ancient cities

twentieth century also weakened machines in
some cities.
Robert Kerstein
See also Local Government; Progressive City; Urban
Politics
Further Readings
Ackerman, Kenneth D. 2005. Boss Tweed. New York:
Carroll & Graf.
DiGaetano, Alan. 1988. “The Rise and Development of
Urban Political Machines: An Alternative to Merton’s
Functional Analysis.” Urban Affairs Quarterly
24:243–67.
Erie, Steven P. 1988. Rainbow’s End: Irish-Americans
and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–
1985. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social
Structure. New York: The Free Press.
Shefter, Martin. 1976. “The Emergence of the Political
Machine: An Alternative View.” In Theoretical
Perspectives on Urban Politics, edited by Willis D.
Hawley et al. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wolfinger, Raymond E. 1972. “Why Political Machines
Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist
Thoughts.” The Journal of Politics 34:365–98.
Pr i m a t e ci t y
A primate city is the largest and most dominant
city in a country or region and often functions
also as a financial or political center. In the 1930s,
the geographer Mark Jefferson developed the
law of the primate city to explain the phenomenon
of cities that capture a large proportion of a
country’s population as well as its economic activity.
He wrote that “a country’s leading city is always
disproportionately large and exceptionally expressive
of national capacity and feeling.” In fact, a primate
city is usually twice as big in population size as
the next largest city and, correspondingly, more
significant.
Primate cities are frequently but not always the
capital cities of the country. An excellent example
is London; in 2001, it had a population of 8
million people, whereas the second­largest city,
Birmingham, had about 970,000 residents. France
Primate City
609
in 2000 had Paris as its primate city at 2 million
residents, while Marseilles, the second largest, had
a population of 795,600. Mexico and South Korea
also have primate cities, Mexico City and Seoul,
respectively.
Not all countries have a primate city; that is, a
largest city that is twice the size of the next­largest
city. India’s largest city in 2000 was Mumbai,
which has more than 16 million people; second
was Kolkata with more than 13 million people;
and third was Delhi with less than 13 million
people. Canada, Australia, and Brazil also lack
primate cities. In the case of the United States, the
largest city in 2000 was New York City with
8 million people, second was Los Angeles with
3.8 million people, and third was Chicago
with 2.8 million people. But when we use the
population of the metropolitan area rather than
of the central city, we find that the United States
lacks a true primate city. The New York City metropolitan
area had a population of 18.6 million,
Los Angeles 12.8 million, and Chicago 9 million.
The degree of primacy refers to the dominance of
the largest city over the rest of the country. In developed
countries where the degree of primacy is low,
the population, along with political and economic
power, has dispersed. Various social and economic
functions are linked to one another across cities by
well­integrated, efficient, and reliable transportation
and communication systems. In these city­regions,
even the smallest villages are connected in a
web of trade, transportation, and communication
networks. In contrast, in developing countries in
Latin America and Southeast Asia that have a single
primate city, that city has preeminent influence on
the politics, economics, and culture of the country.
Moreover, in terms of transportation and communications
links, the primate city might be better connected
to the outside world than to other regions or
to other cities within the country.
Such primate cities often attract overseas investment
and benefits. They also use up a disproportionate
amount of resources and create serious
problems such as shortages of goods and escalating
land prices that make them less attractive
places in which to live. The spatial concentration
of resources also creates regional disparities of
wealth and income and political influence.
Generally speaking, several factors encourage
primacy: for example, favorable initial advantages