THE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY OF T HE PRODUCTION OF A CAN-OPE NER Ri chard A. Huck Mr. Huck is a graduate student in Geography at SI. Louis Universi ly, St. Loui s, Missouri. He is an active member of the Alpha Rho chapter of Gamma Theta Upsi lo n. 36 This paper is designed primarily to show the interaction involved among thirty-one centers ( Map 1 and Table 1) in the manufacture of one product, a deluxe electric can-opener. This is ap- proached through the problem of transportation in relation to distance between the parts' supplying centers and St. Loui s, the site of assembly. The appliance with which this paper deals is a combination " Domestic Elec- tric Can - opener, Knife and Scissors Sharpener," Figure 1: In 1969, over ninety thousand of the can openers were manufactured to retail at $21 .99 each: FIGURE 1 The can opener is produced in St. Lo uis by "Company X" which wishes to remain anonymous for exclusive sale to Sears, Roebuck and Company for national distribution. Table 1 lists urban centers contribut- ing parts for the can-opener. The " In- dustrial North east" has, by far, the greatest number of contributors . Of
Transcript
THE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY OF THE PRODUCTION OF A CAN-OPENER
Richard A. Huck
Mr. Huck is a graduate student in Geography at SI. Louis Universi ly, St. Louis, Missouri. He is an active member of the Alpha Rho chapter of Gamma Theta Upsi lon.
36
This paper is designed primarily to show the interaction involved among thirty-one centers (Map 1 and Table 1) in the manufacture of one product, a deluxe electric can-opener. This is approached through the problem of transportation in relation to distance between the parts' supplying centers and St. Loui s, the site of assembly.
The appliance with which this paper deals is a combination " Domestic Electric Can -opener, Knife and Scissors Sharpener," Figure 1: In 1969, over ninety thousand of the can openers were manufactured to retail at $21 .99 each:
FIGURE 1
The can opener is produced in St. Louis by " Company X" which wishes to remain anonymous for exclusive sale to Sears, Roebuck and Company for national distribution.
Table 1 lists urban centers contributing parts for the can-opener. The " Industrial Northeast" has, by far, the greatest number of contributors. Of
TABLE 1
Contributing Centers Ranked According to Increasing Distance From SI. Louis
Center and State Population Distance from St Louis
by Road Mileage Number 01 Parts
Produced
St. Louis, Missouri ...... ... ... . . .... . Henderson, Kentucky ..... . .. ........ . Chicago, Illinois . ........ . .•......... Holly Springs, Mi ss iss ippi ......•... .. . Mundelein, Illinois .. .... . . ... . . ..... . Elgin, Illinois .. .. . . .......... . .•. . . .. Ft. Wayne, Indiana ..... ... ...•. .. .. .. Rockford, Illinois .... ...•.. ....... . . . Milwaukee, Wisconsin . . . .. ....... ... . Waukesha, Wisconsi n .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . Greenville, Mis i sippi ...•... . . . . . .... Waupun, Wisconsi n .......•.... . .. ... Sparta, Wisconsin ... .... ...•.. ... .. .. Elyria, Ohio ... . ... . .. ....... . ...... . Cleveland, Ohio ...............• ... .. Chattanooga, Tennessee .... ..•.... . . . . St. Paul , Minnesota .. ... . ....... .. . .. . Ft. Worth, Texas .. .... ... ..•.... ..... . Niagara Falls, New York ....•. .. .•. . . . . Rochester, New York ...... . ......... . Harrisburg, Pennsylvania .. ... .... . ... . St. Mary's, Pennsylvania .. . . .....•..... Norristown, Pennsylvania . ..... ... ...• Boundbrook, New Jersey .......... . .. . Irvington, New Jersey . ... .... ... •..... Philadelphia, Pennsy lvan ia .... .. ..... . East Greenwich, Rhode Island ... ...... . New York, ew York ...... . ....•..... Pawtucket, Rhode I land ... . ... .. .... . New Bedford, Ma sachu ell .. ...... . . . Los Angeles, California . . ..... . ...... .
Sources: Population information from Webster'S Geographica l Dictionary. M ileages ta ken from Ameri ca n Automobile Associa ti on Highway Map of the United States. See Bibliography.
35 2
22 10
1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3
the thirty-one centers which produce parts for the can-opener, only four (Greenville, Holly Springs, Sparta, and Henderson) are not located in major industrial belts. These four centers contribute only seventeen parts, or 15% of the total product.
