Is it beneficial for developing states to have 1 dominant city?

[mintgum84]

I figure if developing states have 1 major city, it creates a base for human capital, a middle class consumer base, a center to attract investment from outside - all of which can spiral into a growth spiral that can then trickle down?

[Crash_N]

If a small developing country like Estonia becomes centralised, it's not that big a deal.
When you have such centralisation in a huge country like Russia, then it's a very negative thing to say the least.

[SydneyCity]

In large developing countries (China, India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc), I would say centralisation is a bad thing in that all the wealth can be concentrated in one city, with the rest of the country being comparitively underdeveloped. China is a good example of this.

[Crash_N]

China is not centralised at all. Beijing is the political centre, Shanghai is the main port and a commercial centre, Hong Kong is a financial centre, there are dozens of important industrial cities etc. etc.
I mean, a country twice the size of the EU and with 1,2 billion people simply can't be centralised.

[Skyrazer]

Originally Posted by SydneyCity

In large developing countries (China, India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc), I would say centralisation is a bad thing in that all the wealth can be concentrated in one city, with the rest of the country being comparitively underdeveloped. China is a good example of this.

Umm, China is hardly centralised.

[gabrielbabb]

Originally Posted by SydneyCity

In large developing countries (China, India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc), I would say centralisation is a bad thing in that all the wealth can be concentrated in one city, with the rest of the country being comparitively underdeveloped. China is a good example of this.

Well China can't be the example, maybe more Latin American countries almost every country has a massive city with all the economical, political, financial power and small cities with not as much importance as the main city.

Uruguay: 3.400.000
Montevideo: 1.700.000 (50% of total pop.)
Uruguay: 176.215 km²

Chile: 17.000.000
Santiago de Chile: 6.000.000 (35% of total pop.)
Chile: 756.096 km²

Paraguay: 6.500.000
Asunción: 2.300.000 (35% of total pop.)
Paraguay: 406.752 km²
Argentina: 40.000.000
Buenos Aires: 13.000.000 (32% of total pop.)
Argentina: 2.780.400 km²

Perú: 29.000.000
Lima: 8.700.000 (30% of total pop.)

Ecuador: 14.000.000
Quito: 2.700.000 (19% of total pop.)
Ecuador: 256.370 km²

México: 110.000.000
México DF: 20.000.000 (18% of total pop.)
Mexico: 1.972.550 km²

Venezuela: 28.000.000
Caracas: 5.000.000 (17% of total pop.)
Venezuela: 916.445 km²


Colombia: 46.000.000
Bogotá: 8.200.000 (17% of total pop.)
Colombia: 1.141.748 km²

Bolivia: 10.400.000
La Paz: 1.600.000 (15% of total pop.)
Bolivia: 1.098.581 km²

Brasil: 190.000.000
Brasilia: 2.600.000 (1.3% of total pop.)
Brasil: 8.514.877 km²



At least in Mexico other cities are becoming every time more and more important, with higher economical standardss and more oportunities.

[onosqaciw]

depend on the country itself.......in asia we see some capital cities and big cities lie on disasters prone areas.....and when massive disaster hit it...it would be detrimental to the country's growth in economic sense.......bangkok flood at 2011 is the example of it

[Occit]

Originally Posted by gabrielbabb

Venezuela: 28.000.000
Caracas: 5.000.000 (17% of total pop.)
Venezuela: 916.445 km²

According to 2011's Census, Venezuela has 29.000.000 and Caracas has 4.000.000 that is only about 14% of total.

[Suburbanist]

Urban hierarchies on themselves appear on all shapes and sizes on already developed countries, from centralized (United Kingdom, France) to decentralized ones (US, Germany).

I don't think it is a relevant factor isolated and on itself.

[SydneyCity]

What I was saying in regards to China was that the wealth is concentrated in the coastal regions, whilst the inland parts of the country are comparatively less developed.

[Crash_N]

That's can hardly be called "centralisation", there are hundreds of millions of people in the coastal region that spans thousands of miles of coastline and covers millions of km2.
The proper term for such a phenomena is "polarisation", where a certain part of the country is more populated, developed and urbanised than the other parts because of various geographical or economic reasons and due to the climate. Other examples include Brazil ( also very centred on the coastal region ), USA ( with the Eastern and Western Seaboards heavily populated and the Midwest relatively empty ), Australia etc.

