Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

How urban scaling and resource distribution shape social welfare and migration dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the long-run outcome of intercity migration is governed by a single threshold: whether the weighted average of urban scaling exponents is above or below 1, and it proves two stability theorems to that effect.

desk verdict The central stability threshold is not actually proven and fails on a concrete counterexample; the paper's main analytical claim does not hold as stated, though the model and simulations are useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03384 v1 pith:BTY27DSE submitted 2025-06-03 physics.soc-ph econ.TH

Bryce Morsky This is my paper
classification physics.soc-phecon.TH MSC 91A2291B1591D1034D20
keywords urbanscalingmigrationdynamicsresourceallocationsocialwelfarereplicatorequationadaptivecitysizedistributionexponents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the long-run destination of migration among cities is set by one number: the weighted average of the scaling exponents of the resources people care about. When economic and social outputs that scale superlinearly dominate utility, migration stabilizes an equal-size pattern of cities with equal utilities; when sublinear-scaling resources such as infrastructure dominate, the stable outcome is a single megacity and inequity between large and small cities. The argument is carried by two stability theorems for a replicator-equation model of migration, with proportional and Nash-welfare allocation rules giving the same qualitative answer. If correct, the model offers a simple mechanism for why some societies disperse population and others concentrate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the replicator equation for city population shares, $\dot p_i = p_i \sum_{j\ne i} p_j r_{ij}(U_i-U_j)$, with $r_{ij}$ reducing migration over distance, combined with the logarithmic utility $U_i=\sum_j \alpha_j \ln(1+X_{i,j}/(Y_{0,j}(p_i N)^{\beta_j}))$. Linearizing at the equal-size equilibrium gives a Jacobian of the form $\Phi M$, where $M$ is a symmetric, zero-row-sum matrix of intercity distances; stability of that equilibrium is controlled by the sign of $\Phi$. Under proportional allocation, $\Phi<0$ is equivalent to $\bar\beta>1$, turning an eigenvalue calculation into a single inequality.

What would settle it

Compute the weighted average scaling exponent for a set of cities from empirical budget and output data, and track population shares over time. If the weighted mean exceeds 1 and the largest city's share keeps rising toward 1 rather than the cities converging toward equal shares, the central dichotomy is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a threshold theorem for migration under urban scaling. In a system of $n$ cities whose residents move by a replicator equation toward higher utility, stability of the two candidate equilibria is decided by the sign of $\bar\beta - 1$, where $\bar\beta$ is the weighted average of the scaling exponents $\beta_j$ of the resources that enter utility. If $\bar\beta > 1$ (superlinear), the equal-size equilibrium is stable and migration equalizes city sizes and utilities; if $\bar\beta < 1$ (sublinear), the equal-size equilibrium is unstable and the single-megacity equilibrium is stable. The same dichotomy holds for allocations that maximize Nash social welfare, and the stability verdict survives delays in reallocating resources.

Load-bearing premise

All cities are treated as identical except for population: the same scaling baselines, the same preference weights, and the same resource-need functions for every city. If cities differ in those fundamentals, the equal-size point is generally not an equilibrium and the clean superlinear/sublinear threshold may fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the weighted average scaling exponent is superlinear, the equal-size configuration of cities is stable, so migration itself equalizes city sizes and per-capita utilities under both proportional and Nash-welfare allocation rules.
  • When it is sublinear, the only stable outcome is one city containing the entire population, so large-city/small-city inequity is a long-run attractor rather than a transient.
  • Reallocation delays do not alter the stability verdict: the delay-differential versions of both theorems give the same thresholds.
  • If residents can shift their preferences, the system has attractors in which either both cities weight the superlinear resource maximally and converge to equal sizes, or one city grows into a megacity whose residents come to weight sublinear resources.
  • The same qualitative results emerge whether the government allocates resources in proportion to population or optimizes Nash social welfare.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the theorem transfers to real urban systems, the global trend toward megacities may reflect infrastructure-dominated utility rather than political or economic distortions; that would imply policy can redirect the outcome by changing which resources dominate utility.
  • Because the equal-size result relies on cities being identical except in population, a realistic next test is whether moderate heterogeneity in baselines or preferences preserves the threshold or replaces the megacity endpoint with coexistence of a few large cities.
  • A quantitative prediction follows: across regions, the direction of migration (concentration versus equalization) should correlate with the estimated weighted mean of scaling exponents, and assembling that dataset would provide a direct test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an n-city model in which the utility of city i is a weighted sum of logarithmic terms, each of the form ln(1 + X_{i,j}/(Y_{0,j}(p_i N)^{β_j})), so that resource needs scale with population according to urban scaling exponents β_j. Migration is modeled by a distance-modified replicator equation, and allocations are either proportional to population or chosen to maximize Nash social welfare. The central analytical claim, stated in the main text and formalized as Theorems 1 and 2 in Appendix A, is a sharp dichotomy: if a weighted average of the scaling exponents is superlinear, the equal-city equilibrium is stable and the megacity equilibrium unstable; if the weighted average is sublinear, the opposite holds. The paper also analyzes delayed reallocations, adaptive preference shifts, and numerical simulations on a grid of 102 cities.

