4D. Age, Social network, and social role:

Cities are born. In the same way it is difficult to pinpoint the moment when human life begins, it is likewise difficult to pinpoint the exact moment a city is born. Officially recognized foundation dates are good birth dates because the importance of age lies in how old a city is relative to others.

Cities form relationships, belong to social networks, and hold positions of status within networks (social roles). A relationship is a pattern of chemical exchange between two cities. I use the word “chemical” because this term includes physical, mental and electronic exchange between cities. A network is the net flow and pattern of chemical exchange within a specific region. Metropolitan areas, states, countries, continents, and oceans constitute non-independent but definitive networks. Social role is the chemical composition of a city as a result of net chemical exchanges taking place in its network. In many ways the social role of a city is its charge as a result of chemical exchange.

On a more microscale level, the relative age, structure, dispersion pattern and social role of a city is a function of government legislation. From this view, it is inevitable that one confront the difficult connection between city-as-organism to what we normally view as a separate human nature (i.e. the world of government and politics); However, at the end of the day, we are the constructors of the city. Whether we are conscious actors of our ultimate influence or not, human action and human beings are the building blocks of cities just a micro-parts in our bodies allow the greater whole to function.

To demonstrate the power of legislation and even make a case for free markets, I pose the following question: Which cities are more robust? Ask this question of states that are either capital dominant (their capital city is the largest city in the state) or capital recessive (the capital city is not the largest city). There are marked developmental differences (in the long term) between these two structures.

First the Numbers: I've chosen three states from each camp. In terms of notable cities and population, do you spot a trend?

Visually represented: Have a look at the same six states' population densities. In the coloured maps, red represents high population density. In the black and white map of Western Australia, Perth metropolitan area (the only metropolitan area in the state) is circled in red. Capital recessive states demonstrate multiple major metropolitan areas. Conclusion: The economic development of a state is more strongly influenced by the physical structure of government administration than by its own natural resources. In other words, the "Invisible Hand of the Economy" is restricted in capital dominant states and other incentives and objectives take precedence.

Capital dominance in Australia: Australia is a country of capital dominant states. Of Australia's 5 largest cities, ALL are state capitals exhibiting some of the most extreme examples of capital dominance (aka City Primacy) in the world.
Considering the large territories each Australian state encompasses (especially Queensland and Western Australia) capital dominance is a serious limitation to the economic growth of Australia in the long term. It is a trend that should be actively reversed. One solution is to relocate the capital. While dominant cities cannot be moved, centres of government administration can and have been in the past. The first Australian state to relocate its capital will see tremendous economic benefit.