I have always thought that there is a reason (or can be, depending). When the capital city is also the largest city, the rest of the state can often be ignored (a complaint from many about Boston, for example). If the capital is outside of the major cities then the government can better focus on the state as a whole without getting involved in local politics (think Albany vs New York City).
Also, often capitals are moved outside of major cities due to population and infrastructure, as sometimes larger cities can't sustain any more growth (which is what happened to Malaysia).
San Francisco has interestingly never been a contender for the capital, as before Sacramento it was Monterey (and Benicia and Vallejo but those were just stints). And if it were, the odds of the State focusing on the Bay Area before anywhere else could indeed become an issue.
If there's a significant economic, cultural, and political divergence between a city and the rest of its state, there's also a strong argument to separate the cities off as autonomous city-states.
If people in upstate NY and NYC have conflicting interests, wouldn't it be better for both parties to separate NYC as as state in its own right, rather than maintain the compromise solution of Albany?
Comments
I have always thought that there is a reason (or can be, depending). When the capital city is also the largest city, the rest of the state can often be ignored (a complaint from many about Boston, for example). If the capital is outside of the major cities then the government can better focus on the state as a whole without getting involved in local politics (think Albany vs New York City).
Also, often capitals are moved outside of major cities due to population and infrastructure, as sometimes larger cities can't sustain any more growth (which is what happened to Malaysia).
San Francisco has interestingly never been a contender for the capital, as before Sacramento it was Monterey (and Benicia and Vallejo but those were just stints). And if it were, the odds of the State focusing on the Bay Area before anywhere else could indeed become an issue.
If there's a significant economic, cultural, and political divergence between a city and the rest of its state, there's also a strong argument to separate the cities off as autonomous city-states.
If people in upstate NY and NYC have conflicting interests, wouldn't it be better for both parties to separate NYC as as state in its own right, rather than maintain the compromise solution of Albany?