 |
Urban primacy has been around since colonial times, yet it was not until the 1950s that it became an issue of international concern. This was because this period saw the start of unprecedented levels of urbanization, fuelled by very large population growth rates and massive rural to urban migrations. These trends were taking place predominantly in Less Developed Countries (as seen below), as they emerged from their colonial ties, and the primate phenomena is seen by many as an obstacle to the further development of these countries.
|
| Source: | United Nations (1991). http://www.unescap.org/pop/journal/1994/v09n1a3.htm |
The initial factor that drew the attention was the size of these cities, or ‘mega-cities,’ defined as an urban agglomeration over 8 million people (Richardson, 1993). As many of these primate cities have attained incredibly large populations, such as Mexico City. Today these mega-cities contain 12.7% of the world’s total urban population, which corresponds to 5.9% of the total world population, and are increasingly found in less developed countries, as can be seen in the table below (Richardson, 1993).
But what really characterizes these cities, as primate, is the ratio of their size to the other cities in a countries’ urban system. This is because primacy is not simply a matter of size, nor is large size an indicator of primacy. Consequently there are several primate ratios that have been developed. Jefferson’s simply identifies primacy when the ration exceeds two, as he deemed this to be disproportionately large (Mutlu, 1989). Rosen and Resnick extend this to the ratio of the largest to the second and third cities, whilst Wheaton and Shishido created an urban concentration index (Mutlu, 1989). Bangkok is a good example of a primate city housing 69% of Thailand’s population (Richardson, 1993).
This primacy is seen as such a problem because it generates powerful centripetal forces that draw in capital and people, to the detriment of the rest of the country. The situation arises because these countries, in general, had no established urban hierarchy and the mercantilist nature of the colonizers usually established one center to be the allocation point for resources. This set up economies of scale on the production side as the marginal product of labor will be higher in large populations than in small ones (Mutlu, 1989). As a result these cities become magnets of attraction for migrants, and this attraction continues even in the face of considerable unemployment because the expected real wage is in excess of the rural wage (Mutlu, 1989). In a way it becomes a self-perpetuating mechanism with the primate city becoming larger and larger. This generates a capital cost burden in the primate city, as there is higher demand for services and quality of amenities leading to higher per capital cost. This can be 4-6 times the cost of equivalent capital in rural areas (Richardson, 1993). Over time, as the primate city is ingrained into the urban system negative externalities will be produced. These include pollution, congestion, crime, scarce resources, social unrest, and unemployment, and they can diminish the quality of life of those living in these cities.
When this happens companies will want to move out of these cities to find more efficient locations, but there are no other areas within countries suffering from urban primacy that have sufficient infrastructure to support these companies. Consequently many will leave the country, making it harder for these countries to improve their levels of development.
However it is important to recognize that primacy is not entirely a negative phenomenon. For the countries that have them, they play a crucial role in modernization, as they are the initial receptors for imported innovations, and they enable the paradoxical dualism of the host economies (Richardson, 1993). Also before the negative externalities establish themselves, the relative size of these cities serves as a major asset, generating many indivisibilities. For example, there are increasing returns to scale on the production side. The high-income groups also tend to concentrate in one city to maintain and maximize social contacts, as well as to have access to highly income elastic goods and this demand sustains a more diversified market place (Mutlu, 1989). Furthermore, the higher concentration of people makes for more cost effective collective services and public goods, and so they are more readily provided in these cites. Linked to this is the higher utilization of infrastructure and increased economic activity in both time and industry. The result of these factors is positive externalities that cannot be created elsewhere such as the pecuniary and technical advantages of the spatial proximity of production units, the further division of labor, the variety and range of choice of consumption, and the fact that larger centers are more conducive to learning and technical change (Mutlu, 1989). So there are some positive sides to primacy, and identifying a problematic primate city depends upon realizing what stage of development it is in, and whether or not there are significant negative externalities hindering the further development of the city and the country.
So primacy as a problem is debatable, and Richardson even argues that the concentration of modern activities in a primate city is the natural, but temporary, consequence of inadequate demand thresholds outside the core. But what is not contested is the location of the primate phenomenon. Urban primacy is predominately found in Less Developed Countries. This is because they have the necessary initial ingredients for the formation of a primate city. Mutlu has identified many of the contributing factors that lead to urban primacy. The factors that are positively associated with primacy are: countries that have the largest city serving as the capital for the political body, centralized administration, colonial or ex-colonial status, economies that are agriculturally oriented, the urbanization ratio, the population growth rate, and ethnic heterogeneity. Whereas factors that are negatively associated with primacy are: the level of industrialization or nonagricultural GNP per capita, the amount of arable land, a high degree of interdependence and closure in the urban system, the length of urban tradition and maturity of the system, and the ration of the urban population of manufacturing to service employment and literacy. In addition, Mutlu also recognizes several contested factors such as, total population, population density, dependence on primary commodity exports, as well as export dependency.
