Report a Comment

I havent read her books - it sounds to me that her arguments on agglomeration economies are embedded in a larger economic POV that I do dismiss, and so reading her would not be worth the aggravation, given that the same ideas on agglomeration economies are available elsewhere, in more uptodate form (that she may have made them first is interesting, but Im not that concerned with the history of urban economics, and her contribution - an analogy is that the neokeynisians are impossible without Keynes, but their statements of the theory are much better than whats in the General Theory - Keynes is important, but for someone not interested in the history of economics, its not really worthwhile to slog though the General Theory) . She happens to be cited here quite often as an authority, to which points must be reconciled, as see Charlie does above. I don't see the need to do that.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 28, 2012 1:02 pm • link • report