One of the structural problems of territorial development in Peru is the strong concentration of population, resources and decisions in a single city. In urban planning, this phenomenon is known as urban macrocephaly: a territory with a very large ‘head’ and regions with relatively less development.
One of the structural problems of territorial development in Peru is the strong concentration of population, resources and decisions in a single city. In urban planning, this phenomenon is known as urban macrocephaly: a territory with a very large ‘head’ and regions with relatively less development.
The Peruvian case clearly reflects this imbalance. Metropolitan Lima concentrates 10.29 million inhabitants, equivalent to 30.2% of the national population. In addition, the capital generates around 45% of the country’s gross domestic product, which shows its enormous economic weight within the national territory. In other words, a single urban area concentrates a significant proportion of Peru’s economic and demographic activity.
The roots of this centralization are historical and institutional. Faced with this problem, polycentrism proposes strengthening a network of intermediate cities with complementary economic functions. Cities such as Arequipa, Trujillo, Piura, Cusco, Iquitos or Pucallpa could consolidate themselves as regional hubs.
Moving towards this model would imply improving connectivity between regions, strengthening universities and innovation centers outside the capital and progressively decentralizing some functions of the State. In countries such as Germany and Spain, several cities share the national economic dynamism, reducing concentration in a single metropolis (OECD, 2020).
Promoting a polycentric urban system would allow for a better distribution of opportunities, reducing pressure on Lima and moving towards a more balanced national development.
