Rank Size verus Primate City
Rank-Size Rule
In 1949, George Zipf devised his theory of rank-size rule to explain the size cities in a country. He explained that the second and subsequently smaller cities should represent a proportion of the largest city. For example, if the largest city in a country contained one million citizens, Zipf stated that the second city would contain one-half as many as the first, or 500,000. The third would contain one-third or 333,333; the fourth would be home to one-quarter or 250,000, and so on, with the rank of the city representing the denominator in the fraction. For instance, in the United States, although its largest city, New York City, has more than twice the population of second-place Los Angeles, the two cities' metropolitan areas, also the two largest in the country, are much closer in population. In metropolitan-area population, New York City is only 1.3 times larger than Los Angeles.
The proportion of small towns to large cities is called the rank size rule, and it applies both to regions and to the world as a whole. The rank size rule states that there is a specific relationship between relative abundance of settlements of different sizes, and that the smallest settlements should always be the most abundant. More specifically the rank size rule states that population of any given town should be inversely proportional to its rank in the country’s or world’s hierarchy of cities. Thus the second largest city should be half the population of the largest city within a certain country. Many countries, especially in the developed world, display this kind of pattern in terms of their cities populations. The rank size rule has a real impact on the quality of life and the standard of living for a country’s inhabitants. A regular hierarchy indicates that the society in sufficiently wealthy and may even be participating in the global market as a means to gain fame as a world power MDC. The rank size rule also justify that the society is sufficiently wealthy to justify the provisions of goods and services to consumers throughout the country which in turn may mean an industrializing MDC service sector economy in present within the country. However, in LDC’s, the rank size rule tends to fail at other levels of hierarchy and development as well. The absence of the rank size distribution in a LDC shows that there is not wealth in the society to pay for a full variety of services, possibly due to uneven development.
Rank-Size rule could mean that you have an LDC because there is an abundance of settlements which indicates that any people have access to the services that cities offer.
-definitely means this when present in an MDC
VS.
Primate City
A primate city is the leading city in its country or region, disproportionately larger than any others in the urban hierarchy. A 'primate city distribution' has one very large city with many much smaller cities and towns, and no intermediate-sized urban centers, in contrast to the linear 'rank-size distribution'. The 'law of the primate city' was first proposed by the geographer Mark Jefferson in 1939. He defines a primate city as being "at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant." Basically it should be more than twice as large than the next city The size and dominance of a primate city acts as a pull factor and ensures its continuing dominance. A primate city is a city that dominates the entire urban system of a nation. The population of a primate city is usually at least three times the size of the second largest city, yet in the case of the Philippines and numerous other nations, the gap is much larger. A primate city is not only large but also economically dominant and the cultural center for national identity. It controls media, creates jobs, circulates currency and sets trends. The influence of a primate city reverberates throughout the entire country. Primate cities in the developing world are largely a relic of their colonial history when European colonizers concentrated all economic, transportation, and trade actively in one place, leaving the infrastructure in place after decolonization. Many LDC’s tend to follow the primate city rule which though for the economy of one part of the city may be good but the economy of the other part of the city may be bad as a result of , uneven development due to the primate city rule (in some cases). Not all countries have primate cities, but in those that do, the rest of the country depends on it for cultural, economic, political, and major transportation needs. On the other hand the primate city depends on the rest of the country as paying consumers of the cultural, economic, political and other services produced in the city. The presence of a primate city in a country may indicate an imbalance in development — usually a progressive core, and a lagging periphery, on which the city depends for labor and other resources. However, the urban structure is not directly dependent on a country's level of economic development. Similarly, the United Kingdom has London as its primate city (7 million) while the second largest city, Birmingham, is home to a mere one million people.
Factors Encouraging Primacy
The degree of primacy refers to the dominance of the largest city over the rest of the country. Most LDCs (Less Developed Countries) have a high degree of primacy while most MDCs (More Developed Countries) have a low degree of primacy.
Factors that affect high primacy include
Paris (9.6 million) is definitely the focus of France while Marseilles has a population of 1.3 million. But is an example of how an MDC can have a primate city but not be an LDC which is an exception to the rule.
