Toshiharu Ishikawa (p)

As firms’ production activities become large enough to cover the whole world, price and cost cutting competition are harsher among the manufacturing firms. To deal with the cost competition the firms fragment production process into small blocs and move the fragmented production blocs from existing sites to others which are suitable to the production of the fragmented blocs. In searching new location site of a production process, an industrial park is reevaluated as a location factor by not only by the manufacturing firms but also the governments of countries. Because industrial parks provide the factories with various sorts of external economies and they can attract the factories from foreign industrial countries into a few specific sites in their territories. Present paper clarifies how developer of industrial park determines location site of the industrial park by analyzing firms’ location selections. And then, this paper explains how external economies generated in the park influence on combination of the business types of the factories and their numbers in the industrial park. Lastly, the analysis is enlarged to examine the effects on production composition in the industrial park of urbanization economies which cities generate and provide within their urban areas. It is shown in this analysis that since medium sized cities provide firms’ factories in the park with higher profits compared with large and small sized cities, they are favored by manufacturing firms as a location site of an industrial park: While, small cities are likely to be selected by the developers of the industrial parks because small cities make total profits generated by factories located in the park higher than large and medium sized cities. In addition, it is clarified in this analysis that there is a case that an investment aiming to reduce the freight rate changes the production composition and influences differently on profits of different kinds of the factories in industrial park.

Nada Rajic (p)

Geotransport position of Zagreb provided him an opportunity to create a transport crossroad of European significance with important transport functions, which has been, for a long time, an important precondition and incentive for its demographic and economic growth.
This paper reexamines the significance geotransport position of Zagreb and the Zagreb region in interconnection with his demographic development during one hundred year ago.
It shows changes in the ranking of towns based on their size (from Zagreb to other more important towns in the Danube-Mediterranean inter-space) in the regional area of around 250 kilometres in the period from 1910 to 2015. In addition to changes in rank-size, it also presents relative relationships in the size of such towns via rank reciprocity indicators. In further text, it also presents the current demographic significance and importance of Zagreb in the urban network of Croatia by applying the rank-size rule and the urban primacy index.
By observing the demographic development of Zagreb over a longer period of time, it is confirmed that it is indubitably interconnected with the movement of the population, traffic and overall development of its neighbouring settlements and wider regional environment.
Finally, this paper presents the main reasons why Zagreb and its neighbouring areas have experienced such a precipitous demographic growth in the course of this period. The answer lies in the interconnectedness of its demographic and geostrategic position, transport, economic, and overall social growth and development, although it proceeded at a different tempo in certain phases of the long-term historical period. Ever since the establishment of the Zagreb Diocese (1094), Zagreb's genius loci has been an important and ongoing factor in attracting settlers to this area, a long time before modern censuses.
At the end, the paper presents conclusions and some proposals for the transport, economic, and overall city-regional policy of development.

Daniel Rauhut (p)

Spatial Justice seeks at explaining the interactions between space and society in cities, and it opposes the unevenly spatial distribution of e.g. poverty, access to welfare services, job opportunities, discrimination, or good quality of live etc. Two aspects are of importance here: (1) The key scholars of Spatial Justice are Marxists and several of them have made significant contributions to Marxist theory. Moreover, Spatial Justice opposes the market economy. (2) Spatial Justice focuses on cities and urban conditions. Conditions in rural and peripheral areas are not dealt with.
This paper seeks to outline a non-Marxist alternative to the negative impacts of spatial distributions in accessibility to e.g. infrastructure and welfare. The concept Territorial Justice has its roots in the work of social liberal philosopher John Rawls and the 1998 Nobel Laureate in Economics Amartya Sen; Rawls’ social justice and Sen’s capability deprivation are discussed from a territorial perspective. The result of the discussion suggests the emergence of a contractarian principle designed to deal with geographically distributed inequalities, allowing for a monitored market economy which is applicable not only to cities but to all types of territory.
The principle of Territorial Justice argues that the location of an individual should not influence the individual’s capabilities and definitely not lead to a capability deprivation of an individual. This has its roots in Sen’s reasoning. In line with Rawls’ reasoning, society is obligated to provide for individuals a fair share of opportunities and resources. Contrary to Communitarian ideologies, this does not mean that everyone is entitled to everything; individuals should have the right to the same opportunities, but what the single individual actually does with these opportunities is up to the individual.
An important finding in this paper is that the argument against rising inequalities between different types of territories in respect of e.g. poverty, access to welfare services, job opportunities, discrimination, or quality of life issues can be made from a non-Marxist a monitored market perspective. Arguing in favour of non-Marxist and monitored market principles does not per se mean that you favour a neoliberal or a laissez-faire economic policy.