Significance. If the threshold theorem were correct, the paper would provide a simple and policy-relevant rule connecting urban scaling exponents to migration outcomes: aggregate superlinearity disperses population, aggregate sublinearity concentrates it into a megacity. The paper is commendably explicit about its model, includes reproducible code, and uses a clear adaptive-dynamics analysis for preference shifts. However, the central stability theorem contains an algebraic omission that is not cosmetic: the marginal utilities U'_{i,l} are dropped in the passage from the Jacobian to the final eigenvalue condition. Under the paper's own utility function these factors are resource-dependent, and there are admissible parameter values for which the paper's criterion and the exact eigenvalue condition have opposite signs. The clean dichotomy advertised in the abstract and main text is therefore not a consequence of the stated model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem 1, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The reduction from Φ < 0 to Eq. (14) is invalid for the model's utility function (2). The factor U'_{i,l} is not a common constant across resources; with proportional allocation X_{i,l} = γ_l p_i it is U'_{i,l} = 1/(1 + c_l \bar p^{1-β_l}) with c_l = γ_l/(Y_{0,l}N^{β_l}). The exact stability condition is sign(Σ_l α_l c_l (1−β_l) \bar p^{−β_l}/(1 + c_l \bar p^{1−β_l})) < 0, not sign(Σ_l α_l c_l (1−β_l) \bar p^{−β_l}) < 0. A concrete counterexample is n = 100, N = 1, \bar p = 0.01, α = (0.5,0.5), β = (0.5,2), Y_{0,l} = 1, γ = (10^6,1). The exact Φ is negative (stable), while the paper's \tildeκ-weighted average is \tildeβ = 0.5015 < 1, predicting instability. The proof's phrase 'in the case where utility functions are the same across resource' introduces an extra assumption that is neither in the theorem statement nor implied by Eq. (2). Thus Theorem 1 as stated is false for the stated model.
  2. [Appendix A, Theorem 2, Eq. (20)] The same omission occurs in the megacity stability condition. For proportional allocation and \bar p_i = 1, the exact local stability condition is Σ_l α_l c_l (1−β_l)/(1+c_l) > 0, whereas Eq. (20) effectively replaces each denominator by 1. These conditions can disagree in sign; for example, with β = (0.5,2), α = (0.5,0.5), Y_{0,l} = 1, c = (10^6,2), the exact sum is approximately 0.25 − 0.333 < 0, so the megacity is locally unstable, while the paper's \tildeκ-weighted average is about 0.5 < 1, predicting stability. Additionally, the model's utility is not defined at p_j = 0 for resources with β_j > 1, so the boundary equilibrium requires a limiting or alternative definition that the paper does not supply. The theorem statement also contains a self-contradictory repetition: the second occurrence of 'If it is sublinear' should read 'If it is superlinear.'
  3. [Abstract and main-text summary] The paper's central message is phrased in terms of the scaling exponents that are the 'primary drivers' of utility, which naturally means the preference weights α_j. The theorem's weighted average, however, is defined with weights \tildeκ_l proportional to γ_l α_l /(Y_{0,l}(\bar p N)^{β_l}), and after the correction required by the U' factors it would depend on budgets, baselines, and \bar p through the marginal-utility denominators. The abstract's clean dichotomy is not what is proved. Moreover, even under the natural α-weighting the dichotomy is false: with α = (0.4,0.6), β = (0.1,2), Y_{0,l} = 1, γ = (10^{10},10^{-6}), and \bar p = 0.01, the α-weighted average is 1.24 > 1, but the exact Φ for the equal-size equilibrium is positive, so the equilibrium is unstable despite a superlinear α-weighted average. The qualitative conclusion therefore needs substantial revision, not merely a corrected calculation in one equation.
  4. [Appendix A, Theorem 1 proof, Nash-allocation paragraph] The claim that the Nash-welfare allocation rule satisfies X'_{i,l} < X_{i,l}/\bar p is unsupported. The Nash-optimal allocation is defined implicitly as the solution of a constrained optimization problem, and no argument establishes differentiability of X_{i,l} with respect to p_i or the stated inequality. Since this sentence is the only justification for extending Theorem 1 to legislatures that allocate by the Nash rule, the extension is not established by the proof as written.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem 2 statement] The theorem statement says 'If the weighted average scaling exponent is sublinear, then each \bar p_i = 1 is a stable equilibrium. If it is sublinear, then the equilibria are all unstable.' The second 'sublinear' should be 'superlinear.'
  2. [Eq. (4)] The displayed expression for the Nash social welfare function contains an extraneous comma: 'W_N = \prod_i U_i^{p_i} , ,' should have only one comma or none.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains an incomplete sentence: 'In one, city1 develops into a megacity while city.' The intended contrast with the other attractors should be completed.
  4. [Theorem 1 statement] The statement contains the typo 'the equililbrium' for 'the equilibrium.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability theorems are derived from the stated model and are not fitted to data; the one self-citation is historical and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived analytically from the model ingredients: utility (Eq. 2), proportional or Nash allocations, and the distance-modified replicator equation (Eq. 5). The stability conditions in Theorems 1 and 2 follow from linearization of the replicator dynamics; the Jacobian factorization in Eq. (13) and the reduction to a weighted-average scaling exponent under proportional allocation are algebraic consequences of the model's own equations, not restatements of the conclusion. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the result it is used to explain. The only self-citation (Morsky et al., 2017) supports the distance-modified replicator modeling ingredient, but the stability proofs include the distance matrix explicitly and do not rely on that cited result; thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The Discussion honestly lists limitations, including the need for empirical validation and within-city heterogeneity, which are caveats rather than signs of circularity. The claimed threshold behavior is therefore self-contained relative to the assumptions stated in the model, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The qualitative dichotomy is a direct consequence of the chosen utility and allocation assumptions; no fitted parameters or new entities are introduced. The central theorem's threshold (weighted average beta = 1) is a derived quantity, not an input.