Theoretically, the number of parts imported to St. Louis from the other centers should decrease with some function of di stance: This is based on the assumption that transportation costs increase with distance. Map 2 shows the centers which produce the parts for this can-opener, with isolines
connecting cities of equal parts' production. Table 3 lists centers according to the number of parts contributed. The distance of each center to St. Louis (in the " D;t column) is also given . These centers are divided into groups which produce the same number of parts. The average distance of each group from St. Louis is given. St. Louis, the site where the can-opener is assembled, is the hub of the whole system, as it produces thirty-five parts, or 30.9% (Table 2) of the can-opener's total number of parts, the largest single contributor. Chicago ranks second,
producing twenty-two parts, or 19.4% of the total. Holly Springs is next on the list with ten parts, or 8.8 percent of the total.
Holly Springs, incidentally, is the site of " Company Y, Division of Company X, " a subsidiary, then, of the St. Louis assembly plant. ' This explains why so many parts come from this town, which is not located within a major industrial belt. It follows that it must be less costly to obtain parts from a subsidiary firm than elsewhere, as " Company X" probably buys other parts for different products from " Company Y" , enabling
shipments to St. Louis to be made at less costly bulk rate prices.
So far, as shown in Table 3, there is an increase of distance in the average distance column per group, and a decrease in number of parts produced per group. This trend continues with the Greenville-Elyria-Cleveland group also . How ever , New York deviates from this progression. The 1,056 miles from St. Louis is much greater than the averages for the one and two parts producing centers. The huge population of New York, together with its great industrial diversity and well-developed
lines of transport, combine to make this an extraordinary gravitational and attractive anomaly, explaining its deviation from the trends.
Except for New York, then, the theory stated above that the number of parts produced will decrease with some relation to increased distances holds according to the average distances given for each group of parts producers. This correlation between the decrease in the number of parts produced in the various centers and the increase in distance might be re-
lated to transportation costs. Unfortunately, information on costs is considered to be classified information, and thus not available for use in this study. Applications of the "Gravity Model " to the Can-Opener.
Sir Isaac Newton, in his famous " Law of Universal Gravitation" , stated that " any two bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the mass of each and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.'" From this basic law, the interaction hypothesis was derived.
This hypothesis supposes that " the amount of interaction between two centers of population is directly proportional with some function of the population size of the two centers, and is inversely proportional with some function of the di stan ce between them." Mathematically this may be simply written as follows:
m . m . I J
1 =-----ij D .:
IJ
where,
I .. = interaction between center i and center IJ j, given in terms of a number w hich,
when compared in a seri es of uch numbers, al lows the making of genera lizations concerning the gravitative attractions of different centers
m. = population of center i I
m . = population of center j J
D .. = distance between center i and center j' IJ
Thi s hypothesis is based on four assumptions: first, interaction depends on the direct or indirect communication between individuals; second, as a member of a group, one individual produces the same amount of interaction as another ; thi rd, "the probable frequency of interaction generated by an individual at a given locality is inversely proportional to the difficulty of reaching, or communicating with, that or another location"; and, finally, the distance between the individual and the location is directly proportional to the friction against this communication :
In Table 2 it is noted that the average interaction decreases along with increased average distances and decreasing groups of parts production. Thus, production of parts for this canopener decreases, in general, with distance, as does the interaction between each center and St. Louis, the site of assembly and biggest parts producer.
Reilly's " Law of Retail Gravitation"
42
approaches the gravity concept in a somewhat different manner. According to this formulization, a city will attract retail trade from an individual in its surrounding territory in direct proportion to the population size of the retail center and in inverse proportion to the square of his distance away from the center. For any two cities competing for retail trade, the point of equilibrium on the line joining them, where competitive influence is equal, will be desc ribed by the equation :
m. I
2 d .
X I
m . J
----- where,
d . 2 xJ
m . m . = populations I J spectively
of centers i and i re-
x = point of equilibrium on the line joining i and j
d . = distance from center i to point X XI
d . = distance from center j to point X XJ
D .. = d . = d . or di stance between IJ XI XJ
centers i and j' " But there is a simpler method of
determining the position of the breaking point. This method is made possible through a restatement of Reilly's law to read as follows :
BP
The number of miles from trading center i to the breaking point or outer limit of its retail trading area, computed along a major paved road running from i to j may be computed by the following formula :
BP = D ij
-:========= w here, m .
