I stand firmly against the primate city.
The good news, as you’ll see, is that I don’t live with one.
The bad news, of course, is that I do.
Let me explain.
A Definition
A primate city is one that is disproportionately larger and more influential than all other cities in its state, region, or country.
The original definition required such a city to be twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant.
Significance, as you might imagine, is measured by economic, cultural, and political factors.
Some Examples
At the national level, there are tons of examples. Here are a few.
In Thailand, Bangkok is about 13 times more populated than its nearest competitor.
In France, Paris outpaces its closest competition by a factor of 5.5.
London, in the United Kingdom, outdoes number two Birmingham by a factor of 3.9.
And Tokyo, in Japan, is more than twice the size of the country’s runner up.
These examples are particularly extreme, as not only are these cities economic and cultural powerhouses, but they are all capital cities, meaning they possess the political clout that can ensure their continued dominance.
Who Cares?
Pooling a country’s resources in such a way that favors one entity can create a genuine force, one that boosts the entire country’s profile, attracts investment, draws tourists, and fosters innovation.
Of course, those same benefits can have parasitic consequences. Primate cities bait workers from other regions, leaving those areas to flounder economically. Disproportionate cultural power runs the risk of devolving into groupthink and leaving reasonable alternatives by the wayside. Finally, when political power is added to the mix, the same forces that have birthed a primate city are simply reinforced, perpetuating the process.
As an aside, putting all a country’s eggs in one basket carries significant risk in the face of disaster, whether natural or otherwise.
Although cause and effect are difficult to ascertain, the world’s four largest economies by nominal GDP—the United States, China, Germany, and India—do NOT have a primate city. In the case of the US, financial power lies in New York City, cultural power in Los Angeles, and political power in Washington, DC, with numerous other players having a say in all three matters.
A Cautionary Tale
As mentioned, while I have the privilege of living in a country without a primate city, I have the burden of living in a state with one.
New York City dwarfs all else in the state, and while the metropolis has prospered, the rest of the state has faltered. Yes, many factors are in play, but it’s safe to say that convincing the behemoth to implement policies solely for the benefit of the rest of the state can be a losing battle.
Along the same line, those around the Big Apple are quick to brand the rest of the state as an uncultured backwater, even though the region—also known as Upstate New York—has more residents than 31 US states!
The Bottom Line
Obsessing about dumptowns is about more than patting the little guys on their heads.
A very reasonable argument could be made that it’s about ensuring economic vitality, distributing power, spreading risk, and avoiding polarization.
In other words, this blog may suddenly have a point.
2 Responses
Primate cities is an interesting concept with both upsides and downsides. I’m not sure how you make smaller cities more appealing to attract people and businesses. Hudson, NY managed that by a group of New Yorkers revitalizing its downtown by opening antique stores and restaurants. It then went from crusty and forgotten to a thriving, hip destination.
Yes, the challenge for smaller places is figuring out how to level the playing field, at least to a certain extent. Hard work, the right people, luck, and money (probably all relevant to Hudson’s formula) are needed. Easier said than done!