Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Julian Wolpert
Roger StoughUniversity Professor
George Mason UniversityArlington, VA, USA
Presentation at the International Workshop and Advanced BrainstormCarrefour (ABC) on Smart People in Smart Cities with cooperationfrom the Faculty of Economics, Metej Bel University] the RegionalScience Academy; the City of Banska Bystrica; and, with support fromthe Slovak Republic and the Slovakia Presidency of the EU Council
August 29, 2016
Julian Wolpert
• Born 1932• BA - Columbia U.• MA and Ph.D. - U. of Wisconsin (Geography)• Professor Regional Science Department –
University of Pennsylvania (1963-1973)• Bryant Professor of Public Affairs, & Urban
Planning , Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton U. (1973-2005)
• Bryant Professor Emeritus of Geography, Public Affairs and Urban Planning (2005-present)
2
Julian Wolpert
• Natl. Academy of Sciences 1972 – 11 publications!
• Elected to Amer. Asso. for the Advancement of Sci.
• Fellow, Russel Sage Foundation, Guggenheim, Center for Advanced Study in the Behav. Sci., Wilson Center
• Offices: Natl. Res. Council, Asso. Amer. Geog., Amer. Geog. Soc., Amer. Schs. of Plan., & Reg. Sci. Asso.
• Advisor to Natl. Sci. Foundation, U.S. State Dept., NIMH, various Depts. of the State of N.J.
• Wolpert and NIMH – a story
3
Quantitative & Behavioral Analysis
• Wolpert & Herbert Simon – Models of Man
– Economic man Assumptions: Rational decision maker; complete knowledge; self interest: utility maximizer
– Critique
– Wolpert’s work reflects bounded rationality &adaptive rationality in a spatial context
– Wolpert - influenced by the quantitative revolution & social-behavioral movement
4
Behavior in Spatial Context (1)
• Modeling agricultural decision making
• Data - Sweden
• Used LP to estimate maximum returns
• LP a new quantitative tool for spatial analysts
• Computed theoretical vs. actual gap
• Demonstrating bounded or adaptive rationality in a spatial context
5
Behavior in Spatial Context (2)
Information dissemination & Satisficing in Sweden
• Modeled dissemination & adoption of crop info.
• Multi-stage diffusion simulation- Monte Carlo
• Assumptions or Rules of dissemination
– Agricultural agencies disseminate best practice info
– Agents to farmers
– Big farmers to smaller farmers
• Soc. relations - who gets the information & when
• Conclude: outcomes influenced by soc. relations
6
Behavior in Spatial Context (3)Migration – Field Theory
• Distance & directional bias - disaggregate to regional
• In & out migration & net migration patterns differ– Distance decay – negative exponential
– Directional bias – role of relative location factors
• Movements greater in some directions than others
• Illustrated migration fields - direction/distance parameters
• Aggregate U.S. patterns: Westward & southeastward beyond pull of the NE or megalopolis clusters
7
Behavior in Spatial Context (4): Locating Noxious Facilities
• Siting noxious facilities - sports stadium in Philadelphia: example:
• Stakeholder threat → stress → adaptation cycles
• Role of power
• Outcome
8
Behavior in a Spatial Context: Summary (5)
• Contributor to the quantitative revolution
• Leader: behavioral approach in geography and spatial analysis
• Wolpert’s general approach was theoretical and evidence- based
• An advocate for behavioral & evidence-based approach throughout his career.
9
Wolpert’s contributions (1)
• Decision process in a spatial context – (1964) & Departure from the usual environment in location analysis (1970) both papers in AAAG
• Argued that location of noxious facilities not well explained by location theories of Von Thunen, Christaller, Losch, Weber, etc. due to:– Imperfect information, computational ability, etc.
– STAKEHOLDER CONFLICT: GOALS, MOTIVATIONS, VALUE
• Location outcome may be far from “rational”
10
Wolpert’s Contributions (2)• 1960 spatial quantitative revolution – hegemonic?
• Method & theory “foreign words”
• Location theory?
• Little or no recognition that human relations with nature ultimately socially mediated! However,
• Location theory offered an approach for including the social; but was normative & narrow
• Lacked a clear recognition of how social relations are conditioned or influenced by power
• Wolpert challenged the hegemony of a world view that excluded power relations – also David Harvey
11
Wolpert’ Contributions: Features of his argument (3)
• Behavioral theory of the time focused on aspects of decision environments; same in geography
• Wolpert’s view was social-psychological
• Emphasis on conflictual nature of location decisions
• Location decisions → products of interactions &conflict outcomes
• Wolpert fascinated with dynamics of decisions and how bargaining evolved through threat, counter-threat, stress in context of unequal power.
• Difficult to study human spatial behavior without reference to power relations
12
Wolpert’s Contributions (4)
• Bias in siting public and noxious facilities
– Siting based on pure economic assumptions can and often does create inequities
– Noxious facilities: highly important but unwanted!
– Examples: trash dumps, stadiums, neighborhood mental health facilities, urban expressways, bridges, sewage disposal plants,
– Cycle thesis
13
Wolpert’s Contributions (5)
• Because these facilities are needed but not wanted, power pushes the siting decision around to a “least power” location
– Evidence based research – siting noxious facilities; mental health decentralization, urban transportation, bridges, sewers and sewage disposal systems
– Public policy and other behavioral outcomes and policies important to Wolpert
14
Not for Profits (NFPs) & Philanthropy
• NFPs - no regional analysis: four region study
• Philanthropic voluntary sector: A significant component of regional economies
• NFP activity varies by region
– Older, liberal, larger, (and smaller) better endowed/ asset rich regions - stronger NFP activity
– Caveat – patterns of giving in smaller towns more generous than larger cities
– Industrial regions more generous than sun belt cities
15
Not for Profits (NFPs) & Philanthropy
• Individual & corporate giving varies with economic conditions
• As NFPs mature public funding increases: But become more vulnerable
• Complimentary (not competitive) relationship between philanthropy & public sector support
• Regional lag and life cycle model
16
Not for Profits (NFPs) in Public Policy
• Entrepreneurship and NFP development analogy
• NFP sector well represented in all (including growing, stable and declining regions)
• NFP service functions similar but emphasis varies
• Corporate giving – headquarters; & industry mix important
• Foundation grants favor home regions!
17
Wolpert’s Contributions: Summary
• Theory & Method: quantification & behavioral; field theory (migration), evidence based research
• Method: LP, Simulation – Monte Carlo; field analytics in migration
• Substantive areas of contribution:– Decision making in spatial context– Diffusion of information (technology)– Siting of noxious facilities– Migration – field analytical methods– Non-profits and philanthropy– Others – benefit cost, mental health, group housing
18
