Having the economy of your country centralized in the capital city

>having the economy of your country centralized in the capital city
>not having a healthy decentralization with several economic centers throughout the country

ISHYGDDT

i'm suprised that UK without London is only at -11%, i thought they'd have the top spot

Oh, good thing it's only getting more centralized.

Well, We have Basque country and catalonia which are quite wealthy. Anyways, We should have tried to make richer other regions. We have a region which is bigger than the netherlands with 8,5 of people living in there and zero industry.

We have a large service sector but there's more to services than just banking, it includes all sorts from tourism, the creative industries, sports, entertainment, education, etc.

industry doesn't make good GDP, services do and so does construction

it's silly but it's also the truth. The reason why basque country and catalonia have high GDP is because the companies have their HQ there and not only factories. Also both barcelona and bilbao have high value services residing there (i.e banks)

All this shows is that Germany's capital is shit. Not surprising given that it's both post-communist AND a multiculti hellhole.It's the worst of both worlds.

It's GDP per inhabitant.
It doesn't mean that the economy of your country isn't centralised, it just means that the people living in your capital are less productive than the rest of your countrymen.

How does the USA rate?

Surprised Japan isn't on there, is it only European countries?

>it just means that the people living in your capital are less productive than the rest of your countrymen.
...which means decentralization, like the German said. If your GDP per capita were magically equal across the country and the capital was removed, you'd come out at 0%. That's pure decentralization.

I live in one of the orange areas on this map, but probably not the one you think

Yes

GDP is affected greatly by the presence (or lack of) of companies HQ, that's how ireland somehow has a higher GDP per capita than the netherlands despite the average citizen being better off in the netherlands (if only your housing market wasn't so shit...)
it's worth nothing that both countries have their values inflated due to beneficial tax system (for companies, that is).

Decentralisation would be if you divided GDP across your country.
If half your population lives in your capital with a very high population density, even when they are slightly less productive per person than people in the rest of your country, your economy will still be highly centralised.
It's basic maths, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised I need to explain this to Germans and Americans.

>If half your population lives in your capital with a very high population density,
Then you're already centralized, which is independent of GDP per capita.

You're trying to jump hoops here to mentally struggle to imagine a reality in which NL is decentralized, but you can't fathom it. If you stuff half your population into one city, of course your economy will be centralized.

That's a function of the job market and where all of the industry is, as much as where the "high earners" are. See , those oranges areas. Since the 2008 crash, those are pretty much the only areas of the USA that have done moderately well, and they're also the most dense. Decentralization is both density and GDP/capita.

>Then you're already centralized, which is independent of GDP per capita.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Just watch this, because here you admit that centralisation is independent of GDP per capita.
In this post you say that if GDP per capita were equal across the country that means decentralisation. This is false, as I have demonstrated with an example of a highly centralised population, where GDP is centralised despite GDP per capita being equal across the country.

My country is actually pretty decentralised because the high earners are located in several cities referred to collectively as the "Randstad", but I don't give a single shit about how centralised my country is.

Your America figure shows GDP, not GDP per capita, and it absolutely does not demonstrate that GDP/capita is in any way a measurement for decentralisation.

Would be really nice if you understood it now.

Berlin is kinda poor desu. Why is it the capital?

No, I've never claimed that density doesn't affect it. But it's an issue of preclusion, because both density and GDP/capita are indicators of centralization and decentralization. If half your country lives in 1 city, it's probably pointless to analyze GDP/capita because there's an extremely high likelihood that your country is centralized simply from that very fact.

I apologize if there's been any confusion from my statements

>I live in one of the orange areas on this map, but probably not the one you think
Detroit

>because both density and GDP/capita are indicators of centralization and decentralization
Okay, I guess we mean the same thing then.
In summary, people/km^2(=population density)*GDP/people=GDP/km^2 which is a measurement of (de)centralisation.

Independently, population density and GDP/capita don't say anything however which is basically my point.

I think we can agree now.

Extremely close. Good guess

I much prefer the Lansing area in Michigan over Detroit though. They set a really nice Christmas tree next to their city hall every year

Houston?

Communists ruined the city, it used to be the biggest financial and commercial hub of continental europe in the 1920's