1

Chapter Four: Core Areas and Capitals

Introduction

Core-area is defined as the nuclear area in which the state originated, and around which,
through a gradual process of territorial expansion and accretion, the state had succeeded in
achieving its present territorial proportions. As time passed, the entire territory of the state
became ideologically and emotionally bound to the core area through the rise of
motherland/fatherland sentiment of loyalty to a common homeland and cultural hearth.

Many states have come to assume their present shape, and thus the location they occupy, as a result
of growth over centuries. They grew outward from a central region, gradually expanding in to
surrounding territory. The original nucleus or core area of a state usually contains its densest
population and largest cities, the most highly developed transportation system, the most
developed economic base. Easily recognized and unmistakably dominant national cores include the
Paris Basin of France; London and southeastern England; Moscow and the major cities of European
Russia; northeastern United States; and the Buenos Aires megalopolis in Argentina. Not all
countries have such clearly defined cores - Chad, Mongolia, or Saudi Arabia, for example - and
some may have two or more rival core areas. Ecuador, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
and Vietnam are examples of multi core states.

The capital city of a state is usually within its core region and frequently is the very focus of it,
dominant not only because it is the seat of central authority but because of the concentration of
population and economic functions as well. That is, in many countries the capital city is also
the largest or primate city, dominating the structure of the entire country. Paris in France,
London in the United Kingdom, and Mexico City are all examples of that kind of political, cultural, and
economic primacy. Many states originally grew around urban centers that possessed modality
and attend strength and performance. Many were market centers for large tributary areas;
others were fortifications to which the population retreated every night after farming the
surrounding lands. As the influences of these cities expanded, far-flung territories came under the
control of the political authority located there. Capitals have often evolved as centers of trade and
government because of their fortuitous situation.

4.1. Core Area Concept

Core area is one of the most germinal concepts in political geography; the core-area concept has
seldom been clearly defined. The concept has been variously used to embrace both past and present
areas of political dominance, areas of dominant national consciousness, and areas of economic
leadership within the concerned states.

Core areas may develop in regions offering favorable geographic qualities, in particular superior
transportation and communication conditions, an abundant endowment with resources, and a
good access to population centers and markets. Some cores are rooted in historical-cultural
 2

locations of a specific significance, while others developed as a result of political decisions

and administrative policies.

In the modern political history, it is generally recognized that the concept of' core area was first
applied by Friedrich Ratzel. In his book 'Politische Geograplzie' published in 1897. Ratzel put forth
the idea of states beginning as small 'territorial cells'. Which through a gradual process of growth
became larger and larger as they annexed more and more areas and as their population increased
partly by natural growth and partly by absorption of smaller neighboring communities" and eventually
evolved into states or empires.

Normally it is understood that the core area is the heart of the state without which state cannot
exist, while it is easy to understand the concept of core area. It is not quite easy to define it in exact
terms. The problem is how to give the exact dimension and demarcate the line of core area of a state
or region. It is de rigueur (/də rɪˈgɜːr/ obligatory, a must) that the political, social and economic
development of each state system has to be considered in order to determine the line through
which the core area runs. It is also important to see that in which context the core areas are to
be considered for e.g. global, regional, and state level. In this case, the variation in the level of
scale attains vital importance. Whatever the criteria may be no core area exists today without a
certain degree of urbanization which is normally greater than elsewhere in the state.