[onosqaciw]

Originally Posted by SydneyCity

What I was saying in regards to China was that the wealth is concentrated in the coastal regions, whilst the inland parts of the country are comparatively less developed.

i think that's the nature of economy...people will always concentrated on certain location which offer advantages such as flat land, fertile plains, availability of water and access to sea for trade.....and it's not a coincidence that the major cities on earth are located near a mass of water be it river, lake, or sea....

[Future Cities]

Originally Posted by SydneyCity

What I was saying in regards to China was that the wealth is concentrated in the coastal regions, whilst the inland parts of the country are comparatively less developed.

Good back down, you obviously opened your trap without thinking

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by SydneyCity

What I was saying in regards to China was that the wealth is concentrated in the coastal regions, whilst the inland parts of the country are comparatively less developed.

In Europe, the eastern part is less developed the the western. Its similar in China were it's the eastern coastal part that is more developed the western in land parts.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Yes for a country below 150 million one huge city or a region is better than having many small ones. It's resources and the wealth comes can spread faster if it's closer to people.

Look at South Korea with half of its population living in the Seoul region and look at its miracle.

[Crash_N]

Originally Posted by VECTROTALENZIS

Yes for a country below 15 million one huge city or a region is better than having many small ones. It's resources and the wealth comes can spread faster if it's closer to people.

Look at South Korea with half of its population living in the Seoul region and look at its miracle.

Fixed

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by VECTROTALENZIS

In Europe, the eastern part is less developed the the western. Its similar in China were it's the eastern coastal part that is more developed the western in land parts.

You can't really compare a country with an entire and diverse continent. The pattern in Europe changes more and more to a city vs. rural area pattern. The Eastern European big cities are already as rich as their Western counterparts.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by Chrissib

You can't really compare a country with an entire and diverse continent. The pattern in Europe changes more and more to a city vs. rural area pattern. The Eastern European big cities are already as rich as their Western counterparts.

China is geographically as large as Europe but with the double population. The relative differences between parts in China can be as large as between countries in Europe in terms of culture, mindset, and development. Going from Guizhou to Shanghai is almost like going from Moldova to Paris. The difference between Moldova and Paris is ofcourse much larger than between Guizhou and Shanghai but I just want to imply that Guizhou and Shanghai are worlds a part in China the same way Paris and Moldova are world's a part within Europe.

Another example is that if you visit Harbin, Kashgar, and Sibsongbanna you will notice how far a part these three places are both culturally and linguistically.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by Crash_N

Fixed

I really ment 150 million. Look at Japan which have 126 million and 45 million live in the Tokyo region.

[Crash_N]

Originally Posted by VECTROTALENZIS

I really ment 150 million. Look at Japan which have 126 million and 45 million live in the Tokyo region.

I know you meant 150 million. My post meant "you're wrong". Any country that is larger than 10, max. 20 million people and 100 000km2 and has a single urban area comprising over 25% of population and economic output is unhealthily centralised.
You cite Japan as an example, but in doing that you shoot yourself in the foot, partially because you cite the example out of context.
Tokyo's metro area ( Kanto region ) has roughly 35-40 million people, which is around 30% of Japan's population. This population figure would otherwise mean an unhealthy centralisation characteristic of 2nd and 3rd world countries. However, in Japan's case it is only natural - it's a mostly mountainous country with few larger plains, so it is to be expected that Kanto, being the largest flat and habitable area in Japan, would also have the largest share of total population.
But the issues of centralisation in Japan are not so much in the demographic department, as they are in economic and political, with Kanto being the absolute powerhouse of the Japanese economy and with Tokyo as the seat of government ( Japan is a unitary country, not a federacy or a federation ). The political and financial power is almost completely concentrated in Tokyo, meaning the country is centralised.

But even then, Japan is far from an ideal example of "good centralisation" ( i.e. where centralisation is present but it's effect on the rest of the country is positive ) you're seeking, simply because it is still not that centralised. Kyoto-Kobe-Osaka conurbation as well as Nagoya metro serve as a strong counterbalance with their large population and strong industrial and service sectors. The fact that there are other large and economically strong urban centres doesn't negate the first part of my post, since Japan still is centralised. This just shows that the presence of other strong cities in Japan is despite centralisation, not because of it, due to various historical and geographic reasons. Correlation does not infer causation.

And if Japan and South Korea are supposed to be positive examples ( and citing these countries is stupid because the thread is about developing countries ), I can list dozens of bad, where there's practically no other significant urban centre outside the capital: Argentina, Uruguay, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Russia ( even though there are other large cities, Moscow with only 8-10% of population makes up over 25% of the huge country's economy ), most African countries, Turkey etc. etc.