free parameters (4)
  • Scaling exponents beta_j = e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (superlinear); 0.7, 0.9, 1.3 (sublinear)
    Chosen for illustrative simulations; the central theorem depends on the sign of the weighted average, not on exact values.
  • Preference weights alpha_j = 1/3 each in simulations
    Equal weights chosen for symmetry; results shift with weights as they define the weighted average exponent.
  • Baseline Y0_j = 1 in simulations
    Normalization; rescaling Y0 is absorbed by gamma_j and Theta.
  • Budgets gamma_j = varied relative to Y0_j N^{beta_j}; e.g., gamma1 = Theta Y0,1 N^{beta1}
    In proportional allocation, gamma_j sets the level of funding; the threshold Theta controls preference evolution.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Utility of city i is Ui = sum_j alpha_j ln(1 + X_i,j/(Y0_j (p_i N)^{beta_j})) with alpha_j >= 0 summing to 1.
    Specific functional form chosen to model diminishing returns; not derived from micro-foundations.
  • ad hoc to paper All cities share the same Y0_j, alpha_j, and resource-need functions; only populations differ.
    Needed for the common-factor Jacobian in Eq. (13).
  • domain assumption Population fractions follow the replicator equation pdot_i = p_i sum_j p_j r_ij (U_i - U_j).
    Standard evolutionary game dynamics; previously used in urban contexts (Ahmad et al., 2023; Morsky et al., 2017).
  • domain assumption Allocations are either proportional to population (X_i,j = gamma_j p_i) or maximize Nash social welfare.
    Two idealized allocation rules; real legislatures are more complex.
  • domain assumption Reallocation occurs immediately or with a fixed delay; delays do not affect stability.
    Proved in Corollaries 1 and 2 for the specific model.
  • domain assumption Preferences evolve by adaptive dynamics with rare mutants and separation of timescales.
    Standard adaptive dynamics framework (Diekmann et al., 2004).
  • standard math Utility is continuous and differentiable in p_i, and utility increases with allocated resources.
    Required for stability analysis; diminishing returns imply decreasing marginal utility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How urban scaling and resource distribution shape social welfare and migration dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTY27DSE

