Why read this: This article uses a clear three-way comparison — Jakarta, Dhaka and Delhi versus Tokyo — to argue that Asian megacities feel hard to live in mainly because authority is shared badly between local offices, not because they are too poor. The piece is short and concrete, so B2 readers can follow the reasoning while still meeting cross-subject academic vocabulary like 'governance', 'metropolitan area' and 'middle-income trap'. It also gives students a useful real-world example of cause and effect: fragmented authority leads to traffic, pollution and wasted infrastructure, even when there is money to spend.
What to notice: Watch how the writer builds an argument by accumulating evidence rather than stating a thesis on the first line. The opening paragraph reframes which city is biggest; only in paragraphs four and five does the central claim about fragmented governance appear, supported by Jakarta's traffic, the metro line that stops at the city border, and the divided authority across Dhaka and Delhi. Notice also the contrast structure: problems are clustered in Jakarta, then Tokyo is offered as a counter-model. Pay attention to hedging words ('can wipe out', 'could be huge', 'does not always cost a fortune'); they show that the writer is making a likely argument, not stating a certainty. Finally, look at how named examples (the metro line, Adhika Ajie's quote, the train statistic about Tokyo) are used as evidence rather than decoration.
Skills practised: Comparison-contrast reading across more than two cases; tracking a delayed thesis through several paragraphs; recognising cause-and-effect signalled by 'because', 'so' and 'as a result'; reading hedged claims accurately rather than as absolute statements; and using context plus margin glosses to handle B2-level academic vocabulary like 'metropolitan area', 'centralised authority' and 'satellite cities'. Students also practise turning evidence into a one-sentence summary and evaluating whether the article's prescriptive conclusion follows from the evidence presented.
Why Asia's biggest cities feel so hard to live in
Jakarta, Dhaka and Delhi struggle with traffic and pollution. Tokyo shows a calmer way to run a giant city.
Tap any green word in the article to see its meaning.
For seventy years Tokyo was thought to be the world's biggest city, but new UN figures released last month tell a different story. Until recently the UN counted only people living inside each country's official city limits, and the new report finally accepts the reality of . Jakarta, Indonesia's capital, now tops the list with 42 million people — almost as many as live in Canada. Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, has reached 37 million, while Delhi follows close behind. Tokyo, once the largest, has slipped to fourth place with 33 million.
These numbers point to huge urban growth, and most of it is happening in middle-income Asia, where only one of the world's ten biggest cities lies outside the region. By 2050 Jakarta and Dhaka together will add another 25 million people. Most newcomers move there hoping for a better life. "Dhaka changed my life and secured my kids' education," says Clinton Chakma, a waiter who arrived from a farm in 2022.
Yet there is also a real risk: as Asian cities grow, dirt, pollution and traffic can wipe out the economic gains they bring. "People move to cities to be part of the ," says Alain Bertaud of New York University, but when that market does not work properly, poor people simply stay poor. Today Jakarta, Dhaka and Delhi all rank among the worst cities to live in, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, and Dhaka comes third from last in the world.
If Asian countries want to escape the , they must fix the problems that damage their cities. The best way to do so is not by building one project at a time but by changing how cities are run. Jakarta is a useful example: over the years it has swallowed several around it, yet there is almost no cooperation among their separate governments. A as large as a small country is therefore run like a noisy crowd of strangers.
The price of this is clearest in Jakarta's awful traffic, which ranks twelfth most jammed in the world. Dhaka comes third and Delhi seventh. Because many workers cannot afford homes near their offices, they live in and rely on cars or scooters since public transport is poor. The result is constant gridlock and dirty air, and Jakarta's government estimates that traffic jams cost the local economy six billion dollars every year.
Jakarta opened its first metro line in 2019, but it stops at the city's official border, well short of the suburbs where most workers actually live. "Without coordination across the whole urban area, it is useless," says Adhika Ajie, a senior researcher in Jakarta's city government. Dhaka and Delhi face similar problems, with authority split between city offices, the state, the national government and many other agencies that rarely talk to one another.
Tokyo offers a better model. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government handles big city-wide services such as water, sewage and hospitals, while twenty-three smaller districts and many neighbouring towns sit beneath it, each with its own elected mayor. These local councils look after schools, and parks, and the metropolitan government coordinates between them. The result is a sensible split of duties rather than one . A dense train network ties everything together, and more than ninety percent of people in greater Tokyo live within a twenty-minute walk of a station.
