A pair of recent studies suggests that although.industrialized nations may have benefitted from larger.cities, the same is not true for the rapidly urbanizing areas of.the developing world. In these parts of the globe, there really.might be such a thing as too much urbanization, too.quickly..The studies, by Susanne A. Frick and Andrés Rodríguez-.Pose of the London School of Economics, take a close look.at the actual connection between city size and nationwide.economic performance. Their initial study, from last year,.examines the relationship between economic development,.as measured by GDP per capita, and average metropolitan-.area size in 114 countries across the world between 1960.and 2010. To ensure robustness, it controls for variables.including national population size, physical land area,.education levels, economic openness, and other factors..The size of cities or metro areas across the world has.exploded over the past half-century, with cities in the.developing world growing much faster and much larger.than those in more developed nations. Between 1960 and 2010, the median city in high-income countries grew.modestly from 500,000 to 650,000 people; but the median.city in the developing world nearly quadrupled, expanding.from 220,000 to 845,000 people. In 1960, 12 of the top 20.countries with the largest average city size were high-.income countries; by 2010, 14 of the top 20 were in the.developing world..Urbanization has historically been thought of as a.necessary feature of economic development and growth, but.this study finds the connection is not so simple. While.advanced nations benefit from having larger cities,.developing nations do not. Advanced nations experience a 0.7 percent increase in economic growth for every.additional 100,000 in average population among its large.cities over a five-year period. But for developing nations, the.addition of 100,000 people in large cities is associated with a 2.3 percent decrease in economic growth over a five-year.period..In their latest study, the researchers found that.developing nations tend to get a bigger bang for their buck.from smaller and medium-size cities. These countries see.the most economic benefit from having a larger proportion.of their urban population living in cities of 500,000 people.or less. Bigger cities tend to have a more positive economic.impact in larger countries. Having a metro with more than 10 million inhabitants produces a nationwide economic.benefit only if the total urban population is 28.5 million.or more, according to the study. This makes sense:.Bigger, more developed countries are more likely to play.host to knowledge-based industries that require urban.agglomeration economies..There are several reasons why megacities^1 often fail to.spur significant growth in the rapidly urbanizing world..For one, the lion’s share of places that are urbanizing.most rapidly today are in the poorest and least-.developed parts of the world, whereas the places that.urbanized a century or so ago were in the richest and.most developed. This history has created a false.expectation that urbanization is always associated with.prosperity..Additionally, globalization has severed the historical.connection between cities, local agriculture, and local.industry that powered the more balanced urban.economic development of the past. In today’s globally.interconnected economy, the raw materials that flowed.from the surrounding countryside to the city can all be.inexpensively imported from other parts of the world..The result is that the connection between large cities and.growth has now become much more tenuous, producing.a troubling new pattern of “urbanization without.growth.”.The researchers used multiple variables to calculate a weighted average.city size for each country studied and reported the median of those.averages..(^1) Typically defined as cities with populations of over ten million peopleQ: Based on the passage, which choice best describesthe relationship between Frick and Rodríguez-Pose’sfirst and second studies? Answer Choices: (A)The second study corrects a minor error in the research of the first study. (B)The second study confirms a hypothesis that they were unable to confirm in the first study. (C)The second study builds on the first study’s findings. (D)The second study offers a more negative interpretation of a recent event than the first study does.
A: Among A through D, the answer is
(A)The second study corrects a minor error in the research of the first study.
(B)The second study confirms a hypothesis that they were unable to confirm in the first study.
(C)The second study builds on the first study’s findings.
(D)The second study offers a more negative interpretation of a recent event than the first study does.
Answer: 2