Primate Cities
Effects when a city becomes too important
What is a “Primate” City
Not a city with lots of monkeys.
The stock definition in Wikipedia and most other sites is that a Primate City is a city that is at least twice the population of the next largest city. When I was in school (and dinosaurs ruled the Earth), a secondary condition is that it must also be the capital of the nation.
The United States does not have a primary city under either definition. New York City has a population of 20 million and is not twice as big as Los Angeles at 16 million. Neither is New York the capital of the country.
Conversely, London and Paris are the Primate Cities of Great Britain and France. The population of London is about 12 million, versus the next largest city of Manchester with about 3 million people. London is also the capital of the country. Paris is the capital of France and is the largest city with a population of 13 million, versus the next largest city Marseille with a population of about 2 million.
Most capital cities in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia are primate cities.
How are Primate Cities Created?
Primate cities are not “created” instead they generally arise organically in one of two ways.
The first is that a city grows during the growth of a country and takes the dominate position. In many nations a single city is the focus of economic and political growth. To succeed economically or politically, a person must move to the capital city and participate in the competitive atmosphere there. Thus begins a self-reinforcing of this dynamic. Use the example of London and the finance sector (pre-Brexit). To succeed in the financial sector, the best opportunities were in London. Once a person was successful in London, they generally did not move back to a city with fewer opportunities.
Rome, in the early Roman Empire, was another city that grew and prospered as the nation around it grew.
The second method where a Primate City is established is when a country has been organized from a colonial background. Empires would normally choose a major and easily accessible city from which to govern. Any citizen of the region who wants to work in government, trade or law would normally have to move to that city. Upon independence, that primate city normally became the capital. This is the case in countries as diverse as Mexico, Malaysia, and Angola. In those cities too, the primate city becomes the focus for economic and governmental advancement.
What type of countries do not have a primate city?
There are a few situations that are not conducive to the establishment of a primate city.
Many large countries in area like Russia, China and Canada have multiple cities where the government and economy are drive growth in regional centers, often no in the capital. For example, Canada’s biggest and most economically important cities are Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. None of these are the only engine of growth in the country. Furthermore, the Canadian capital of Ottawa isn’t even in the top 5 cities in population.
Also, a single Primate City may not arise when there are multiple cities that drive the economy in a (geographically) smaller country. Examples of this are Germany, Belgium, and Italy. These three countries are over 100 years old and were created by combining the territory of previously independent regions - many of which had their own primate cities before consolidation.
Finally, some countries have specifically chosen to build an entirely new city as the national capital to prevent any one Primate City driving economy. Examples of these countries are the United States, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Australia. In each country a new capital city was designed and built after independence.
Consequences of having a Primate City
Primate Cities are the engine of economic growth and therefore easy to affect with national policy. Problems in Primate Cities are raised quickly because they are the focus of the economy and are often easy to fix with “more”. In London, the “more” were new tube lines, clean-up of the Thames, the entire development of Canary Wharf, and a long list of new buildings for offices. London has (depending on how you count) grown the number of their airports from 2 (LHR & LGW) to 5 to spread out air travel.
Primate cities drive synergy between sectors. In Mexico City the legal sector supports the financial, economic, entertainment, and the governmental sectors. Contrast with the United States where the financial sector is strongest in New York City. The entertainment sector is based in Los Angeles. The biggest governmental sectors are headquartered in Washington DC. And the technology sector is focused on the West Coast in the Bay Area and Seattle. The energy sector is centered on Houston. More people employed for infrastructure in each sector rich city as opposed to a Primate City where a single infrastructure supports all sectors.
Primate cities draw younger workers to the city. The Primate Cities do not only draw young and well taught people, but they can also attract successful people from other countries that want to success in a chosen field. This has been referred to as a “brain drain” from poorer countries where driven and educated young people move overseas, which drives economic growth outside the country.
But Primate Cities make it hard to develop other parts of the country. Brain drain occurs within a country as well as overseas. Young ambitious people from all over England and Wales head to London for work. England has been trying to develop the country and cities outside London, but it hasn’t worked as a part of governmental efforts (called “Levelling Up”). A few cities are growing, but mainly through internal gentrification, not governmental plans.
Once a country has a well established Primate City, it is hard to make a competitor city through legislation. Two countries have attempted this recently. Kazakhstan created a new Capital City by promoting Astana to be the Capital in 1997. It has generally been successful, working with an established city. Indonesia is attempting to create a new Capital City, focussing on the legislature in the beginning, on the island of Borneo. It is meant to relieve the pressure on Jakarta, the current capital, which is too large, too prone of floods and subsidence, and too exposed to climate change.
Future
There is not some “plan” which is able to rapidly develop or redirect development of Primate cities. They arise organically. Where new national capitals have been established, the record of growth is mixed. Canberra and Brasilia exist almost outside of the national zeitgeist, whereas Washington DC and Astana have relatively flourished.
In countries with a Primate city, plans to develop the economy of the rest of the country have rarely been successful. Paris, London, Stockholm and Vienna have all stayed Primate cities regardless of the varied political efforts to support the periphery.
Rather than some attempt some change, it is better to understand Primate City’s positive qualities and their limitations.