should government support major cities only?

The success of a government is deeply embedded in the success of its people. This becomes possible only when the government sets achievable goals both for major and minor cities of a country. However, the latter seem to be more prone to growth because the former might already have achieved the zenith of development.

Major cities doubtlessly are important assets of a nation and their success paves paths for a government to thrive. A country’s big cities such as America’s New York and Japan’s Tokyo are prodigious sources of revenues such as taxes. This can be reasoned by stating the fact that these cities hold a country’s major businesses such as trade, foreign investments and other well established national and multinational firms. Moreover, these businesses also serve as platforms for potential think tanks of a nation. Due to this fact, these major cities further engender new businesses which undoubtedly are crucial for economic and general welfare of the state.

One might also assert that as major cities give residence to the majority of population therefore the success of these cities should be ensconced by government’s support, be it financial or social uplift. No doubt, such a move taken by the government is commendable yet wisdom champions the notion that should not be laid upon the multitude only.

The above arguments hold significance but there can be a better option for the government to opt for. As afore-said major cities are the commerce of a nation, they might have enough sources of self-sustenance; smaller cities might need government’s financial support more than any major city. On a relative scale, minor cities lag behind in education, health care and employment. Therefore, good discretion would vote for providing these cities with such amenities of life.

Also, the ubiquitous notion that major cities single-handedly provide for a nation’s economy seems to be a sweeping statement. In many countries minor cities, provinces and states play their own role and help the nation to hop towards self-efficacy. For example, Mississippi which is a highly deprived state in the US is a major agricultural source. Thus, such regions can also serve to be sources of colossal revenues.

Another argument that serves my point is that the government should come up with incentives for people to stay in these minor cities. This would lead to a reduction in urbanization which in turn would save major cities from over-population. Unfortunately, the new minds of Mississippi are reported to be moving out expecting better and opulent lives in major cities. These prodigies take their mastermind plans with them that could be crucial for Mississippi’s uplift. Analysts put it this way that ultimately Mississippi would be a place for the old or agriculturists only. Therefore, if the government provides them with sufficient sustenance then places like cities of Mississippi would turn into metropolises; the government thrives.

My analyses conclude that both major and minor cities can prove to be prolific resources for a government to thrive. Nevertheless, more emphasis should be laid on the latter in order to ensure a welfare state.