Capitalising on Position

Abstract

Capital cities can envisage different approaches and types of policies than cities that are not capitals. This is mainly because of their different roles in national urban systems, and the ways these are recognised by the policy-makers in federal and regional states. Cities without capital functions may be competing with other cities in the same sphere of influence, often also within a state or region. However, cities with capital functions (national capitals, state capitals, or capitals of autonomous regions) are more likely to have some distinctive functions that affect their position in relation to economic development, and it is important to develop policy strategies that take account of these. Cities that are shaped by their role as capitals should compare themselves with other capitals rather than be complacent and possibly experience deterioration in their position. However, policy-makers should also be aware of differences within capital and non-capital city types. Even historic capitals can miss the boat if they do not take the right action.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.