In many countries, the major cities and their regions are often seen as centers of economic activity and activity that impacts the rest of the nation. As such, many governments feel that they must support their cities to keep them alive. This support may take the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and other forms of economic assistance. However, there are many problems with the government’s approach

First, many countries already spend a great deal of money on their major cities. The United States spends more than $2 trillion each year. This is more than the combined annual cost of all of the military budgets of all of the countries in the Middle East. It amounts to roughly $10,000 per person, per year, and is only expected to increase in the coming years. Unfortunately, while this money certainly helps some cities, it does not necessarily make them thrive. Many cities in the US, like Detroit and Flint, Michigan, receive a great deal of money, but lack the resources to maintain themselves. Many cities in the US have endured decades of economic decline, and are only now starting to recover. The major cities in the United States, which received the most federal money, have refused to change their ways of doing business to attract more business. As a result, while many cities have benefited from the government’s investment, many others have stagnated. In other countries, such as China, the national government has poured money into their major cities, but these cities have become centers of corruption rather than centers of culture

Many governments feel that the cities around them must be supported, no matter how much money they have. The logic behind this is that, without the support of their cities, the people in the cities would be forced to move to nearby areas where the government is investing money. When the government does invest money, it is usually used for projects that will benefit the cities the most. The logic is flawed because, while the people in surrounding cities may benefit from these projects, the primary beneficiaries of these projects are often the politicians, who can then take credit for the improvements. For example, the Chinese government recently built a subway system in Brazil. The subway system will serve the people of São Paulo, Brazil, but the government of São Paulo will reap most of the benefits. São Paulo is a large, prosperous city, and it would make no sense for the people of São Paulo to have to pay for the subway system if their government was using its own money to build it. Thus, it is the people of São Paulo, not their city government, who are the primary beneficiaries of the projects that the government funds. Finally, governments often redirect funds intended for their cities to other purposes, such as maintaining their own power structures. For example, local governments in the United States frequently divert money intended for road and bridge repairs to other projects. These projects often take priority over repairs to the roads that connect smaller cities to major metropolitan areas. While these projects may provide some benefits to the residents of the cities, these projects are not likely to be as beneficial as infrastructure projects aimed at improving the infrastructure of the cities themselves.