@misc{pith2026250603384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How urban scaling and resource distribution shape social welfare and migration dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTY27DSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03384}
}
read the original abstract

Many outputs of cities scale in universal ways, including infrastructure, crime, and economic activity. Through a mathematical model, this study investigates the interplay between such scaling laws in human organization and governmental allocations of resources, focusing on impacts to migration patterns and social welfare. We find that if superlinear scaling resources of cities -- such as economic and social activity -- are the primary drivers of city dwellers' utility, then cities tend to converge to similar sizes and social welfare through migration. In contrast, if sublinear scaling resources, such as infrastructure, primarily impact utility, then migration tends to lead to megacities and inequity between large and small cities. These findings have implications for policymakers, economists, and political scientists addressing the challenges of equitable and efficient resource allocation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results for scaling exponents βj = 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 with αj = 1/3. In the long-run, cities converge on the same size. Population at time t = 200 0 200 400 600 800 Time, t 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Utility, Ui Utility Ui vs time t Average city utility, WC Utilitarian, WU Nash, WN Rawlsian, WR 0 200 400 600 800 Time, t 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 P o p ulatio n, pi Population pi vs time t Average population, p 0.00 0.01 0.02… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results for scaling exponents βj = 0.7, 0.9, 1.3 with αj = 1/3. In the long-run, a single megacity dominates. However, multiple cities of varying sizes can coexist during transitional periods. and sublinear, respectively. Appendix B depicts similar results for allocations that optimize Nash social wel￾fare. These plots include heatmaps representing the spatial distribution of the population at an intermediate time t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bifurcation and invasibility diagrams. Θ = 0.8 in the top row and Θ = 0.6 in the bottom. The first column depicts bifurcation diagrams detailing the stable and unstable equilibria p¯ ∈ (0, 1) for varying values of the preference for the superlinear resource for city 1, α1, with α2 fixed at 0.7. To determine the equilibria at which preferences shift in the invasibility plots, the population is initialized at the equi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for scaling exponents βj = 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 with αj = 1/3. In the long-run, cities converge on the same size. Population at time t = 200 0 100 200 300 400 Time, t 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Utility, Ui Utility Ui vs time t Average city utility, WC Utilitarian, WU Nash, WN Ra…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results for scaling exponents βj = 0.7, 0.9, 1.3 with αj = 1/3. In the long-run, a single megacity dominates. However, multiple cities of varying sizes can coexist during transitional periods. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the heatmaps and times series for this case. Note…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahmad, F., Shah, Z., and Al-Fagih, L. (2023). Applications of evolutionary game theory in urban road transport network: A state of the art review. Sustainable Cities and Society , 98:104791

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    M., Gilligan, T

    Atlas, C. M., Gilligan, T. W., Hendershott, R. J., and Zupan, M. A. (1995). Slicing the federal government net spending pie: Who wins, who loses, and why. The American Economic Review , 85(3):624--629

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    R., Lenormand, M., Louail, T., Menezes, R., Ramasco, J

    Barbosa, H., Barthelemy, M., Ghoshal, G., James, C. R., Lenormand, M., Louail, T., Menezes, R., Ramasco, J. J., Simini, F., and Tomasini, M. (2018). Human mobility: Models and applications. Physics Reports , 734:1--74

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    R., Burden, B

    Berry, C. R., Burden, B. C., and Howell, W. G. (2010). The president and the distribution of federal spending. American Political Science Review , 104(4):783--799

