Urban agglomerations represent the new spatial units of regional competition, yet their internal industrial organization remains inadequately understood. This study examines the spatial logic of employment distribution across 14 major urban agglomerations in China using an enhanced Ripley’s L function. We distinguish between two analytical dimensions: scale affinity ( β ), which captures an industry’s tendency to concentrate in larger versus smaller cities, and geographic affinity ( D ̂ k ), which captures how employment is distributed between cores and peripheries once resources flow into an urban agglomeration. Our analysis identifies three fundamental patterns. First, the spatial relationship between workforce and population agglomeration varies systematically with urban agglomeration maturity: mature agglomerations exhibit workforce deconcentration beyond population deconcentration, while less mature ones show the opposite pattern. Second, most industries with high scale affinity not only concentrate in larger cities but also further cluster near urban cores; manufacturing stands out as the sole exception, exhibiting high scale affinity but dispersing to peripheries. Third, amid overall spatial stability, high-knowledge industries (notably scientific research and information technology) have expanded selectively into peripheral areas. These findings demonstrate that urban agglomeration development is shaped by heterogeneous industry-specific spatial logics. For policymakers, this implies that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate: mature agglomerations should prioritize connectivity and congestion management across an integrated core, compact agglomerations should target peripheral investment to soften sharp core–periphery gradients, and dispersed agglomerations should strengthen inter-core corridors to transform semi-independent nodes into a functional network. Sector-sensitive spatial planning is therefore essential to foster sustainable synergy across cities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: