Centrifugal and centripetal. Antagonizing forces of spatial development
In recent decades the leading countries of the world have seen the formation of metropolitan areas as economically powerful and dynamic centres. The stable growth of certain territories within a state leads to tension, whereas mass-scale equalisation significantly reduces general development dynamics. Debates on this issue are relevant to all countries that have been faced with the issue of interregional redistribution of resources.
● Which model of national policy is the most effective given the new reality of spatial development – a focus on leading territories, or equalising regional development?
● Has it proven possible, with the global practice of broad development based on equalisation, to facilitate economic growth comparable with the dynamics of leading regions?
● Is it worth suppressing and fighting tendencies towards urbanisation and concentration?