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    and Coate, S

    Besley, T. and Coate, S. (2003). Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: A political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics , 87(12):2611--2637

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Bettencourt, L. M. (2013). The origins of scaling in cities. Science , 340(6139):1438--1441

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., K \"u hnert, C., and West, G

    Bettencourt, L. M., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., K \"u hnert, C., and West, G. B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104(17):7301--7306

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    M., Lobo, J., and West, G

    Bettencourt, L. M., Lobo, J., and West, G. B. (2008). Why are large cities faster? U niversal scaling and self-similarity in urban organization and dynamics. The European Physical Journal B , 63:285--293

    work page 2008

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Binmore, K., Rubinstein, A., and Wolinsky, A. (1986). The N ash bargaining solution in economic modelling. The RAND Journal of Economics , pages 176--188

    1986

  2. [10]

    a nnstr \

    Br \"a nnstr \"o m, ., Johansson, J., and Von Festenberg, N. (2013). The hitchhiker’s guide to adaptive dynamics. Games , 4(3):304--328

    2013

  3. [11]

    and Fleurbaey, M

    Brighouse, H. and Fleurbaey, M. (2010). Democracy and proportionality. Journal of Political Philosophy , 18(2):137--155

    2010

  4. [12]

    and Nannicini, T

    Brollo, F. and Nannicini, T. (2012). Tying your enemy's hands in close races: The politics of federal transfers in B razil. American Political Science Review , 106(4):742--761

    2012

  5. [13]

    and Veuger, S

    Clemens, J. and Veuger, S. (2021). Politics and the distribution of federal funds: Evidence from federal legislation in response to COVID -19. Journal of Public Economics , 204:104554

    2021

  6. [14]

    Cox, G. W. and McCubbins, M. D. (1986). Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The Journal of Politics , 48(2):370--389

    1986

  7. [15]

    and Tao, Y

    Cressman, R. and Tao, Y. (2014). The replicator equation and other game dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(supplement\_3):10810--10817

    2014

  8. [16]

    Dellmuth, L. M. and Stoffel, M. F. (2012). Distributive politics and intergovernmental transfers: The local allocation of european union structural funds. European Union Politics , 13(3):413--433

    2012

  9. [17]

    Diekmann, O. et al. (2004). A beginner's guide to adaptive dynamics. Banach Center Publications , 63:47--86

    2004

  10. [18]

    Dynes, A. M. (2020). Which citizens do elected officials target with distributive spending? A survey experiment on us municipal officials. American Politics Research , 48(5):579--595

    2020

  11. [19]

    and Mazzocco, M

    Finan, F. and Mazzocco, M. (2021). Electoral incentives and the allocation of public funds. Journal of the European Economic Association , 19(5):2467--2512

    2021

  12. [20]

    and Mutlu-Eren, H

    Fouirnaies, A. and Mutlu-Eren, H. (2015). English bacon: Copartisan bias in intergovernmental grant allocation in E ngland. The Journal of Politics , 77(3):805--817

    2015

  13. [21]

    and Richards, R

    Gastil, J. and Richards, R. (2013). Making direct democracy deliberative through random assemblies. Politics & Society , 41(2):253--281

    2013

  14. [22]

    Glaeser, E. L. (2008). Cities, agglomeration, and spatial equilibrium . OUP Oxford

    2008

  15. [23]

    and You, H

    Goldstein, R. and You, H. Y. (2017). Cities as lobbyists. American Journal of Political Science , 61(4):864--876

    2017

  16. [24]

    Harsanyi, J. C. (1956). Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: A critical discussion of Z euthen's, H icks', and N ash's theories. Econometrica , pages 144--157

    1956

  17. [25]

    and Lee, S

    Horiuchi, Y. and Lee, S. (2008). The presidency, regionalism, and distributive politics in S outh K orea. Comparative Political Studies , 41(6):861--882

    2008

  18. [26]

    and Ferland, B

    Jacques, O. and Ferland, B. (2021). Distributive politics in C anada: The case of infrastructure spending in rural and suburban districts. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique , 54(1):96--117

