A Note on Rank-Size and Primacy: In Pursuit of a Parsimonious Explanation

This note seeks to forward new statements, and foregoes documentation of the literature on primacy and rank-size in recognition of the existing comprehensive reviews (e .g., Berry and Kasarda, 1977 ; Dziewonski, 1972 ; Ettlinger, 1981; Rosing, 1966 ; Sheppard, 1982) . Briefly stated, rank-size and primacy represent types of settlement systems that are characterized by balanced and imbalanced distributions of settlement sizes, respectively . Development economists and geographers, particularly during the 1960s, drew a number of conclusions based on extensive empirical research regarding the structure of settlement systems and levels of economic development. Second, they contended that primacy and rank-size occur at two ends of a developmental continuum . As a corollary to this second point, this continuum was thought to be evolutionary, implying that primacy in regions or nations will inevitably change to the point that a rank-size situation obtains . This set of ideas, together with empirically documented rebuttals, appeared in the literature throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, but has waned in recent years. Counterclaims refuted the economic development thesis but provided no explanation of the observed settlement patterns . More recently, critical reviews of the economic development thesis have appeared that provide some framework for understanding what the observed patterns signify (e.g ., Ettlinger, 1981 ; Sheppard, 1982) . Specifically, the static rank-size and primacy models are considered invalid in a dynamic world of urban growth and decline that is a reflection of inter-urban linkages [First received August 1983]