Of course, Tokyo is far richer than Jakarta or Dhaka, and when it first reached twenty million people in 1965 Japan was already a wealthy country. But Asia's poorer megacities do not need to wait for wealth before improving, because better governance does not always cost a fortune. Reforming how power is shared is harder than simply spending money on big projects, but the rewards could be huge.
For seventy years Tokyo was thought to be the world's biggest city, but new UN figures released last month tell a different story. Until recently the UN counted only people living inside each country's official city limits, and the new report finally accepts the reality of . Jakarta, Indonesia's capital, now tops the list with 42 million people — almost as many as live in Canada. Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, has reached 37 million, while Delhi follows close behind. Tokyo, once the largest, has slipped to fourth place with 33 million.
These numbers point to huge urban growth, and most of it is happening in middle-income Asia, where only one of the world's ten biggest cities lies outside the region. By 2050 Jakarta and Dhaka together will add another 25 million people. Most newcomers move there hoping for a better life. "Dhaka changed my life and secured my kids' education," says Clinton Chakma, a waiter who arrived from a farm in 2022.
Yet there is also a real risk: as Asian cities grow, dirt, pollution and traffic can wipe out the economic gains they bring. "People move to cities to be part of the ," says Alain Bertaud of New York University, but when that market does not work properly, poor people simply stay poor. Today Jakarta, Dhaka and Delhi all rank among the worst cities to live in, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, and Dhaka comes third from last in the world.
If Asian countries want to escape the , they must fix the problems that damage their cities. The best way to do so is not by building one project at a time but by changing how cities are run. Jakarta is a useful example: over the years it has swallowed several around it, yet there is almost no cooperation among their separate governments. A as large as a small country is therefore run like a noisy crowd of strangers.
The price of this is clearest in Jakarta's awful traffic, which ranks twelfth most jammed in the world. Dhaka comes third and Delhi seventh. Because many workers cannot afford homes near their offices, they live in and rely on cars or scooters since public transport is poor. The result is constant gridlock and dirty air, and Jakarta's government estimates that traffic jams cost the local economy six billion dollars every year.
Jakarta opened its first metro line in 2019, but it stops at the city's official border, well short of the suburbs where most workers actually live. "Without coordination across the whole urban area, it is useless," says Adhika Ajie, a senior researcher in Jakarta's city government. Dhaka and Delhi face similar problems, with authority split between city offices, the state, the national government and many other agencies that rarely talk to one another.
Tokyo offers a better model. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government handles big city-wide services such as water, sewage and hospitals, while twenty-three smaller districts and many neighbouring towns sit beneath it, each with its own elected mayor. These local councils look after schools, and parks, and the metropolitan government coordinates between them. The result is a sensible split of duties rather than one . A dense train network ties everything together, and more than ninety percent of people in greater Tokyo live within a twenty-minute walk of a station.
Of course, Tokyo is far richer than Jakarta or Dhaka, and when it first reached twenty million people in 1965 Japan was already a wealthy country. But Asia's poorer megacities do not need to wait for wealth before improving, because better governance does not always cost a fortune. Reforming how power is shared is harder than simply spending money on big projects, but the rewards could be huge.
Questions
Check your understanding
- 01
According to the article, why has Tokyo dropped from first to fourth place in the UN's list of biggest cities?
- 02
What does the article say is the main reason Jakarta's traffic is so bad?
- 03
Which sentence best summarises the article's overall argument?
- 04
How does Tokyo's system of local councils help avoid the problems that Jakarta faces? Use details from the article to support your answer.
Suggested length: ~80 words
- 05
Evaluate the claim that fixing governance is more important than spending money on big projects in Asia's megacities. Do you find the article's argument convincing? Why or why not?
Suggested length: ~80 words
Questions
Check your understanding
- 01
According to the article, why has Tokyo dropped from first to fourth place in the UN's list of biggest cities?
- 02
What does the article say is the main reason Jakarta's traffic is so bad?
- 03
Which sentence best summarises the article's overall argument?
- 04
How does Tokyo's system of local councils help avoid the problems that Jakarta faces? Use details from the article to support your answer.
Suggested length: ~80 words
- 05
Evaluate the claim that fixing governance is more important than spending money on big projects in Asia's megacities. Do you find the article's argument convincing? Why or why not?
Suggested length: ~80 words