Perpetual Cities

The Roots of Primacy in the Third World

By Jared Miller

---

Almost all of the world’s largest cities are found in ex-colonial countries. However, the largest countries are not always home to the largest cities. In fact, the smaller the country, the more prone it is confronting primacy. Primacy – defined in this paper as the disproportionate sum of population and economic concentration as compared to the next largest city – is the result of an economic process that began during colonization and continues today. Although, primacy has historically been associated with urbanization, it is the geographical manifestation of economic decisions by governments, the business elite and migrants. Primate cities increased in population and relative wealth because of cumulative causation – the forces that set primacy in motion perpetuate the phenomenon.

Most of the world’s largest cities are found in former European colonies. The colonial system changed the geographies of what is now the third world by creating new centers of power, altering the function of domestic markets and introducing new modes of transportation. While the emergence of primacy is easy to identify, it perpetuates because of the interaction of a number of market forces.

Colonial Government

Although urban centers existed in Africa, Asia and Latin America before colonialism, the arrival of the European colonists signaled the beginning of primacy. As colonists created a centralized political economy, certain economic centers and some of their inhabitants gained extraordinary wealth. Collusion between merchants and governments concentrated economic power both geographically and socially. Resulting imbalances of social and political power created a third world elite that would control domestic and international trade until well after independence.

Colonial Economies

Colonial cities reinvented the economic landscape of the third world. The political and economic relationship of colonies to their colonial powers produced a new export economy while simultaneously dismantling domestic trade. The existing domestic economies, such as textiles and metalworking industries, could not compete lower priced and higher quality imports from more technologically advanced European manufacturers (Becker et al., 77). By replacing pre-colonial economies with export-based economies controlled by a concentrated elite, the economic structure of primate cities was complete – the urban rich controlled the low-skilled and less-educated classes. Since the colonial period, income inequality has been an unwavering characteristic of urban primacy in Latin America.

Colonial Infrastructure

Transportation infrastructure helped reshape economic geographies of the third world to further concentrate wealth. For example, Zambia’s agriculture and industry are concentrated along rail corridors. Fertile agricultural lands that are inaccessible to rail transportation are left uncultivated (Becker et al., 76-77). Interestingly, the example of Zambia illustrates the extension of primacy. Urban appendages dangle from primate cities along established lines of transportation. But, all imports and exports are eventually shipped through the primate capital. However, development around primate cities does not imply decentralization. Conversely, it can potentially increase economic primacy as cities become entrepots for shipments in either direction.

Most importantly, colonial economic centers did not become primate cities until their populations exploded. Population growth in the primate cities of the third world was the result of increased rural-urban migration. The advent of rail technologies and later the highway, have had the most profound effect on concentrating population near colonial economic capitals. The example of Namibia’s population geography illustrates the relationship of modes of transportation and primacy. There, population reorganized to outline the rail lines. Besides augmenting the range of economic influence of the colonial administrative and economic centers, railroads and roads have drained the rural areas of much of their population. They are responsible for the migration to the cities, although slow subsequent changes in fertility resulted in increasing urban populations.

The foundations for primacy were laid during the colonial period and the trend has continued since independence. Today it is more difficult to isolate the causes and effects. Indeed, the concentration of population and economic power is complementary, inseparable and self-perpetuating. On a national level, primacy has concentrated economic power because of the distinct economic advantages afforded by primate cities. However, in considering the economies of primate cities on the national scale, it is important to note that within primate city there are emerging disamenities of unchecked urban growth (i.e. pollution, traffic, violence) that create a host of problems that are can check the growth of such cities.

Economic Efficiency

Primate cities offer specific advantages to mobile industries because of the beneficial effects of agglomeration and economies of scale. The clustering of industries allows them to share public goods like transportation networks and infrastructure. Furthermore, central location cuts shipping costs and keeps prices low because of proximate competition. As the populations of primate cities increase, the central urban market grows larger and dwarfs the economic power of smaller cities. Until disamenities associated with population growth affect economic viability, then primacy in urban centers will increase economic efficiency and geographically concentrate growth (Richardson, 36-39).

