{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02034174125305126, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.774647887323944, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Income Distribution, City Size and Urban Growth: a Final Word

This discussion with Mr Walker has provided some useful clarifications of the monopoly hypothesis . His basic contention that factors for which data are not available could influence the regression coefficients is, of course, unassailable. Our empirical work focussed on the relationship between measured income inequality, city size, and urban growth . This discussion has broadened the topic considerably, as we have raised issues of real income distribution, how the range of goods and services varies with city size, and the importance of wealth accruing to home-owners as a result of urban growth. The empirical data from the UK has added to the richness of the discussion . These issues have much to do with changes in the distribution of `well-being' as a result of growth. As indicated in our earlier response, in many respects we agree with Walker . However, we wish to reassert that we do not share his conclusion that the monopoly hypothesis may explain inequality that is caused by the process of growth but not the tendency to greater inequality found in larger cities . The gains that accrue to holders of non-duplicatable resources accrue from growth,