A long-standing belief in development studies holds that, on the whole, living conditions in developing countries are superior for residents of large cities than for persons living in smaller cities, towns, and villages. The concept of big cities as “islands of privilege” is fundamental to otherwise discrepant theories of modernization, dependency, world systems of cities, and the global division of labor, each of which posits long-lasting disadvantages for populations outside of major urban centers. Since the late 1980s, however, the presumed superiority of large cities in developing countries has been widely disputed. One argument, informed by evidence of rapid population growth and economic stagnation in many cities, and by perceptions of associated negative externalities imposed on city environments, asserts deteriorating or relatively unfavorable living conditions for big-city residents, on average, as compared with conditions for inhabitants of smaller cities and towns. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the extent to which residents of developing cities with one million or more residents, which we refer to as “big” or “large” cities, do indeed have superior living conditions as compared with persons living in smaller settlements. Building on the work of economists (Mera and Shishido 1983; Sen 1993), we assess relative well-being across settlements in terms of demographic and social indicators that reflect basic human needs, primarily infant survival, as well as adequate shelter, nutrition, education, health, and health care.