Although, it is not difficult to form a sort of subjective image of the concept of core area, political
geographers have not been able to agree entirely on a specific definition and appropriate usage of
the term. This was pointed out by Andrew Frank Burghardt (He was a visiting professor at the universities of Minnesota,
Victoria, Guelph, and the Free University of Berlin. He specialized in political and historical geography, was a councilor of the Canadian Association of
Geographers, and was awarded an Austrian medal of honor for his writings on Burgenland.),
who suggested that one may begin to
solve the problem by distinguishing between different types of 'core' areas. His classification of
core area is based on "historical and contemporary" aspects as well. From the historical point of
view, the case in which a small territory grows into a larger state, perhaps over a period of long time,
as described by Ratzel and Whittlesey, is called a 'nuclear core'. The other type is the 'original
core', which was never the 'Kernel' (the central or most important part of something) of the state
around which the accretion of territory took place Instead it was always the area of greatest
political and economic importance within a larger framework. Finally, the ‘contemporary core’
is described as the area which at present constitutes greatest political and economic
significance of the state. While the first two historical interpretations of the role of core areas are of
great interest. "The concept of the 'contemporary core' area holds the greatest values for political
geographers". It not only involves functioning of the state but is also the most concentrated
region which is more than the political heart of the state. When we consider core area as a
functional region we draw its boundaries according to criteria other than the geographical and political
ones.

4.1.1. Characteristics and the Process of a Core Area

The core area must have considerable advantage in order to perform the role in forming a particular
group of states. “The area must be in a position to defend itself against encroachment and
 3

conquest from neighboring core areas. Besides, it must have been capable at an early date of
generating a surplus income above the substance level, necessary to equip armies and to play
the role in contemporary power politics that territorial expansion necessarily predicts".

The development of core area elsewhere in America, Africa and Australia has taken place over a
short period of time. In some African states, the evolution of the true core area is still in the process
indicating the initial stages in character. In America and Australia core areas are already well
established. The core regions of the United States and Canada are those areas where primary
manufacturing units are concentrated. Core areas in Asia exhibit varying characteristics. The
colonial legacy, authoritarian political culture, despite formal democratic model, made core
region in Asia concentrated in those areas which have political and industrial base. However,
the unique change brought by scientific, technological innovations and modern
communications have beloved in forming new core in Asia. The process of core area formation
in Asia is a continuous process.

Based on spatial considerations core areas can be centrally located core area, such as in France and
South Africa, marginally located in the national territory like Brazil Argentina and many other states.
Spatial considerations immediately lead to other problematic characteristics of states core areas:
certain states possess more than one focus, thus, are recognized multi-core, single core, and no core
states. Nigeria, for example, has three core areas: one in the south west, one in the south east, and a
third in the north. Ecuador has two core areas: one centered on the coast and another on the
highland interior. Thailand has a single core area; Mauritania and Chad have no core units. The
criterion of scale can be carried further, that there are continental and world core areas as well. For
example, the USA-Canadian core in the eastern North America is such a continental core area, and
in Europe a developing continental core can be recognized as well.

4.1.2. Core Areas around the World

The States of the modern world have not, in general, been created suddenly or abruptly. In most
instances they have grown slowly over a period of centuries. Sometimes, their growth was interrupted
by the loss of territory. Some states, such as Ethiopia, Hungary, Bulgaria and perhaps Germany, look
back nostalgically to a time when they covered a greater territorial area than they now do. Some have
even made the recovery of a former "greater" state a dominant objective of policy, with disastrous
effects on their relations with neighboring states.

A minority of states has not grown they have been created. In some instances a state so created
happened to coincide with a nation and may so have reflected the political aspirations of a national
group. But generally it was not for this reason that the state was created, but to suit the needs and
conveniences of other states. Thus Albania appeared on the map in 1913 because it suited the Great
Powers of Europe to create it rather than to dispute with one another over the control of strategically
important territory. Similarly, Palestine, Syria and Iraq were created primarily to satisfy the power
needs of Great Britain and France. The new states of Africa-Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria and others-
reflect in their territorial limits the decisions reached around the council tables in London, Paris, or
 4

elsewhere. They were never conceived as corresponding to anything in the economic life or the
material or spiritual culture of the African peoples themselves. In general, whatever may have been
the later vicissitudes of the state area, most states have grown from a core area where their
governments and ideal's first began to take shape.

The term 'core area' has been used to embrace past and present areas of political dominance, area
of intense national or cultural consciousness and areas of economic leadership. The picture is
obviously confused, and the following points and recommendations on terminology may help to clarify
the types of the core areas.

