If you've ever felt like your city gets ignored while the capital gets everything, that's not just a feeling. In some countries, it's basically the entire economic model.

Thailand is one of the most extreme examples of this anywhere in the world. Bangkok and its surrounding region holds 25% of Thailand's population. But it produces nearly half of the entire country's GDP.

Back in 2012, 72% of Thailand's public spending was flowing into Bangkok while it housed just 17% of the population. Nobody has publicly updated that figure since, which probably tells you everything you need to know about how much of a priority fixing it has been.

Bangkok is what economists call a primate city — a city so disproportionately large and influential that the second, third, and fourth largest cities barely register by comparison.

Its population is eight times that of Chon Buri, and Chon Buri is itself a Bangkok suburb. Chiang Mai, the largest genuinely independent city in the country, is nearly ten times smaller. In 1980, the gap was even more extreme: Bangkok was 51 times larger than Thailand's second urban centre.

Mark Jefferson, the geographer who formalised the concept back in 1939, defined a primate city as one that is at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant. Bangkok is ten times larger. Close enough.

Now, Bangkok is an extreme case, but it's not like everyone else is doing great. In the UK, London accounts for 22% of the entire country’s GDP while holding just 13% of its population. It’s overwhelmingly the largest tourist destination in the country and it has four of the five busiest airports.

In South Korea, Seoul takes up less than 1% of the country’s land area, yet generates 22% of its GDP and is home to one in five Koreans.

Now this happened because of you. Or rather, because of millions of individual decisions that look completely rational from the inside. You move where the jobs are, which brings the businesses, which concentrates the tax revenue, which is where governments spend, which makes the city more attractive, which brings more people. And so on.

So the big city keeps getting bigger. What's the problem with that?

The first is competition… or the lack of it. Primate cities are ferociously competitive on the global stage, but internally they suffocate it. Other cities never develop the infrastructure or reputation needed to attract serious investment, so capital flows to the megacity by default. The rich get richer. And the big get bigger.

Then there's what it does to the people living outside the capital. In Ethiopia, almost all homes in Addis Ababa have access to clean drinking water, compared to 66% nationally. In Denmark — hardly the most dramatic example on this list — Copenhagen handles roughly 89% of all air passengers.

These aren't just inconveniences. Education, healthcare, and transport determine how much talent a place can attract, develop, and keep. Get those wrong and the gap between the capital and everywhere widens every year.

But what makes all of this genuinely dangerous is that a primate city is a single point of failure for an entire national economy. 

If Paris vanished overnight, France's GDP would fall by roughly a third. Instead, if you remove Berlin from Germany — the largest city by both population and economic output — the damage would be less than 5%.

Think of it like a country that only exports one thing. If the price drops, the whole economy goes with it. London is the UK's oil, and a bad year there has a way of becoming everyone's bad year.

Now, some countries never let this happen. The United States, for all the wrong things it has done, got this one right. It has New York for finance, Los Angeles for entertainment, Washington for government, Chicago for logistics, Houston for energy, and San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin for technology. No single city is indispensable, which, credit where it's due, is not nothing.

Australia did the same, quietly and without much fuss. It has five major cities with over a million people — Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth — none of which is the federal capital.

Balanced economic development requires several major players. And once you've let one city eat everything, reversing it is extraordinarily difficult.

Jakarta is the proof. The city loses over $6 billion annually in productivity to congestion alone, and over $500 million to flooding. Because residents have no access to piped drinking water, they extract groundwater instead, and the city is slowly sinking under its own weight as a result.

So Indonesia decided to do something about it. And by "something," I mean building an entirely new city from scratch in the middle of a rainforest. The project, Nusantara, carries a $35 billion price tag, and it's already in trouble: state funding has dropped from $2.4 billion in 2024 to $850 million in 2025, private investment has fallen more than $1.2 billion short of its target, and locals are already describing it as a ghost city.

That's the price of getting this wrong.

If you read or watch Economics Explained it is likely that you care about increasing your wealth.  I know I do and that’s why I use Trading 212.

Specifically their auto invest feature. It eliminates all the friction between me and investing.  I simply set an amount I want to be deposited into my account each month and it does the rest.

Trading 212 is running a limited offering of free fractional shares up to 100 Euros, with any deposit of at least 1 euro. So not only do they offer some of the best ways to stay consistent, but they will grant you a free fractional share to get started here

***Risk Warning: “When investing, your capital is at risk. Not investment advice or portfolio management. Automatic investing refers to executing scheduled deposits. You are responsible for all investment and rebalancing decisions. Further information and terms on trading212.com.***

When Iran, Israel and the United States started trading strikes in the Persian Gulf, Europe's response was simple: not our war.

And yet, in many ways, Europe is more exposed to the fallout of the conflict in the Persian Gulf than the United States, the country that is actually in it.

The EU imports 57% of its energy and it is still heavily industrial, which means higher energy prices directly increase the cost of making the things European economies sell to the world. And it sits geographically trapped between two disrupted trade routes to the east and a tariff wall to the west.

None of that is new. What's new is that all of it is happening at once, to an economy that has barely recovered from the last crisis, or the one before that, or the one before that.

In our latest video, we look at why Europe is first in line to catch strays from a war it wants nothing to do with and whether there is any practical way to weather a storm you had no say in starting.