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

[ukiyo]

Well compared to Korea where almost 50% of GDP and population is in one urban area alone Japan isn't as centralized when viewed in that context (28% of population for Tokyo). Also keep in mind the Yokohama metropolitan area (which is nowadays just considered a part of greater Tokyo) when Japan was developing was certainly its own city and while today residential merges Tokyo and Yokohama a few decades ago it wasn't as obvious a continuous city (more farms etc in between) and even today Yokohama people tend to not like to be lumped in with Tokyo. If you go back to when Japan was developing (50s-70s) it may be more accurate to say you have Greater Tokyo, Greater Yokohama, Greater Osaka, Greater Nagoya and Fukuoka-Kitakyushu as the main urban centers.

[mintgum84]

I see both perspectives. The developing state I am somewhat familiar with - Pakistan - has 3-4 sizable cities that act as poles of growth. Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Faisalabad primarily. It's a huge place mind (800,000+ sq KM) and a few centers of growth were inevitable.

[fieldsofdreams]

I think a developing state with one dominant city -- a good example would be Metro Manila in the Philippines -- could help develop a country's economic machine in the short term. However, to make it a long-term context can be especially difficult if poverty alleviation programs are not well-managed or not enough good-paying jobs are available in their home countries because it would mean the economic concentration would be in that one large city while the rest gets the nibbles. It may be good to have one large city while the country develops, but I believe that such development should be extended to other communities, regions, provinces, states, or other administrative divisions if the country aims to become a developed nation. Add to that the fact that investments in infrastructure, education, social welfare, employment, security, and all other factors (plus natural resources and the environment) should be made proportionally to what a country really needs to boost its status and make it a nation that can be proud to live in.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by Crash_N

South Korea are supposed to be positive examples ( and citing these countries is stupid because the thread is about developing countries

South Korea was a developing country up til the mid to late 1990's. During the time it was still a developing country Seoul was even more dominant than today as the other cities such as Busan and Daegu were a bit after in development compared to Seoul.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by Crash_N

I can list dozens of bad, where there's practically no other significant urban centre outside the capital: Argentina, Uruguay, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia

Slovakia is a developed country.

[Crash_N]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

I think a developing state with one dominant city -- a good example would be Metro Manila in the Philippines -- could help develop a country's economic machine in the short term. However, to make it a long-term context can be especially difficult if poverty alleviation programs are not well-managed or not enough good-paying jobs are available in their home countries because it would mean the economic concentration would be in that one large city while the rest gets the nibbles. It may be good to have one large city while the country develops, but I believe that such development should be extended to other communities, regions, provinces, states, or other administrative divisions if the country aims to become a developed nation. Add to that the fact that investments in infrastructure, education, social welfare, employment, security, and all other factors (plus natural resources and the environment) should be made proportionally to what a country really needs to boost its status and make it a nation that can be proud to live in.

Exactly. While a rapid growth of a single urban area is not a bad thing in itself, the government's task of countering the effect of the city's critical mass on the nation's economy is a very difficult one, especially if there are no other population centres that could act as a counterbalance with enough government investment.

[Rebasepoiss]

I'm from Estonia so I know a thing or two about a dominant capital. What bothers me is that everybody's talking about how bad it is that people are leaving small towns and the countryside and that we should do something to prevent it. Yet very few people are talking about how Tallinn is the main driver behind Estonia's economy. I say that Estonia would be better off if more people lived in Tallinn and not only short-term but also long-term. The problem is that any big business is more likely to be situated in Tallinn because the number of workers with certain skills per 100,000 peole, for example, is limited. Let's say you want to build heavy machinery and you need 50 skilled welders, you are not going to find them from a small town, heck, you will even have a hard time finding them from Tallinn.

[Crash_N]

I said that centralisation in a small country like Estonia is not a negative thing. When you have a country like Argentina ( population 40 million, area 2 780 000 km2 ) dominated by a single city, than I'd say it' pretty obvious that it's a very negative thing.

