Author Topic: Should Poor Countries Build New Capital Cities?  (Read 98 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Should Poor Countries Build New Capital Cities?
« on: December 19, 2017, 12:18:32 am »
It seems that these countries are desperately poor lands that do not have a new capital among the top of their needs lists. If I had to guess, these cities were built first so that the ruling classes would not have to put up with a teeming, crowded city such as Rio. Also, the cities, I believe, are major ego trips for the ruling classes.

Running a country of any significant size is a big business, and anyone setting up shop seeks an appropriate location.

Of the capital relocations you list, only Myanmar is remotely recent.  You want to go to Pakistan and say "hey, you guys moved your capital 50 years ago! No more aid for you spend-thrifts!" or something?

To be fair, I am "equal opportunity" when it comes to building new capital cities. I think building Washington, D.C. was improvident.  New York City as capital was just fine. However, the U.S. was receiving help from no one in those days, and federal resources were not expected to be used for social needs. Now it's a different story.

If New York were still the capital of the United States, it would be outrageously inefficient for the US government to have its headquarters there. 

Build public buildings on land that costs $20 per teaspoon? Take space away from free enterprise in the most important commerce center in the world?  Is it reasonable to pay so many public-sector workers a salary appropriate to living in one of the country's most expensive places to live?

If New York were the capital today, they'd be smart to move it.

 -k
Masked for your safety.