The empirical urban sprawl literature uses the closed city urban model in which population and income are exogenous. This paper considers the open city model with endogenous population and income as an alternative. The tests for single-county urbanized areas over 1970–2010 support the open over closed city models. While point estimates differ for open city instrumental variable (IV) models when compared with closed city OLS counterparts, the open city models offer broad empirical support for the underlying neoclassical urban land use theory. In that regard, support for the theory found in the existing empirical literature using closed city models is not likely to diminish when using empirically preferred open city models.

中文翻译：

---

关于城市扩张：封闭的城市、开放的城市，还是有关系？

实证城市扩张文献使用封闭城市模型，其中人口和收入是外生的。本文以具有内生人口和收入的开放城市模型作为替代方案。对 1970-2010 年单县城市化地区的检验支持开放对封闭的城市模型。虽然与封闭城市 OLS 模型相比，开放城市工具变量 (IV) 模型的点估计有所不同，但开放城市模型为潜在的新古典城市土地利用理论提供了广泛的实证支持。在这方面，当使用经验上首选的开放城市模型时，对现有经验文献中使用封闭城市模型的理论的支持不太可能减少。