1. Germinal core areas. These are core areas (nuclear areas) that clearly influenced the growth i.e.
the expansion of political control of a number of states. Example France, Russia, England. In some
cases, such as that of Muscovites Russia, the limits of the state advanced with the extension of
political control from the core; in others, such as early medieval England, more effective control was
exported from the core area over the territory which was enclosed by pre-existing boundaries.

2. National core area. It is an area, which has not played a germinal role, may still be associated
with an intensity of national sentiment and contain a large proportion of national symbols. Almost
invariably such an area will include the state capital which provides practical expression to the area’s
highly developed political consciousness. The Budapest area provides an example of what might be
termed a national core area.

3. Economic core area. Within each state is an area which, to a greater or lesser extent, is in a
leading economic position. In some states, economic activities may be highly concentrated, as in
Ethiopia and the Irish republic where economic affairs are dominated by the Addis Ababa - Akaki, and
Dublin areas, respectively, while in other cases, such as India, the dominance of a single economic
region is much less marked. The leading economic region of a state may be termed is economic core
area and defined without recourse to any but economic criteria. The level of agricultural productivity,
the intensity of market potential, the magnitude of manufacturing and the degree of urbanization may
define this.

4. Separatist core area. Some states include areas where, for historical and cultural reasons,
separatist sentiments are strongly felt, usually by a national minority. These feelings may be equally
associated with all parts of the minority homeland, as in Scotland or Brittany, or they may be focused
on a particular cultural center, which has played a leading role in separatist iconography, such as
Kiev in the Ukraine or Zagreb in Croatia. Only where the latter is the case could the term separatist
core area be used.

5. Relic germinal, political, economic or separatist core area. The germinal, national, and
economic functions seldom occur in isolation, but usually appear in combination; the London and
Paris areas combine all three roles. In some cases the development of the state has been associated
with the transference of political, economic or psychological leadership from one area to another, or
with one germinal core area being superseded by another. For example, political control in China and
 5

Ethiopia have migrates between northern and southern core areas. An area, which has formerly
served as a core area may be, termed a relic germinal, political, economic or separatist core area.

6. Subsidiary areas. Subsidiary areas may be associated with germinal, national, economic or
separatist functions, and can be described as 'secondary' germinal, national, economic or separatist
core areas. In Europe most core areas are nuclear, original, or contemporary- include one or more
urban centers. The Paris Basin is the core area of France, and Paris is the focus of the Paris Basin.
Normally in Europe, these cities are national capitals as well as the largest cities. In the United States
and Canada, the core area is located in the eastern portions of the countries.

In each the core area contains roughly half the total population of the country and nearly three-
quarters of the industrial employment. It is also the cultural and political heart of the State, the area in
which the State idea originated, from which the westward movement began, where the capital cities
emerged. Both countries are developing subsidiary core areas to the west, but the eastern core area,
essentially one core area shared by two States, remains unrivalled.

We may recognize states with distinct core areas (Czechia, Great Britain) and those without distinct
core areas (Albania, Belgium). The core area can be centrally located (Hungary, France) or
marginally located (Slovakia, Argentina). We may recognize multi core states (Nigeria, Spain), single
core states (Thailand, Egypt), and even no‐core states (Mauritania, Chad). The last example is
characteristic especially for Africa where a number of states are so sparsely populated or such
recently created that they have no true cores at all, yet. The cores are developing here generally
around the capitals, a process quite the reverse of that observed in the course of history in Europe.
Some core areas have a character of a small compact region (Greece, Sudan), some constitute
rather a large area (Russia, Sweden).

4.1.3. The Core Area Today

The historic core may no longer be of significance, since the center of the state activity may in a few
cases have moved away from its historic focus. Such core areas are very much larger in both area
and population than the capital cities themselves. They contain satellite towns and are distinguished
by industries, which are attracted toward but not necessarily into the capital itself. Relatively dense
population and a well-developed transportation net characterize them, as a general rule.

