Without adjusting this for population I don't know what it really tells us. Yes, Australia with a population of 24 million has fewer "Tier 1" population centers than a country with 325 million.
Just going by ratios I would expect the US to have 26 Tier 1 cities.
I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population.
I agree that the federal model of the US (which cascades down and has similar boundaries at the county & city level) is probably one of the root causes. Having "NSW Police" versus 482 city police departments in California is just one of many examples.
> I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population.
Europe's population is around twice that of the US and the EU itself has around 50% more people than the US, so that is not an entirely accurate statement.
About 40% of the population of Australia lives in the Melbourne and Sydney metros, about evenly split. So 20% of the population lives in Sydney, and 20% in Melbourne.
By contrast, the NYC metro area has around 6% of the population of the USA.
But it's also about bulk number of large cities. If the federal government wants to inject funding into a large city in Australia, they have 2 options. You can't really play politics there, especially since Sydney and Melbourne have similar political makeups.
Just going by ratios I would expect the US to have 26 Tier 1 cities.
I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population.
I agree that the federal model of the US (which cascades down and has similar boundaries at the county & city level) is probably one of the root causes. Having "NSW Police" versus 482 city police departments in California is just one of many examples.