a second look. J. Geogr., 89: 98- 100. Bundesministerium fti Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Stldtebau, 1975. Raumordnungsbericht 1974. Raumordnung, Vol. 4. Bonn-Bad Godesberg. Champion, A.G., 1988. The reversal of the migration tumaround: resumption of traditional trends? Int. Reg. Sci. Rev.. l 1: 253-260. Cochrane, S.G. and Vining, Jr., D.R., 1988. Recent trends in migration between core and peripheral regions in developed and advanced developing countries. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev., 11: 215-244. Dicken, P. and Lloyd, P.E., I98 I. M:Jdem Western Society: A Geographical Perspective on Work, Home and WellBeing. Harper and Row, New York. Fielding, A.J., 1988. Population redistribution trends and the persistence of organized capitalism. Geogr. Perspect.. 6 1: 74-16. Fielding, A.J., 1990. Counterurbanisation: threat or blessing? In: D. Pinder (Editor), Western Europe: Challenge and Change. pp. 226-239, Belhaven, London. Frey, W.H., 1987. Migration and depopulation of the metropolis: regional restructuring or rural renaissance? Am. Sec. Rev., 52: 240-257. Frey, W.H., 1988. The re-emergence of core region growth: a return to the metropolis? Int. Reg. Sci. Rev., 11: 26 l-268. Friedrichs, J., Hlussermann, H. and Siebel, W., 1986. SiidNord-Gefalle in der Bundesrepublik?: Sozialwissenschaftlithe Analysen, (Hrsg. ). Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. l-278. Gaebe, W., 1988. Disparities in Development between Ag3: 179- 191. glomeration Areas. Z. Wirtschaftsgeogl Gordon, P., 1979. Deconcentration without a ‘clean break’. Environ. Plann., A 11: 28 I-290. Irmen, E., 1989. Zur Entwicklung der Agglomerationsrsume in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Informatioilen zur Raumentwicklung. 1 1 / 12: 8 1 l-822, Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Landeskunde und Raumordnung, Bonn-Bad Godesberg. Koch, R., 1980. Counterurbanisation such in Europa? InfOrmationen zur Raumentwicklung. 2: 59-69, Bundesfor-

28 schungsanstalt fur Landeskunde und Raumordnung, BonnBad Godesberg. Kontull. T.. 1991. The Deconcentration Theoretical Perspective as an Explanation for Recent Changes in the West German Migration System. Geoforum. 22: 299-3 17. Kont$*ly, T. and Vogelsang, R.. 1988. Explanations for the intensification of counterurbanization in the Federal Republic of Germany. Prof. Geogr., 40: 42-54. Kontuly, T. and Vogelsang, R., 1989. Federal Republic of Germany: the intensification of the migration turnaround. In: A.G. Champion (Editor). Counterurbanization: The Changing Nature and Pace of Population Deconcentration. Edward Arnold, London, pp. 14 I - I6 1. Kontuly, T., Wiard, S. and Vogelsang, R., 1986. Counterurbanization in the Federal Republic of Germany. Prof. Geogr., 38: 170-181. Kroner, G.. 1976. Programmregionen der Bundesraumordnung und Regionale Arbeitsmarkte. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung. 11/ 12, Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Landeskunde und Raumordnung, Bonn-Bad Godesberg. Kroner. G. and Kess!er. H.R.. 1976. Vorschlag einer raumlichen Gliederung des Bundesgebietes nach der Erreichbarkeit von Oberzentren. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 1, Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Landeskunde und Raumordnung. Bonn-Bad Godesberg.

T. KONTIJLY

Michael, R.. 1979. Metropolitan Development Concepts and Planning Policies in West Germany. Town Plann. Rev., 50: 287-3 12. Nuhn, H. and Sinz, M., 1988. Industrial change and employment trends in the Federal Republic of Germany. Geogr. Rundsch., Special Edition: 68-78. Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch 1988 fbr die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Statistisches Jabrbuch 1989 fur die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. Stiens, G., 1988. Regional planning in the Federal Republic of Germany. Geogr. Rundsch.. Spc&i ESit;;c: 79-85. Vining, Jr. D.R. and Kontuiy, T.. 1978. Population dispersal from major m