The extent of such a core area can be measured by a number of indices. Foremost among these is
the transportation and communication network. The daily movement of commuters, the flow of goods
between factory and market, the circulation of newspapers, the reception of TV programs can be
used to define such areas. So also can the intensity of telephone calls, the density of telephones and
the volume of use are one measure of the degree of communication within the core are as contrasted
with the lower density and level of use outside the core area. Judged by such criteria, the core area of
the USA is today the region extending north of Boston to south of Washington, D.C, and sometimes
known as "megalopolis." That of Canada is the area extending from Montreal into the Lakes
Peninsula of Ontario, to the west of Toronto.
 6

The core area commonly plays a dominant political role. Peoples living at a distance from it are apt to
resent the power, which it can exercise, and the wealth it can attract to itself. It is common for people
who live in the remote and peripheral parts of a complex state-area to feel more cut-off, isolated, and
neglected than perhaps they are. One would expect antipathy toward the core area to increase with
distance from it. Such distrust or even hostility may, however, be tempered by the fact that many
people from the outlying areas seek to migrate to the core area and that the latter is dependent for its
growth on such migration. Conversely, those who live in the core area adopt a patronizing attitude
toward provincials, regarding them as in some degree unsophisticated and uneducated.

Generally, in every state of the modern world there is a core area today in which the principal
institutions of economic, political, and social life of the nation are located. Many of these activities are
carried on in the national capital: occasionally one finds them shared between neighboring cities, as
they are between Washington and New York City: between Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto: between
New Delhi and the Indian port cities of Bombay and Calcutta. But, whether specialized or not in this
sense, one finds that in almost every case there is a region within which most of these activities are
concentrated.

4.2 Capitals
By extension, the word capital can refer to cities predominant in spaces on various scales.
Federal states have capitals, as do certain regions, while in France these capitals are referred to as
prefectures, a trend observed in other centralized systems. The word is also used today for cities
housing supranational institutions. Brussels is often referred to as the "capital of Europe". The word
capital is likewise used to refer to the dominant position of a town or city in a sector that has nothing
to do with politics. Thus we can encounter expressions such as "economic capital", "cultural capital",
or "religious capital".

The term capital is indeed fairly flattering, and has a wider, much more identifiable somatic field than
"metropolis" for instance. It is thus not surprising to find it used for marketing purposes. For instance,
Stockholm since 2005 has promoted itself by taking on the title of the "capital of Scandinavia". The
same logic is found in the title of "green capital" or "European capital of culture" awarded to certain
cities.

Generally speaking, the capital, or capital city, can be defined as a city that is the seat of the
administration and government of a «State». There is only one capital, and it has considerable
political and symbolic importance on the scale of the national «territory» to which it belongs.
However capital cities do not necessarily dominate large global urban networks and their role is
increasingly challenged, as indeed is that of the States that they represent. Yet capital cities have
never been more numerous than they are today, on account of the increase in the number of
States since 1945. They are mainly seats of power and decision, including the economic sphere.
At the same time, despite the very wide diversity of the forms they take, they are geographical objects
with particular features.
 7

Etymologically, the word "capital" (from the Latin caput) refers to the city at the "head" of a territory. In
other languages the term can also be derived from the expressions meaning the "main city", as in
German Haupstadt. In French the word capital, as in English, gives precedence to the link with the
State government. In French it is distinguished from "chef-lieu" (literally "head place") which for its
part can be a very small local "capital" or administrative centre. While capital cities have often been
the subject of monographic studies, their "capital city" identity as a category or concept has rarely
been studied. Dictionaries of geography, if they mention the word, generally include short entries
around the theme of typologies.

Capital cities take on very diverse forms, in particular because, unlike other urban entities, neither
their size, nor their morphology, nor even their overall function, contribute to their definition. There are
four essential characteristics for a State capital. The capital city has a unique status in its territory; its
existence is essential for that territory; it is urban in form; it entertains a symbolic link with the State.