[Restless]

Originally Posted by Rebasepoiss

I'm from Estonia so I know a thing or two about a dominant capital. What bothers me is that everybody's talking about how bad it is that people are leaving small towns and the countryside and that we should do something to prevent it. Yet very few people are talking about how Tallinn is the main driver behind Estonia's economy. I say that Estonia would be better off if more people lived in Tallinn and not only short-term but also long-term. The problem is that any big business is more likely to be situated in Tallinn because the number of workers with certain skills per 100,000 peole, for example, is limited. Let's say you want to build heavy machinery and you need 50 skilled welders, you are not going to find them from a small town, heck, you will even have a hard time finding them from Tallinn.

Given that there are only 1.6million people in Estonia, I'd say that there's no point trying to stop Tallinn from growing, unless you want to fight against city economics.
In general, a larger city becomes more efficient and creates more wealth and jobs. In most cases they continue to do so, until they hit the 3-4million mark.

Here are a couple of recent McKinsey reports on urban growth in China, India and Latin America which are useful reading.

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi...llion_in_china
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi...ening_in_india
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi...merican_growth

I also recall another report which looked at the impact of:

1. a single primate city and that's it
2. a single dominant city with a cluster of smaller cities around it.
3. a closely linked network of small equal cities
4. lots of small loosely linked cities

Number 4 was really inefficient in terms of resource requirements versus the output generated and I think number 3 didn't come out too well either. I don't remember if there was a clear difference between 1 and 2.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by Crash_N

I said that centralisation in a small country like Estonia is not a negative thing. When you have a country like Argentina ( population 40 million, area 2 780 000 km2 ) dominated by a single city, than I'd say it' pretty obvious that it's a very negative thing.

But it proved good to South Koreas development with half the population living in Seoul area.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Crash_N

I said that centralisation in a small country like Estonia is not a negative thing. When you have a country like Argentina ( population 40 million, area 2 780 000 km2 ) dominated by a single city, than I'd say it' pretty obvious that it's a very negative thing.

I think it would be much more difficult if your country in question is an archipelago full of islands, like the Philippines or Indonesia or even one of the Pacific Island nations where populations tend to disperse... And that the concentration of city people tends to be in one or a few areas.

[Brusmaw]

Originally Posted by VECTROTALENZIS

But it proved good to South Koreas development with half the population living in Seoul area.

Korean school pupils studying mostly maths and science from 8 am to 10 pm every day for 50 years have a larger impact on South Koreas development IMO than the urban layout.

[èđđeůx]

I honestly think it depends on what stage of development the developing country is at. For example a developing nation such as Thailand that is classified as newly industrialized and has one dominate city does more harm than good. At that point other urban areas should be taking in the bulk of the population, starting to create the majority of new wealth, offering the same modern educational/health facilities, and so on. However in developing nations yet to be classified even as lower middle income, and haven't seen industrialization or urbanization occur yet on the scale of NICs, it's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact I'd say it's just to be expected there be one dominate city as the rest of the nation is still predominantly rural.

[èđđeůx]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

I think it would be much more difficult if your country in question is an archipelago full of islands, like the Philippines or Indonesia or even one of the Pacific Island nations where populations tend to disperse... And that the concentration of city people tends to be in one or a few areas.

I agree, or if the population isn't that large and dispersed across a large area of land. I think nations like Kenya, for example, where over 90% of the population lives in a single region have the advantage of not having to spend billions more to bring roads, rail, and power to cities, towns and villages.

[The Cake On BBQ]

I think polarisation is far worse than domination of a single city.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by The Cake On BBQ

I think polarisation is far worse than domination of a single city.

How come you think that? I mean, polarization can also be a good thing, especially if the city or community in question is located on the island itself, but the next island can be like miles or kilometers away. It can draw uniqueness, but it can be hard to unify it with the rest of the nation.

[The Cake On BBQ]

What you said is domination of a single city though, not polarisation.
Domination isn't always a bad thing, but polarisation always points great problems in a country. And greater the gap between two "polars" the more stressed that country is.

Like Italy, Turkey, China or to a lesser extent, even USA.

[caserass]

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.

Seriously ? which cities are concerned by that ?

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by caserass

Seriously ? which cities are concerned by that ?

Bratislava and Prague for example. According to the EU, their GDP/capita equals to those of many Western European cities.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by Chrissib

Bratislava and Prague for example. According to the EU, their GDP/capita equals to those of many Western European cities.

Both are developed.