Should Poor Countries Build New Capital Cities

The following relatively poor countries and often recipients of international and/or U.N. aid have built new capital cities:

1. Brazil - Brasilia (replaced Rio de Janeiro)
2. Pakistan - Islamabad (replaced Rawalpindi)
3. Myanmar - Naypyidaw (replaced Yangon)
4. Tanzania - Dodoma (replaced Dar es Salaam)
5. Nigeria - Abuja (replaced Lagos)

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.

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.

I think aid donors such as the U.N. and the U.S. should be very skeptical.

JBG said:

The following relatively poor countries and often recipients of international and/or U.N. aid have built new capital cities:

1. Brazil - Brasilia (replaced Rio de Janeiro)
2. Pakistan - Islamabad (replaced Rawalpindi)
3. Myanmar - Naypyidaw (replaced Yangon)
4. Tanzania - Dodoma (replaced Dar es Salaam)
5. Nigeria - Abuja (replaced Lagos)

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.

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.

I think aid donors such as the U.N. and the U.S. should be very skeptical.

Click to expand...

Philadelphia was the the first capital. Never NYC.

jimbo said:

Philadelphia was the the first capital. Never NYC.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Washington was inaugurated in New York City. The Senate and House met in Federal Hall on Wall Street. The Departments of Treasury, War and I think the Attorney General worked out of the top floor of Fraunces Tavern. I believe that the Secretary of State worked out of Federal Hall.

JBG said:

Wrong. Washington was inaugurated in New York City. The Senate and House met in Federal Hall on Wall Street. The Departments of Treasury, War and I think the Attorney General worked out of the top floor of Fraunces Tavern. I believe that the Secretary of State worked out of Federal Hall.

Click to expand...

Prior to establishing a capitol, the nations business was conducted in any number of places. From Wiki:

Prior to establishing the nation's capital in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress and its predecessors had met in Philadelphia (Independence Hall and Congress Hall), New York City (Federal Hall), and a number of other locations (York, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Maryland State House in Annapolis, Maryland; and Nassau Hall in Princeton, New Jersey).[2] In September 1774, the First Continental Congress brought together delegates from the colonies in Philadelphia, followed by the Second Continental Congress, which met from May 1775 to March 1781.

jimbo said:

Prior to establishing a capitol, the nations business was conducted in any number of places. From Wiki:

Prior to establishing the nation's capital in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress and its predecessors had met in Philadelphia (Independence Hall and Congress Hall), New York City (Federal Hall), and a number of other locations (York, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Maryland State House in Annapolis, Maryland; and Nassau Hall in Princeton, New Jersey).[2] In September 1774, the First Continental Congress brought together delegates from the colonies in Philadelphia, followed by the Second Continental Congress, which met from May 1775 to March 1781.

Click to expand...

Seriously NYC was considered the first capital under the constitution.

But what about the rest of my post?

JBG said:

The following relatively poor countries and often recipients of international and/or U.N. aid have built new capital cities:

1. Brazil - Brasilia (replaced Rio de Janeiro)
2. Pakistan - Islamabad (replaced Rawalpindi)
3. Myanmar - Naypyidaw (replaced Yangon)
4. Tanzania - Dodoma (replaced Dar es Salaam)
5. Nigeria - Abuja (replaced Lagos)

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.

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.

I think aid donors such as the U.N. and the U.S. should be very skeptical.

Click to expand...

Brasilia was built over 60 years ago and the Constitution of Brazil called for a capital in the center of the country.

I don't think UN aid dollars were used to build it.

EMNofSeattle said:

Brasilia was built over 60 years ago and the Constitution of Brazil called for a capital in the center of the country.

I don't think UN aid dollars were used to build it.

Click to expand...

I question whether building Brasilia was a wise use of scarce funds for a poor country, wherever those funds came from.

The following relatively poor countries and often recipients of international and/or U.N. aid have built new capital cities:

1. Brazil - Brasilia (replaced Rio de Janeiro)
2. Pakistan - Islamabad (replaced Rawalpindi)
3. Myanmar - Naypyidaw (replaced Yangon)
4. Tanzania - Dodoma (replaced Dar es Salaam)
5. Nigeria - Abuja (replaced Lagos)

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.

Click to expand...

I think you need to address these on an individual basis versus making a broad value judgment based on a category of poor nations building new capitals. And I would add an example to the list: Astana in Kazakhstan. The only broad judgment I will make on building planned capitals is that planning a city, especially a capital, allows one to effectively turn the city into a vessel of propaganda, as well make the capital more of a destination or showpiece of the nation. From now, I'll go one by one on your list.

1) Brasilia: The Brazilian constitution from the late 1800s, as another poster said, dictates that the capital should be regionally-neutral and more in the center of the country. Brazil is also a large, growing country with an economy that can be expected to grow in size over time given the natural resources and population size. Brasilia is now a UNESCO site. I'm fine with this one.

2) Islamabad (replaced Karachi): Rationale here was that Karachi was less defensible from attack (on the coast) and was not as easily reached by most of the country. Business interests interfered with the government too much in Karachi, as they were deeply embedded in society there, while Islamabad would be closer to the military center (I guess they swapped one master for another, given how that's turned out). Pakistan is also a large population nation, so they can afford over time to do things like this. I'm okay with this, although it hasn't worked out 100%.

