Appraisal Of Webers Theory
Appraisal Of Webers Theory Assignment Help | Appraisal Of Webers Theory Homework Help
Appraisal of Weber’s Theory
Weber’s theory of location has been criticized on the following grounds:
1. The chief criticism is about the assumptions in the analysis of Weber. The assumptions are said to be over-simplified and unreal. Firstly, his treatment of transpiration costs in terms of weight and distance only is considered objectionable. It is more nature to consider it in terms of monetary costs than the type of transportation, type of road, and the nature of goods. Thus, results of Weber’s analysis are extremely unreal.
Secondly, Weber assumed fixed labour centres, but location is not only the result but also a cause of distribution of labour. Further, the assumption of unlimited supply of labour in each centre and the maintenance of original wage levels irrespective of an inrush of industries to such a centre are contrary even to a theoretical reasoning of the situation.
Thirdly, Weber’s assumption of fixed points of consumption does not coincide with the actual market conditions in a competitive structure. In reality, there is a widespread market served by competing producers and there may be a to Robinson, consumption centres also provide cause as well as effect in the location change.
2. Objections are also raised against the method of Weber’s analysis. His division of raw materials into ubiquities and fixed materials is very artificial. In fact, materials are drawn from a large number of alternative fixed points. However, even then the difference in the nature of the materials does not cease to exist. Weber thought that not only transport, labour, but agglomerative factors like climate and government policy may also be equally important. That is why, Andreas Predohl called Weber’s theory a selective theory rather than a deductive theory as it takes into consideration only selected factors. It may be added that Weber’s theory is not based on empirical facts and figures.
3. With regard to agglomeration, Weber made no distinction between the growth of the firm and development of localized industry. He through solely in terms of external economies. Probably, there appears to be some justification for the exclusion of internal economies by Weber. They do not result for the concentration of number of firms in a particular centre. A single firm expanding in size may find internal economies even through other firms are situated elsewhere.
4. S.R. Dennison feels that Weber’s approach towards the theory of location is over-burdened with geographical considerations. Weber’s analysis is lamentedly removed form all considerations of costs and prices and is formulated in terms of technical coefficients. Instead of measuring the saving in labour costs due to labor orientation in terms of ton-miles, it should have been measured in monetary terms.
In spite of its shortcomings Weber’s theory of location is an important tool to analyse the location of industries. Andreas Predohl made an attempt to correlate the theory of location with the general economic theory since he considered the isolation of the theory of location as unfortunate. He found that every change in location involves a change n three groups of means of production, namely, land, labour and transport. Secondly, every change in location may be conceived of as a change in the combination of the means of production. Hence, it follows that location is only a variation of the commonly accepted general theory of substitution.
For more help in Appraisal of Weber’s Theory click the button below to submit your homework assignment
1. The chief criticism is about the assumptions in the analysis of Weber. The assumptions are said to be over-simplified and unreal. Firstly, his treatment of transpiration costs in terms of weight and distance only is considered objectionable. It is more nature to consider it in terms of monetary costs than the type of transportation, type of road, and the nature of goods. Thus, results of Weber’s analysis are extremely unreal.
Secondly, Weber assumed fixed labour centres, but location is not only the result but also a cause of distribution of labour. Further, the assumption of unlimited supply of labour in each centre and the maintenance of original wage levels irrespective of an inrush of industries to such a centre are contrary even to a theoretical reasoning of the situation.
Thirdly, Weber’s assumption of fixed points of consumption does not coincide with the actual market conditions in a competitive structure. In reality, there is a widespread market served by competing producers and there may be a to Robinson, consumption centres also provide cause as well as effect in the location change.
2. Objections are also raised against the method of Weber’s analysis. His division of raw materials into ubiquities and fixed materials is very artificial. In fact, materials are drawn from a large number of alternative fixed points. However, even then the difference in the nature of the materials does not cease to exist. Weber thought that not only transport, labour, but agglomerative factors like climate and government policy may also be equally important. That is why, Andreas Predohl called Weber’s theory a selective theory rather than a deductive theory as it takes into consideration only selected factors. It may be added that Weber’s theory is not based on empirical facts and figures.
3. With regard to agglomeration, Weber made no distinction between the growth of the firm and development of localized industry. He through solely in terms of external economies. Probably, there appears to be some justification for the exclusion of internal economies by Weber. They do not result for the concentration of number of firms in a particular centre. A single firm expanding in size may find internal economies even through other firms are situated elsewhere.
4. S.R. Dennison feels that Weber’s approach towards the theory of location is over-burdened with geographical considerations. Weber’s analysis is lamentedly removed form all considerations of costs and prices and is formulated in terms of technical coefficients. Instead of measuring the saving in labour costs due to labor orientation in terms of ton-miles, it should have been measured in monetary terms.
In spite of its shortcomings Weber’s theory of location is an important tool to analyse the location of industries. Andreas Predohl made an attempt to correlate the theory of location with the general economic theory since he considered the isolation of the theory of location as unfortunate. He found that every change in location involves a change n three groups of means of production, namely, land, labour and transport. Secondly, every change in location may be conceived of as a change in the combination of the means of production. Hence, it follows that location is only a variation of the commonly accepted general theory of substitution.
For more help in Appraisal of Weber’s Theory click the button below to submit your homework assignment