Outside In | It’s no surprise that the most populous nation has megacities, but are they smart or liveable?
Whether China’s cities are mega or not, the risk is not their size – or whether there are four, or 164 – it is making sure they are intelligently developed
I beg your pardon. What debate? What data? As far as I can see, the nub was the news that China’s four biggest cities – Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou – are between them contributing about 10 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), while accounting for just 5 per cent of the China’s population. Beyond that, the SCMP article explored no further exactly what risks arise. I would suggest there are few, and expect no debate.
A little digging would reveal that many economies worldwide rely heavily on a rather small number of cities. London accounts for 30 per cent of the UK’s output, as does Tokyo in Japan. Seoul accounts for about half of South Korea’s economic output. Sydney and Melbourne together account for about 67 per cent of Australia’s GDP. Bangkok accounts for about 30 per cent of Thailand’s GDP, while Lima accounts for 34 per cent of Peru’s GDP. Manila accounts for 33 per cent of the Philippine GDP.
Need I go on?
Many economies, whether developed or developing, rely extraordinarily heavily on such metropolitan powerhouses, and talk rather little about “risky bets”. The Brookings Institution’s Asia-Pacific Metro Monitor says that Asia’s top 100 cities generate 20 per cent of global GDP. That’s what cities do. They tend to drive economic growth, not increase risks.
In counterpoint to the anxiety about risky bets, China seems remarkably diversified, showing more similarity with the US, India, or Indonesia – all geographically large economies relying on a rather large number of city economies.