Government Policies

Although primacy emerged because of colonial relationships and international trade, it increased during periods of protection as well. In many developing countries, and especially those experimenting with import-substitution policies, subsidies on food, energy, transportation, and utilities kept labor prices artificially low. Similarly, price ceilings on food were important "push" factor for agricultural workers to migrate to the cities. Their addition to the labor pool deflated the wages of low-skilled workers even more. At the same time, discretionary taxation made access to governmental officials an important comparative advantage. Import-substitution industrialization concentrated wealth and population in sprawling cities even though international trade was severely restricted (Richardson, 39).

International Relationships

The political legacy of colonization was the imposition of a national government in place of a colonial government. Likewise, the economic structure of primate cities has not changed significantly. International trading companies were historically located in the primate cities because of the linkages to the domestic market and overseas markets. Today, the former colonies trade often with the former colonial powers. Indeed, many would also argue that multinational corporations resemble colonial enterprise. The economic dependency of some developing countries demonstrates that the some economies are, in essence, still colonial. Such countries face the same problems of primacy today as they did in the past (Mutlu, 618).

Primate cities attract large numbers of immigrants because they are symbols of relative depravation and social stability. Poorer rural dwellers are attracted to primate cities because of the higher wages and social benefits of city life. Furthermore, the critical mass of immigrants guarantees some level of social stability because of the latent threat of violence. Although the living conditions for many migrants to third world primate cities may be deplorable, they are perceived as better than the next best alternative – staying in a rural area or secondary city.

Higher Wages

Most migrants to primate cities are economic migrants – they are moving to where wages are perceived to be higher. While wages are certainly higher in the urban metropolitan areas as compared to rural communities, the significant levels of unemployment make the unemployed especially vulnerable. Higher wages, therefore, are an illusion that masks the reality of primate cities. Most poor migrants will find secure jobs are scarce and cultural barriers may prevent all but the most basic employment.

Social Development and Urbanization

Another important motivation for migration is the promise of a better life with more personal opportunity. Specifically, the cities hold the promise of increased access to education, health care facilities, diversified diets etc… Accordingly, people in cities tend to live longer. But while the social indicators for urban areas may be higher in the aggregate, they do not explain the repercussions of severe unemployment or environmental degradation. Again, it is not the reality of urban life but rather the ideal of city life that attracts the rural migrants.

Urban Economies of the Poor

The spatial distribution and economies of migrants in primate cities explains lower aggregate levels of poverty along with the limits to economic development. Regardless of a migrant's aspirations, most poor migrants live in informal neighborhoods surrounding the central business district. The denizens of such neighborhoods rarely own the title to their houses or business. Initially the size of informal markets is a boon to the new migrants as they can provide low-skilled labor and pay the nominal start-up costs of such microenterprise (Mutlu, 615). However, in the long-term informality is a bulwark to development not just because of the "informality tax" - bribing policemen, government officials and lack of contract enforceability - but also because informal businesses can rarely compete with formal businesses outside of informal neighborhoods. Excessively difficult and expensive business registration processes prohibit the participation of all segments of the economically active population in urban capitalist economies because property rights are reserved for a select few.

Urban Bias

The segmented social geographies of primate cities do not suggest that richer and poorer sectors of the population are independent of each other. In fact, the opposite may be true. Migrants are drawn to cities because of the social stability that the elite ensure. For example, the spatial proximity of the rich and poor, in conjunction with the threat of violence, guarantees that some of the demands of all sectors are met (Mutlu, 618). Handouts of food and money, in conjunction with ensured social stability reinforces population concentrations in primate cities. Whether the social programs in poor neighborhoods empower the poor or simply appease them is a separate issue. However, social stability migrants to primate cities and thus keeps labor prices low.

Since the colonial period urbanization and economic inequality have been correlated in the developing world (Mutlu, 330). Taken together, they explain the phenomenon and cumulative causation of urban primacy. While the economic efficiency resulting from primacy may be a boon some economic sectors, it creates problems of social inequalities that can threaten economic development. Problems of disamenities associated with primacy have prompted some governments to enact decentralization policies. However, in many developing countries, such as Mexico and the Philippines, the market is decentralizing primate cities (Richardson, 45). As disamenities make "urban leviathans" unlivable, peripheral cities connected by dependable transportation ensures the growth of metropolitan portions of primate cities. But the growth of the peripheral fringe of primate cities is not decentralization; rather it enables the concentration of economic power and populations over larger areas. In essence, the primate cities of the future will be similar to the primate cities of the 1900’s, except on a much larger scale.