The logics behind the location of capital cities exhibit two main trends, combining the need for
adequate «accessibility» and the ability to control the territory. The first requirement tends to favor
central spaces, which means that certain present-day capitals carry the mark of earlier «centralities»
(Berlin, Moscow, and Washington DC). Other capital city locations put more emphasis on their role as
an interface between the outside world and the rest of the country, in particular taking the form of
large ports (Bangkok, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Dakar, and London).

Capital cities contribute to making up the history of the State they administer. From a geo-historical
viewpoint, modern capitals cannot be envisaged solely in the setting of Westphalia sovereignty,
running a minimal administration and wielding power over a territory. The cities the most long-
established as capitals were often the first cities to be the seats of a sedentary power (rather than a
provisional location for a travelling court). Then in the modern era they came to house institutions at
national level (parliaments, ministries etc.) and the beginnings of a diplomatic corps established in
Embassies. In 18th century Europe, the capital city also became an urban entity that the national
power tended to shape to promote itself, by way of the construction of palaces, national monuments,
and large avenues with grand perspectives.

Today state capitals are not necessarily in a dominant position in urban networks, because being the
seat of state power is not the only factor generating metropolisation. The capital is obviously a
decisional centre, extending to the economic sector, and it contributes to the international outreach of
the urban area. But this is not the only condition. Cities like New York, Shanghai or Sao Paolo, or
Barcelona and Milan in Europe, appear as highly prominent metropolises despite the fact that they
are not capital cities. In city systems increasingly governed by globalization, involving above all
economic logics that escape state influence, the status of the capital city seems to be losing
importance. Thus a "capital city" is no longer a "metropolis", nor is it a "global city". In many States,
the capital is not a large city. The function of seat of power is extremely flexible, ranging from highly
centralized States to those that function in federal or decentralized manner. The importance of the
capital in the structuring of the State is also very variable. Often the capital houses most of the
national institutions, but in some cases its status is reduced to a symbolic dimension. Similarly, there
 8

are States in which the capital houses neither the parliament nor the ministries, for instance
Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

Capital cities, even when they are small, tend to draw fairly wealthy populations, and contribute to the
prosperity of the regions in which they are located. They are characterized by a marked concentration
of certain specific functions, often with substantial fallout in terms of employment, direct or indirect,
generally well-paid, although this is difficult to quantify. In addition to their political functions, the large
numbers of jobs in the administration, in embassies and consulates, in the media and even in tourism
and luxury retailing are marked features. The influence of these sectors can of course vary
considerably according to the position of the city in the national urban network, and according to the
power of the State concerned, which will determine the numbers of diplomats, journalists, and
prominent guests frequenting the city. However capital city status generally produces regions that are
wealthy. In the European Union, the Berlin Land is the only capital city region where GDP per
inhabitant is below the national average.

Some capital cities have been relocated outside of peripheral national core regions, at least in part to
achieve e presumed advantages of centrality. Two examples of such relocation are from Karachi
inland to Islamabad in Pakistan, and from Istanbul to Ankara, in the center of Turkey’s territory. A
particular type of relocated capital is the forward-thrust capital city, one that has been deliberately
sited in a state's frontier zone to signal the government's awareness of regions away from the core
and its interest in encouraging more uniform development. In the late 1950s, Brazil moved its capital
from Rio de Janeiro to the new city of Brasilia to demonstrate its intent to develop the vast interior of
the country. The West African country of Nigeria has been building the new capital of Abuja near its
geographic center since the late 1970s, with the relocation there of government offices and foreign
embassies in the early 1990s. The British colonial government relocated Canada's capital six times
between 1841 and 1865, in part seeking centrality to the mid-19th century population pattern and in
part seeking a location that bridged that country's cultural divide.

4.2.1 Functions of Capitals

Capital cities perform certain distinct functions.
 It is the place for legislative gathering and the residence of the chief of the state.
 It is a prime place for the states reception of external influences, for embassies and international
trade organization, offices are located there.
 In most states the capitals city is also the most cosmopolitan city
 Capital cities must act also as a binding agent in federal states. In federal state of a great diversity,
the capital city can be the only place to which all the people can look for guidance.
 It is also a source of power and authority, either to ensure control over outlying and loosely tied
districts of the state or to defend the state against undesirable external influences. The capital is most
frequently located in the economic heart of the country, from which much of the image of strength of
the State emanates. Functions of capital cities have changed much over time.

