The Economist: Asia’s megacities are growing faster than their governments

The Economist’s latest report highlights a striking reality: the world’s largest cities are no longer defined solely by their historical or administrative borders, and Asia now dominates the urban hierarchy. By embracing urban sprawl in its statistics, the UN has revealed that Jakarta, Indonesia, with 42 million residents, now surpasses Tokyo, which has fallen to third place. Dhaka, Bangladesh, with 37 million, has also overtaken the Japanese capital, while Delhi and Shanghai round out the top five. This reclassification underscores a dramatic trend: urbanisation is accelerating, especially in middle-income Asian countries, with cities projected to grow by tens of millions in just a few decades.

The Economist emphasises that this growth is a double-edged sword. Migration to cities can improve living standards, as evidenced by individuals like Clinton Chakma, who left rural Bangladesh for Dhaka and found stable employment. Yet unchecked expansion carries significant risks. Squalor, pollution, and gridlock can erode the economic benefits cities offer. Alain Bertaud of New York University warns that if labour markets fail to absorb incoming populations efficiently, cities risk becoming poverty traps rather than engines of prosperity. Jakarta, Dhaka, and Delhi already rank among the world’s worst cities to live in, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, highlighting the urgency of the problem.

Central to the analysis is governance—or, more precisely, its fragmentation. Jakarta’s metropolitan area now includes neighbouring cities such as Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi, yet co-ordination among these authorities is minimal. Traffic congestion alone costs the city an estimated $6 billion annually, exacerbated by poor public transport and long commutes. Even recent infrastructure investments, like Jakarta’s first metro line, are hampered by administrative boundaries that prevent effective regional integration. Dhaka and Delhi face comparable challenges: multiple municipal authorities, national ministries, and semi-autonomous development boards dilute accountability and hinder coherent urban management.

The Economist contrasts these difficulties with the governance models of Shanghai and Tokyo. Shanghai’s centralised, provincial-style administration allows Beijing to enforce comprehensive planning and service delivery, though under a uniquely authoritarian system. Tokyo, in contrast, demonstrates a hybrid democratic approach: the Tokyo Metropolitan Government coordinates essential services across 23 wards and peripheral municipalities while local governments retain control over schools, waste, and community planning. A dense, integrated metro and commuter rail network further ensures connectivity. The success of Tokyo suggests that effective governance, not sheer wealth, underpins urban livability.

Ultimately, the report argues that improving Asia’s megacities does not require massive investment alone; it begins with structural reform. Aligning fragmented authorities, clarifying responsibilities, and strengthening coordination could unlock productivity, reduce congestion, and improve quality of life. As middle-income Asian cities continue to swell, governance—not simply infrastructure—will determine whether urban growth becomes a springboard for prosperity or a trap of dysfunction.

The Economist’s analysis offers a clear lesson: mega-urbanisation is inevitable, but cities thrive only when the machinery of government can match the scale of their populations. For Jakarta, Dhaka, Delhi, and others, rethinking power structures may be the key to turning demographic pressure into opportunity.

By Vugar Khalilov