3
Question 1 (2007) To what extent do you agree that primacy simply represents an early stage in a country’s urban development? Urban primacy is when the urban hierarchy is dominated by a single city, the primate city that has more than double the number of people size than the next largest city in the country and also more than twice as significant, with vast rural areas. Primacy results from colonial history, and mainly because of limited resources and high population growth, where resources and people are concentrated in the primate city to enable and seek the most benefits, and thus I agree to a small extent that primacy simply represents an early stage in a country’s urban development, because though it is at early stages in a country’s urban development where they suffer from limited resources and exponential urban population growth, primacy still definitely does occur in countries at later stages of urban development, as a consequence of colonial history and control - primacy also represents a past as a colonial city. Firstly, primacy represents an early stage in a country’s urban development, because in less developed countries, there are limited resources – poverty characterizes not only the people residing within the LDCs, but also many LDC governments, because of years of corruption and mismanagement, and an economic structure and focus that does not generate high volumes of national income. Thus, LDCs generally have very limited supplies of capital to plough back into the development of the country. Furthermore, because of the lack of government capital, government resources would often be channeled into selected regions, usually an ex-colonial city because of its inherent advantages. For many cities’ history, colonialists had centralized their administrative body in one city in the country, developing the city to improve the communication and transport networks there. Thus these colonial cities became the focus of development and seat of colonial government so there would generally be superior infrastructural developments within this city, and this continues to today, because governments see the benefit of further developing a primate city to reap the benefits of economic prosperity in that city. The foundations for primacy were laid during the colonial period and the trend continued since independence. For example, Mexico City was made the heart of the colonial empire and administrative centre after the Spanish

primate cities geography essay

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

urban geography

Citation preview

Page 1: primate cities geography essay

Question 1 (2007)

To what extent do you agree that primacy simply represents an early stage in a country’s urban development?

Urban primacy is when the urban hierarchy is dominated by a single city, the primate city that has more than double the number of people size than the next largest city in the country and also more than twice as significant, with vast rural areas. Primacy results from colonial history, and mainly because of limited resources and high population growth, where resources and people are concentrated in the primate city to enable and seek the most benefits, and thus I agree to a small extent that primacy simply represents an early stage in a country’s urban development, because though it is at early stages in a country’s urban development where they suffer from limited resources and exponential urban population growth, primacy still definitely does occur in countries at later stages of urban development, as a consequence of colonial history and control - primacy also represents a past as a colonial city.

Firstly, primacy represents an early stage in a country’s urban development, because in less developed countries, there are limited resources – poverty characterizes not only the people residing within the LDCs, but also many LDC governments, because of years of corruption and mismanagement, and an economic structure and focus that does not generate high volumes of national income. Thus, LDCs generally have very limited supplies of capital to plough back into the development of the country. Furthermore, because of the lack of government capital, government resources would often be channeled into selected regions, usually an ex-colonial city because of its inherent advantages. For many cities’ history, colonialists had centralized their administrative body in one city in the country, developing the city to improve the communication and transport networks there. Thus these colonial cities became the focus of development and seat of colonial government so there would generally be superior infrastructural developments within this city, and this continues to today, because governments see the benefit of further developing a primate city to reap the benefits of economic prosperity in that city. The foundations for primacy were laid during the colonial period and the trend continued since independence. For example, Mexico City was made the heart of the colonial empire and administrative centre after the Spanish Conquest, and now generates 1/3 of the country’s gross domestic product, and has 2/5 of its manufacturing, partly because of its market size and cumulative attractions. Beneficial economic factors as mentioned above cumulate to result in the formation of a growth pole, where special bias in the government’s fund allocation lead to regional disparities within the country, with the city receiving inward investment becoming a lot more attractive than the surrounding cities. Thus, as a result of limited resources, characteristic of LDCs, which are then concentrated in a colonial city, primate cities result.

Also, primacy represents an early stage in a country’s urban development, because it is in LDCs that immense urban population growth is still seen. A country which experiences a very rapid population growth is likely to tend towards primacy as rapid population growth in a country would provide the surplus population for the expansion of the primate city as more people gravitate towards the one dominant city for the services it offers. Population growth is so rapid because of rural-urban migration, where there is perceived superior opportunities a large city would have for employment and for the chance to break out of the poverty cycle, and like in Thailand, it is much easier to move directly to the Bangkok, the primate city, than other regional capitals though closer to home. Roi Et, a small town in northeastern Thailand, has 2 buses a week making the 900 kilometer trip to Bangkok, a much better service than to the regional capital of Khon Khaen.

Page 2: primate cities geography essay

Hence, as a result of poor communication systems and linkages within the country, rural villagers are thus not likely to know of alternative centres to move to other than the biggest. As compared to countries in later stages of urban development, migration from rural to urban is minimal as most of the country is urbanized already, so urban growth is low. Furthermore, in LDCs children are still viewed as assets because in the absence of child labour laws and compulsory education, children can now be sent out to work the streets as street hawkers or to wok in sweatshops, thus adding to family income. Thus, primacy is fuelled by high rates of rural-urban migration and natural increase which is characteristic of LDCs, hence representing early stages in a country’s urban development.

However, primacy is also still prevalent in countries at later stages of urban development, as it is the romanticized notion of living in a famous primate city which would bring success and prosperity, that continues to draw people to primate cities such as London and Paris. Contrasting with countries at early stages, developed countries at later stages of urban development have more balanced urbanization in present times, with a well-developed urban hierarchy with a high degree of interdependence in the urban system. This is because even though primacy is still present, decentralization forces are strong too, with people choosing to move out of the city to less congested, slower paced, smaller cities. As a result, though primacy is definitely present in later stages, but the disparity in population is much greater in LDCs than DCs. For example, the population in Bangkok (9 million) is 40 times that of the next largest city, Chiangmai (200,000), while the population in London (7 million) is only 7 times that of the next largest city, Birmingham (1 million). Primacy also strongly represents a colonial past, which carries on its influence till present times, even in DCs. For example, in Ireland, the primate city Dublin is 4 times the size of the next largest city, Cork. This is because Dublin grew as the point of colonial control under England, the port of exit and entry, and was the military and administrative capital of one of England’s oldest colonies. Ireland was organised as an agricultural economy, designed to grow crops for export to England, and industry was not encouraged. As can be seen from the example of Dublin for DCs and Mexico for LDCs, primacy does not simply represent a country at early stage of urban development, since DCs have primacy too, but instead, represents a colonial past, where the structure and distribution of resources that the colonial masters decided on carried on its impact to today, where the city they chose as the centre of control remains as it is until today, developing more rapidly than other cities, still holding the position as the primate city.

In conclusion, I agree to a small extent that primacy simply represents an early stage in a country’s urban development as primacy still does largely occur in countries at later stages of urban development, though with lesser disparity.

Rachel Lim (9)6C43