4.2.2 Types Capitals

 9

Capitals can view from the point of view of their position with reference to the state territory and the
core of the State .this result in three classes of capital cities:

1. Permanent capitals- it might also be called historic capitals. They have functioned as the leading
economic and cultural center for their state over a period of several centuries.
Example Athens, London, Rome, and Paris

2. Introduced capitals- Tokyo, in fact, was introduced to become the focal point of Japan when the
revolutionary event referred to as the Meiji Restoration occurred. Recent history has seen similar
choices made in other countries, but while Tokyo (then called Edo or Eastern City) was already
substantial urban center, other capitals were created, literally, from scratch. They replaced other
capitals in order to perform new functions, functions perhaps in addition to those normally expected of
the seat of government.

Introduced capitals have also come about by less lofty action. Intense interstate rivalries among
Australia's individual states made it impossible to select one of that country's several large cities as
the permanent national capital, and a compromise had to be reached. That compromise was the new
capital of Canberra, built in federal territory carved out of the State of New South Wales. Despite the
general absence of planning for a time when the colonial city in Africa would serve as a national
capital, the vast majority of former colonial States have retained the former European headquarters
as the national capital.

3. Divided capitals: In certain States the functions of governments are not concentrated in one city,
but divided among two or even more. Such a situation suggests- often reflects- compromise rather
than convenience. In the Netherlands (a kingdom) the parliament sits in The Hague (the legislative
capital), but the royal palace is in Amsterdam (the "official" capital). In Bolivia the intense rivalry
between the cities of La Paz and Sucre produced the arrangements existing today whereby the two
cities share the functions of government.

In South Africa, following the war between Boer and Briton, a union was established in which the
Boer capital, Pretoria, retained the administrative functions, while the British headquarters, Cape
Town, became the legislative headquarters. As a further compromise, the judiciary functions in
Bloemfontein, capita of one the old Boer republics that fought in the Boer War. The reason appears to
satisfy the desire of both Africans-and English-speaking South Africans. Cape Town is the largest
English-speaking city in the Union; Bloemfontein and Pretoria are the chief cities, respectively, of the
Afrikaans-speaking Orange Free State and Transvaal.

Summary
The concept of core area has seldom been clearly defined. The concept has been variously used to
embrace both past and present areas of political dominance, area of intense national or cultural
consciousness and areas of economic leadership. With a view to clearing the confusion of terms,
Andrew Burghardt (1969) suggested that we may, from a chronological perspective, view core areas
 10

in two different ways, one as (i) historically oriented, and (ii) contemporary core areas. Under the
historical oriented perspective, there are important categories: (a) nuclear core, represented by those
cases in which a small original territory has grown in to a large state through intermittent absorption of
adjacent lands and peoples through a slow process of growth and (b) original core, consisting of an
original area of the greatest political and economic importance, which owing to certain unfavorable
circumstances, could not play the germinal role and, for that reason, failed to become the nucleus
around which the subsequent accretion of territory and population took place. The second concept of
core area is the contemporary core, representing the area within the State which is presently
endowed with the greatest economic and political significance – the one that stands out as its present
day acumen, its most densely populated and developed region.

Capital cities, even when they are small, tend to draw fairly wealthy populations, and contribute to the
prosperity of the regions in which they are located. They are characterized by a marked concentration
of certain specific functions, often with substantial fallout in terms of employment, direct or indirect.
On the other hand, National capitals are the cities having the greatest concentration of political power
in their respective countries. They are the seat of the national legislature and the executive. The
capital is generally also the central focus of the country. But in many cases, especially in federal
states, its commercial and industrial importance is less than that of other cities in the same country,
since the factors that influence the choice of the site for a capital are often political and strategic
rather than economic.