Of growth centres

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Wikipedia’s entry on Bangkok says it is the largest city in Thailand, with an estimated population of 8,538,610 (measured in 1990). The second largest city is Chiang Mai, with a population of 250,000 (source unknown).

#1 Bangkok has 34 times the population of #2 Chiang Mai. Not twice or thrice as many, but thirty four times. What does this tell you?

freegeek — Dec 20, 2005 11:05:11 PM — # ↩

We are screwed.
yawhatever — Dec 21, 2005 12:04:31 AM — # ↩

this reminded me of Nepal.

My freelance journalist buddy had written an article titled

"Has nepal shrunk to the size of Kathmandu?"

Really, the only city there is Kathmandu. There are NO other decent towns, forget cities. But then its largely because of the terrain, and also because of the economy. If a nations economy depends on tourism that cashes on the idyllic and exotic nature and great-escape kind of destinations, I guess they wouldnt be building much. Again, If they wouldnt BUILD new economy attracting magnets, Id guess a city just expands amorphously, slowly, taking its own time. Besides, the population is largely floating with very less settlers, and the natives move abroad for greener pastures. (green as in money :D) Id say that pretty much slows a citys expansion...

I dont know much about Thailand. But I wonder, could the same thing be happening there?
- Kiran Jonnalagadda — Dec 21, 2005 7:36:01 AM — # ↩
  
  I'm not sure what it is in Thailand's case, but a country that has only one big city (and Thailand is neither small nor of difficult terrain) speaks of suspicious economic foundations, despite how awesome Bangkok's infrastructure is.
  - kingsly — Dec 21, 2005 11:15:08 AM — # ↩
    
    I think it must be a typo, from the same article
    
    Chiang Mai has an estimated population of about 250,000, with 693,000 in the urban area.
    
    Wouldn't ecomomic foundation depend on how well developed the rest of the country is ?
    - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Dec 21, 2005 7:28:35 PM — # ↩
      
      Lonely Planet says Bangkok is 40 times Chiang Mai, so I guess the first figure is more accurate.
themadman — Dec 21, 2005 12:09:07 AM — # ↩

Many people have nowhere else to go :p
joshmachine — Dec 21, 2005 1:06:04 AM — # ↩

bangkok must be big!!
manubhardwaj — Dec 21, 2005 1:00:19 PM — # ↩

Athens has 1/3rd of the population of Greece. France is equally divided into Paris, SW France, SE France, NW France and NE France. One big city is quite common!
- Kiran Jonnalagadda — Dec 21, 2005 10:22:29 PM — # ↩
  
  London's another such place, and Britain hasn't done too bad for itself, so I'm wondering what this all means. It still makes me uncomfortable.
quizling — Dec 21, 2005 2:25:51 PM — # ↩

Dublin, Ireland, has ten times the population of the second-largest city, Cork. (At least according to a two-decade-old census.) But 34 times does seem a bit much.
sunir — Dec 22, 2005 2:50:00 AM — # ↩

Perhaps it is because of globalization. Without an internal market to distribute goods created from nationwide industrialization and dispersed natural resources, everyone wants to be in the only place where they can access global goods and services: the one major city.

Contrast the United States where there are a lot of resources everywhere, and heavy public investment over centuries to build up industrialization in every jurisdiction. This means middle class workers distributed across the States and therefore motivation to distribute first world goods and services.

Still, even the U.S. is polarizing to N.Y. and California. If your career demans you become a management-class knowledge worker in the global economy, you really have to go to one of these two places to succeed.