1+ _ _ 1_
m . J
= break ing point in terms of miles from sma ller center j
D .. = distance between centers i and j IJ
m .m . = popu lations of centers i and j respec-I J tively
The form ula D .. - BP = distance of BP in IJ
miles from center 1."·
Users of Reilly's law have substituted driving time for highway mileage, and square feet of retail floor space for population. At best, Reilly's law is only an approximation technique: For these reasons, then, it seems justifiable to substitute the numbers of parts produced in each of these involved centers for their respective populations in both the interaction hypothesis and Reilly's law.
Reilly's " Law of Retail Gravitation" is applied to the can-opener in Table 3. The location of this theoretical breaking point between St. Louis and each of the other centers is given in terms of road mileages. The location of this point is given both in terms of miles from St. Louis and from each of the other thirty centers to St. Louis. Again, the various centers are divided into groups according to parts production. Also given are the average distances of the breaking points for the different groups. Except for the already explained deviation of New York, there is an increase of average distances outward from St. Louis, the hub of the system, which adds to the support for the concept of increased distances being related in some way to decreased parts production for the can-opener.
Map 3 is a graphic illustration of the location of this theoretical point of equilibrium between the attractive forces of can-opener producing centers. Reilly's law thus provides a "trade map" demonstrating the theoretical market area of St. Louis in relation to each of the other contributing centers in the production of this can-opener.
In modern manufacturing, the movement of materials between locations of successive processes is regarded as part of the processing operation itself. 1o Thus, trucks, due to the decentralization of industry (compare Plates I and VO , the dense and flexible
highway network of the U.S., and their greater efficiency and speed, are handling more and more of the nation's transportation needs.
Map V shows the St. Louis area as a hub where many highways meet. Thus, St. Louis is well located for truck transportation.
Almost all the required parts bought by " Company X" for its can-opener are shipped in less-than-car-Ioad lots by truck to the St. Louis assembly plant, largely because trucks offer the most efficient means to replenish stock for production."
Only one part for the can-opener in question is not brought by truck. That part is a small , light-weight nameplate which is flown to St. Louis by United Parcel Service from Los Angeles." Because climatically, both cities are open to air-traffic much of the year, condition s are good for air transportation .
Manufacturing Problems The main problem of the manufac
turer is the availability of parts. If parts are not obtainable then the product in question will exist only on paper. Transportation, defined as the " cost of overcoming the friction of distance," is indeed a major concern of the manufacturer. Access to highways, railroads, airports, or canals and rivers are important to the problem of location. Thus, the major problem of industry consists of the availability of parts and the need to transport them economically from the producer to the consumer. This can all be reduced down to the old principle of supply and demand.
Conclusion There is a definite relationship be
tween the major industrial regions of the U.S. and the production of parts for the can-opener. Also, there is a relation between the number of parts
43
..
produced for this can-opener in the thirty-one centers involved and distances, as shown by the isoline map and the two app lications of the gravity model to this study. The interaction between these various centers and St. Loui s is seen to vary with distance and the number of parts produced in each center. Goods measured in less-than-
(I ) c., D., Inlerv iew, DireClor of Purchases, " Company X," St. lou is, March 10, 1969.
(2 ) Ib id.
(3) Models in Geography, Ediled by Chorley, R. J., and Haggel, P.; Melhuen & Co., Ltd., london, 1967, p. 369.
(4 ) H., A., Inlerview, Planning Dept. , " Company X, " St. louis, March 10, 1969.
15) Physics, Physical Science Sludy Commillee, D. C. Healh & Co., Boslon, 1960, p. 356.
16 ) Carrolhers, Gerald , " An Histori cal Revi ew of Ihe Gravi ly and POlentia l Concepls of Human Inle rac·
44
car-load lots are being carried in increasing volumes by trucks, leaving bulky goods to the slower and more rigid barges and trains, the decentralization of American industry, and the " In terstate Highway System," have greatly aided the expanding trucking industry.
lion ," Journal 01 (he American Inslilule 01 Plan· ners, Vol. 22, No.2, Spri ng 1956.
I' ) Ibid. 18 ) Rei ll y, W. J., The Law 01 Relail Gravilation, W. J.
Reilly Co. , ew York, 1931. 19 ) Murphy, R. E., The American Cily, An Urban Ge·
ography, McGraw Hill Inc., 1966, p. 62 . (10 ) Ibid, p. 63. 1" ) Raushenbach , R. A., The Marketing Concepl Ap·
proach 10 Developing Profilable Traffic, M.A. Thesis, 51. louis Un iversily, St. lou is, Missouri, pp. 15·16.
