The author makes the hypothesis that higher spatial equity does not always mean lower economic efficiency. An attempt is made to check this hypothesis by working out four alternative spatial organizations—described as egalitarian, centralistic, moderate, and moderately concentrated—and evaluating them from the viewpoint of spatial equity and economic efficiency. Spatial accessibility and costs are used as measures to represent spatial equity and economic efficiency. Under certain assumptions concerning concentration of settlement and investments, scale economies, and the transportation system, the centralistic alternative turns out to be not only cheaper but also more advantageous in respect of spatial accessibility than the egalitarian alternative. This means that under certain conditions and within certain limits the relation between concentration and spatial accessibility may be positive rather than negative. In other words, with these conditions and limits it is possible to obtain scale economies and to improve spatial accessibility simultaneously. Hence higher spatial equity may be accompanied by greater economic efficiency.