In 1949, George Zipf devised his theory of rank-size rule to explain the size cities in a country. He explained that the second and subsequently smaller cities should represent a proportion of the largest city. For example, if the largest city in a country contained one million citizens, Zipf stated that the second city would contain one-half as many as the first, or 500,000. The third would contain one-third or 333,333; the fourth would be home to one-quarter or 250,000, and so on, with the rank of the city representing the denominator in the fraction. For instance, in the United States, although its largest city, New York City, has more than twice the population of second-place Los Angeles, the two cities' metropolitan areas, also the two largest in the country, are much closer in population. In metropolitan-area population, New York City is only 1.3 times larger than Los Angeles.
The proportion of small towns to large cities is called the rank size rule, and it applies both to regions and to the world as a whole. The rank size rule states that there is a specific relationship between relative abundance of settlements of different sizes, and that the smallest settlements should always be the most abundant. More specifically the rank size rule states that population of any given town should be inversely proportional to its rank in the country’s or world’s hierarchy of cities. Thus the second largest city should be half the population of the largest city within a certain country. Many countries, especially in the developed world, display this kind of pattern in terms of their cities populations. The rank size rule has a real impact on the quality of life and the standard of living for a country’s inhabitants. A regular hierarchy indicates that the society in sufficiently wealthy and may even be participating in the global market as a means to gain fame as a world power MDC. The rank size rule also justify that the society is sufficiently wealthy to justify the provisions of goods and services to consumers throughout the country which in turn may mean an industrializing MDC service sector economy in present within the country. However, in LDC’s, the rank size rule tends to fail at other levels of hierarchy and development as well. The absence of the rank size distribution in a LDC shows that there is not wealth in the society to pay for a full variety of services, possibly due to uneven development.
Rank-Size rule could mean that you have an LDC because there is an abundance of settlements which indicates that any people have access to the services that cities offer.
-definitely means this when present in an MDC
VS.
Primate City
A primate city is the leading city in its country or region, disproportionately larger than any others in the urban hierarchy. A 'primate city distribution' has one very large city with many much smaller cities and towns, and no intermediate-sized urban centers, in contrast to the linear 'rank-size distribution'. The 'law of the primate city' was first proposed by the geographer Mark Jefferson in 1939. He defines a primate city as being "at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant." Basically it should be more than twice as large than the next city The size and dominance of a primate city acts as a pull factor and ensures its continuing dominance. A primate city is a city that dominates the entire urban system of a nation. The population of a primate city is usually at least three times the size of the second largest city, yet in the case of the Philippines and numerous other nations, the gap is much larger. A primate city is not only large but also economically dominant and the cultural center for national identity. It controls media, creates jobs, circulates currency and sets trends. The influence of a primate city reverberates throughout the entire country. Primate cities in the developing world are largely a relic of their colonial history when European colonizers concentrated all economic, transportation, and trade actively in one place, leaving the infrastructure in place after decolonization. Many LDC’s tend to follow the primate city rule which though for the economy of one part of the city may be good but the economy of the other part of the city may be bad as a result of , uneven development due to the primate city rule (in some cases). Not all countries have primate cities, but in those that do, the rest of the country depends on it for cultural, economic, political, and major transportation needs. On the other hand the primate city depends on the rest of the country as paying consumers of the cultural, economic, political and other services produced in the city. The presence of a primate city in a country may indicate an imbalance in development — usually a progressive core, and a lagging periphery, on which the city depends for labor and other resources. However, the urban structure is not directly dependent on a country's level of economic development. Similarly, the United Kingdom has London as its primate city (7 million) while the second largest city, Birmingham, is home to a mere one million people.
Factors Encouraging Primacy
- Favorable initial advantages for site
- Advantages maintained and enhanced
- Magnetic attraction for businesses, services and people (cumulative effect)
- Disproportionate growth increases attractiveness
- Has a parasitic effect, sucking wealth, natural and human resources.
- They attract overseas investment and benefits that will eventually benefit the whole country
The degree of primacy refers to the dominance of the largest city over the rest of the country. Most LDCs (Less Developed Countries) have a high degree of primacy while most MDCs (More Developed Countries) have a low degree of primacy.
Factors that affect high primacy include
- Having an underdeveloped economy
- Having an agriculturally dominant economy
- A rapidly expanding population
- A recent colonial history
Paris (9.6 million) is definitely the focus of France while Marseilles has a population of 1.3 million. But is an example of how an MDC can have a primate city but not be an LDC which is an exception to the rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment