Discuss Whether Unbalanced Growth Necessarily Leads to Urban Bias
Urban bias exists when the overall economic development of a country is restricted or hindered by the urban-dwellers that are more able to pressure and manipulate the government and can do so to their own advantage. Wikipedia describes urban bias as “a political economy argument according to which economic development is hampered by groups who, by their central location in urban areas, are able to pressure governments to protect their interests”.
The theory of urban bias stems from the Urban Giantism problem. Todaro and Smith begin to describe the effects of Urban Giantism in Economic Development Ch. 7: Urbanization and Rural-Urban Migration: Theory and Policy. Here we can see contrasts between Urban Metropolitans in Developed countries such as Britain and France versus those in developing countries such as Argentina and Peru. “Sometimes one urban core becomes too large to keep the costs of the industries located there to a minimum” this is true in most cases where a particular city has urbanised very quickly and most industry is located there. Infrastructural amenities may become strained. This is why in many developed countries they have distributed the urban core, sometimes to a different city in completely different part of the country, and this helps to enable the regions to continue to reap benefits from agglomeration, but still keep costs to a minimum. In no way is this change automatic, it takes time but most developed countries have had hundreds of years to expand. The case in less developed countries is more difficult as their governments tend not to be as involved in dispersing the economic activities. Mostly firms want to remain within the capital cities or others existing urban giants which are all too often over populated and find their resources straining. For example New York city is the largest metropolitan area in the United States, however, according to the US census bureau, there are only 19,541,453 people living in New York State
The theory of urban bias stems from the Urban Giantism problem. Todaro and Smith begin to describe the effects of Urban Giantism in Economic Development Ch. 7: Urbanization and Rural-Urban Migration: Theory and Policy. Here we can see contrasts between Urban Metropolitans in Developed countries such as Britain and France versus those in developing countries such as Argentina and Peru. “Sometimes one urban core becomes too large to keep the costs of the industries located there to a minimum” this is true in most cases where a particular city has urbanised very quickly and most industry is located there. Infrastructural amenities may become strained. This is why in many developed countries they have distributed the urban core, sometimes to a different city in completely different part of the country, and this helps to enable the regions to continue to reap benefits from agglomeration, but still keep costs to a minimum. In no way is this change automatic, it takes time but most developed countries have had hundreds of years to expand. The case in less developed countries is more difficult as their governments tend not to be as involved in dispersing the economic activities. Mostly firms want to remain within the capital cities or others existing urban giants which are all too often over populated and find their resources straining. For example New York city is the largest metropolitan area in the United States, however, according to the US census bureau, there are only 19,541,453 people living in New York State