3) Naypyidaw: No idea why the government did this besides they wanted to cocoon in the interior of the nation away from prying eyes in Yangon. They also overbuilt like whoa. I recall a Top Gear episode where they literally drove three across on a totally empty 12-lane one-way highway in Naypyidaw. Total waste of a very poor nation's funds. This is a disaster.

4) Dodoma: Don't know as much about this one, but apparently it didn't totally come to fruition as the government ministers were not too comfortable with moving from Dar es Salaam. If that's the case, it's a waste of money and obviously not good. Tanzania doesn't really have the money to spare on building a new capital, so in this type of instance I'd say to hold off.

5) Abuja: So I know a bit more about the Nigerian situation than the Tanzanian one, and I feel differently about it. I think that Abuja makes sense as a new capital. Nigeria is a far larger and more resource-heavy nation than Tanzania and thus I feel they can take more of a chance on a project like this. The ethnic and religious mix in Nigeria is unique and requires a deft hand, so a capital in the center of the country, which Abuja is, actually matters to Nigeria. Lagos, the former capital, also has a severe overcrowding issue, so much so that they are planning to reclaim land from the Atlantic Ocean to build a new city off the coast.

Altogether, I'm 3 for and 2 against, entirely based on individual situations. Generally, larger, more resource-heavy nations can do this type of thing. Also, it matters if there is a solid reason to move the capital. If you're doing it just for power or prestige, or to funnel money to your friends, that's not good enough.

RationalPolicy said:

I think you need to address these on an individual basis versus making a broad value judgment based on a category of poor nations building new capitals. And I would add an example to the list: Astana in Kazakhstan. The only broad judgment I will make on building planned capitals is that planning a city, especially a capital, allows one to effectively turn the city into a vessel of propaganda, as well make the capital more of a destination or showpiece of the nation. From now, I'll go one by one on your list.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the addition of Astana, and for a thoughtful post, even though we don't thoroughly agree.

RationalPolicy said:

1) Brasilia: The Brazilian constitution from the late 1800s, as another poster said, dictates that the capital should be regionally-neutral and more in the center of the country. Brazil is also a large, growing country with an economy that can be expected to grow in size over time given the natural resources and population size. Brasilia is now a UNESCO site. I'm fine with this one.

Click to expand...

Brasilia may be the geographic center of the country but using that as the capital makes as much sense as picking an area of boreal forest about 200 miles west of Fairbanks to site Alaska's capital since that is central.

RationalPolicy said:

2) Islamabad (replaced Karachi): Rationale here was that Karachi was less defensible from attack (on the coast) and was not as easily reached by most of the country. Business interests interfered with the government too much in Karachi, as ey were deeply embedded in society there, while Islamabad would be closer to the military center (I guess they swapped one master for another, given how that's turned out). Pakistan is also a large population nation, so they can afford over time to do things like this. I'm okay with this, although it hasn't worked out 100%.

Click to expand...

Rawalpindi, also inland, was the old capital. I don't know if it was ever Karachi but in 1965, when I turned eight and got my World Books for my birthday, it was Rawalpindi.

RationalPolicy said:

3) Naypyidaw: No idea why the government did this besides they wanted to cocoon in the interior of the nation away from prying eyes in Yangon. They also overbuilt like whoa. I recall a Top Gear episode where they literally drove three across on a totally empty 12-lane one-way highway in Naypyidaw. Total waste of a very poor nation's funds. This is a disaster.

4) Dodoma: Don't know as much about this one, but apparently it didn't totally come to fruition as the government ministers were not too comfortable with moving from Dar es Salaam. If that's the case, it's a waste of money and obviously not good. Tanzania doesn't really have the money to spare on building a new capital, so in this type of instance I'd say to hold off.

Click to expand...

We agree on these two.

RationalPolicy said:

5) Abuja: So I know a bit more about the Nigerian situation than the Tanzanian one, and I feel differently about it. I think that Abuja makes sense as a new capital. Nigeria is a far larger and more resource-heavy nation than Tanzania and thus I feel they can take more of a chance on a project like this. The ethnic and religious mix in Nigeria is unique and requires a deft hand, so a capital in the center of the country, which Abuja is, actually matters to Nigeria. Lagos, the former capital, also has a severe overcrowding issue, so much so that they are planning to reclaim land from the Atlantic Ocean to build a new city off the coast.

Click to expand...

You've convinced me, almost, on Lagos/Abuja but from their peoples' point of view they don't feel wealthy.

RationalPolicy said:

Altogether, I'm 3 for and 2 against, entirely based on individual situations. Generally, larger, more resource-heavy nations can do this type of thing. Also, it matters if there is a solid reason to move the capital. If you're doing it just for power or prestige, or to funnel money to your friends, that's not good enough.

Click to expand...

I think generally the building of a large capital, or any other Third-World mega project is, in Freudian terms, an example of the "Edifice Complex." Or as you point out, "to funnel money to ... friends." And it's U.S. money, whether funneled through the U.N., its agencies, or otherwise.