These factors are common to all the Less Developed Countries that have primate cities. But their interaction is extremely complex and varied, and each primate city has its unique blend of these factors that have led to its creation. To further the problem of clearly identifying these factors is the lack of research on this topic, the availability of reliable data, and that which is available is outdated, unsystematic, and non-comparable.
Becker ran into such problems in his study of Africa. Africa as a continent has a disproportionate growth in capital and port cities. So much so that by 1987, 19 of 29 countries had more than 10% of the population in one city, and primate indices reveal Africa to be more primate than urban systems in other less developed countries (Becker, 1992). This is because Africa has many countries that have the necessary factors such as countries with small populations, low per capita incomes, small agricultural surpluses, colonial history, and recently established economies. Other factors come into play that have changing affects depending on where they are taking place such as war, refugees, economic decay, and oil resources. The result has been a general increase in primacy in Africa, but actual growth of primate cities may have been curbed by the recent economic crisis (Becker, 1992). Clarifying the situation is difficult due to inconsistencies and poor data quality.
So while it is difficult to quantify and evaluate aspects of primacy, urban primacy is a very real phenomenon. The presence of negative externalities shows that primacy is a problem, and solutions need to be found. There are several approaches to these problems. The first is the ‘accommodationist’ approach increasing spending to reduce a problem such as congestion or slums. This serves to improve the conditions of the city, making it more attractive, and this could bring in more people, which will only lead to more problems and more spending in the long run. The other two approaches attempt to divert migration flows by decreasing the attractiveness of the primate city and increasing the benefits of other areas. Policy makers can make the city less attractive by implementing cost recovery programs, such as cutting city infrastructure and service standards and eliminating food subsidies. But Becker cautions the use of such measures that restrict the economic growth of these cities, as it will hurt the national economy. The most plausible option appears to be the encouragement of other growth areas, achieved through the decentralization of power, setting up new administration areas with the aim of creating multiplier affects that generate investment, and attract capital and people to these areas to relieve the pressure on the primate city. The decision of which method to choose depends upon each individual city and the associated costs and benefits involved.
However there is also the argument that they should just be left alone and allowed to adjust to market forces. Mutlu argues that as long as steps are made to sustain and encourage development, urban primacy will decrease naturally beyond a certain level of development and per capita income growth. This is because the growth in the size of the market will allow for more optimum sized plants in one industry, and these can locate away from the center to serve regional markets that exceed threshold demand. The negative externalities such as supply bottlenecks, the increasing labor costs, the increasing capital stock and congestion, decrease the marginal productivity and this will spur investment in the periphery (Mutlu, 1989). Furthermore, as transport and communication networks develop form the need to establish national markets, it will enable some firms to seek low cost locations in the periphery as well as providing access to environmental amenities (Mutlu, 1989). This will increase the information known about the periphery, and subsequently the risk premium is reduced making further investment more likely.
Either way it is clear that primate cities are a recent development in the evolution of human settlement, and a development that is found predominantly in less developed countries.This geographic dimension results from many factors that are common to these countries. These factors interact in complex and varying ways within each country to produce one dominant city. This is not necessarily a problem until negative externalities begin to hinder economic growth. In any event there is a definite need for more research to better understand the machinations of primacy, and to collect better data with uniform standards, in order to improve the knowledge of the current situation and allow for legitimate comparisons, and hopefully better solutions. But the key to the success of these cities lies in their management, with careful management their size need not be an issue, and many negative externalities can be avoided.
Bibliography:
Servet Mutlu, "Urban Concentration and Primacy Revisited: An Analysis and Some Policy Conclusions" in Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 37, No. 3 April 1989, pp. 611-613.
Harry W. Richardson, "Efficiency and Welfare in LDC Mega Cities" in John D. Kasarda and Allan M. Parnall (editors), Third World Cities: Problems, Policies and Prospects, Sage Focus Editions No. 148, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, 1993, Ch. 2, pp. 32-57.
Charles Becker, Andrew Hamer and Andrew Morrison, "African City Systems and Urban Growth", Chapter 3 of Beyond Urban Bias in Africa, by Charles Becker, Andrew Hamer and Andrew Morrison, Heinemann Publishers, New Hampshire.