    2021

  19. [27]

    and Zhang, M

    Jiang, J. and Zhang, M. (2020). Friends with benefits: Patronage networks and distributive politics in C hina. Journal of Public Economics , 184:104143

    2020

  20. [28]

    I., and Davis, B

    Karemera, D., Oguledo, V. I., and Davis, B. (2000). A gravity model analysis of international migration to N orth A merica. Applied Economics , 32(13):1745--1755

    2000

  21. [29]

    Khemani, S. (2015). Buying votes versus supplying public services: Political incentives to under-invest in pro-poor policies. Journal of Development Economics , 117:84--93

    2015

  22. [30]

    Larcinese, V., Rizzo, L., and Testa, C. (2006). Allocating the US federal budget to the states: The impact of the president. The Journal of Politics , 68(2):447--456

    2006

  23. [31]

    M., and Testa, C

    Larcinese, V., Snyder Jr, J. M., and Testa, C. (2013). Testing models of distributive politics using exit polls to measure voters’ preferences and partisanship. British Journal of Political Science , 43(4):845--875

    2013

  24. [32]

    Lubin, M., Dowson, O., Dias Garcia , J., Huchette, J., Legat, B., and Vielma, J. P. (2023). JuMP 1.0: R ecent improvements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization. Mathematical Programming Computation

    2023

  25. [33]

    and Rodr \' guez-Pose, A

    Luca, D. and Rodr \' guez-Pose, A. (2015). Distributive politics and regional development: assessing the territorial distribution of T urkey’s public investment. The Journal of Development Studies , 51(11):1518--1540

    2015

  26. [34]

    Morsky, B., Cressman, R., and Bauch, C. (2017). Homophilic replicator equations. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 75:309--325

    2017

  27. [35]

    Nash, J. F. et al. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica , 18(2):155--162

    1950

  28. [36]

    Olson, M. (1993). Dictatorship, democracy, and development. American Political Science Review , 87(3):567--576

    1993

  29. [37]

    H., Schwanen, T., and Banister, D

    Pereira, R. H., Schwanen, T., and Banister, D. (2017). Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport Reviews , 37(2):170--191

    2017

  30. [38]

    and Nie, Q

    Rackauckas, C. and Nie, Q. (2017). Differential E quations.jl--a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in J ulia. Journal of Open Research Software , 5(1)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Sandholm, W. H. (2020). Evolutionary game theory. Complex Social and Behavioral Systems: Game Theory and Agent-based Models , pages 573--608

    2020

  32. [40]

    M., Grauwin, S., Raschke, M., Claxton, R., Smoreda, Z., West, G

    Schl \"a pfer, M., Bettencourt, L. M., Grauwin, S., Raschke, M., Claxton, R., Smoreda, Z., West, G. B., and Ratti, C. (2014). The scaling of human interactions with city size. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 11(98):20130789

    2014

  33. [41]

    Sigmund, K. (1986). A survey of replicator equations. In Complexity, language, and life: Mathematical approaches , pages 88--104. Springer

    1986

  34. [42]

    and Sorribas-Navarro, P

    Sol \'e -Oll \'e , A. and Sorribas-Navarro, P. (2008). The effects of partisan alignment on the allocation of intergovernmental transfers. D ifferences-in-differences estimates for S pain. Journal of Public Economics , 92(12):2302--2319

    2008

  35. [43]

    Taylor, P. D. and Jonker, L. B. (1978). Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences , 40(1-2):145--156

    1978

  36. [44]

    and Biegler, L

    W \"a chter, A. and Biegler, L. T. (2006). On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Mathematical programming , 106:25--57

    2006

  37. [45]

    Wallace, J. (2013). Cities, redistribution, and authoritarian regime survival. The Journal of Politics , 75(3):632--645

    2013

  38. [46]

    Wantchekon, L. (2003). Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in B enin. World Politics , 55(3):399--422

    2003

  39. [47]

    West, G. (2018). Scale: The universal laws of life, growth, and death in organisms, cities, and companies . Penguin

    2018

  40. [48]

    Zipf, G. K. (1946). The p 1 p 2/d hypothesis: On the intercity movement of persons. American Sociological Review , 11(6):677--686

    1946

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.