Summary of Key Points
In 2025, the population growth in several provincial capitals has declined (for example, Hefei only saw an increase of 3,000 people, while Xining experienced negative growth), sparking discussions about the "failure" of the strong-provincial-capital model. However, this is not due to the ineffectiveness of this model itself, but rather a natural outcome of broader trends such as a decreasing national population, a slowdown in urbanization, and changes in the logic of population movement driven by industrial upgrading. The strong-provincial-capital approach remains the practical choice for most provinces, but population development has entered a new phase characterized by overall slower growth and increased differentiation, meaning that past expectations of unlimited population growth need to be adjusted.
I. Underlying Reasons for Declining Population Growth: A Shrinking National Population Pool and Slowing Urbanization
Imagine the national population as a large tank; since 2022, the volume of water in this "tank" has decreased by 7.71 million people (an average reduction of 250,000 people per province). With less water available, each city naturally receives a smaller share—this is the fundamental reason for the decline in population growth across all cities.
Looking at urbanization: By 2025, China's urbanization rate will reach 67.89%. According to international experience, once the urbanization rate exceeds 60%, the pace of rural-to-urban migration slows significantly (since most people have already moved to cities, leaving fewer individuals available for migration). Coupled with the acceleration of aging and a decrease in the youth population, even central cities will find it difficult to attract hundreds of thousands of new residents annually. For instance, while Shenzhen added more than 500,000 residents per year between 2010 and 2020, there are now few cities that can achieve annual growth rates of over 200,000 people—this is a general trend that affects all cities, not just provincial capitals.
II. Provincial Capitals Still Serve as the "Ballast Stones" of Their Provinces, but Differentiation is Increasing
Despite the decline in population growth, provincial capitals generally remain the most resilient to economic downturns because they concentrate the best resources: excellent schools, large hospitals, and job opportunities. They are like the favored children in a family, often doing better even when the rest face financial challenges. For example, some provinces may have a negative overall population growth, but their capitals still experience growth.
However, the differentiation between cities is also intensifying:
- Provinces with weak economies will see their capitals suffer: Cities in less developed regions, such as Harbin in Northeast China, have not only lost millions of residents but also started experiencing negative population growth, reflecting the overall economic and demographic decline in the region.
- Provinces with strong industries are more stable: Capitals with mature industrial ecosystems and large hinterlands (such as Chengdu and Guangzhou) may see slower population growth compared to the past, but they remain more stable than other cities.
- Non-provincial capitals fare even worse: Among the cities with negative population growth in 2025, many are non-provincial capitals (such as Quanzhou and Yantai), indicating that the attractiveness of provincial capitals still outperforms that of ordinary prefecture-level cities.
III. Industrial Upgrading Changes the Logic of Population Movement
In the past, inland provincial capitals (like Hefei and Zhengzhou) relied on labor-intensive industries such as electronics manufacturing, which required a large workforce and led to population growth. However, with the rise of emerging industries like artificial intelligence and semiconductors, fewer workers are needed—for example, an AI production line may only require a few engineers instead of hundreds in the past.
Therefore, despite Hefei's vigorous industrial upgrading efforts, its population growth has plummeted due to the reduction in labor-intensive jobs. This highlights the need for local authorities to consider whether their industries can create sufficient employment opportunities. Recent national guidelines emphasize that investment projects should be assessed for their impact on employment, suggesting a balanced industrial development strategy that focuses on both high-tech sectors and job creation for ordinary workers.
IV. The Strong-Provincial-Capital Model Has Not Failed; It Has Just Entered a New Phase
The strong-provincial-capital model is not ineffective; it has simply adapted to new circumstances:
- It remains the practical choice for many provinces, as capitals can leverage their resources to drive regional development more effectively.
- However, expectations must change: The notion of unlimited population growth and continuous urban expansion no longer holds true. Future population growth will be more uneven, with some capitals maintaining stability while others may experience negative growth. This is not a failure of the model but a result of broader economic trends.
In summary, the "failure" of strong-provincial-capital models is a misconception; the real issue is accepting the reality of slower population growth. Strong provincial capitals are still valuable, but their development must rely on "quality dividends" rather than simply relying on a "population dividend"—for instance, by enhancing the value of local industries and improving public services. This challenge applies to all cities.
Conclusion
The notion that strong-provincial-capital models have failed is misplaced. The real issue is accepting the fact that population growth will no longer be rapid and consistent. While these models remain useful, they must evolve to focus on quality rather than quantity. This transition is a challenge for all cities.