As Population Growth Slows, Populism Surges

As Population Growth Slows, Populism Surges
nytimes.com

In the world’s largest cities, where populations are densely concentrated and growing, economies are generally thriving and cosmopolitanism is embraced. Where populations are sparse or shrinking, usually in rural places and small cities, economies are often stagnant, and populism sells.

What does "thriving" mean here? GDP? Do any countries track GDP by city? I haven't heard of that if so. This paragraph is vague but if by "thriving" they mean lots of economic activity, that's a circular definition - "thriving economies are where lots of people are". By this logic cities have always had more "thriving" economies than rural areas and always will, by the very definition of what a city is.

Also, whilst they define populism, they do not define "cosmopolitanism". If populism is the feeling that a small group of elites do not represent the needs of ordinary people, then what is cosmopolitanism? The idea that elites don't exist at all? Or that they do and that it's a good thing if they rule?

As youth have continued to migrate from rural areas to cities, their movement has widened not only the median age gap between rural places and cities, but also gaps in attitude, since the young, regardless of where they live, tend to associate more with urban outlooks.

More circularity. Cities are dominated by the young, therefore the young associate more with urban outlooks. This is restating the premise in different words.

One movement extols the values that are a practical necessity in dense, interconnected cities: interdependence, internationalism and the embrace of “diversity” (defined along multiple dimensions)

This is stated as if it's obvious fact, but I don't understand why. Why is internationalism a practical necessity in cities? Are there no cities in the world with quite ethnically homogenous populations? Have the authors visited eastern European or Russian cities? Or African cities?

Overall I find this analysis weak. It's basically a big correlation/causation fallacy, written by academics in the NY Times (elitist intellectuals writing in what is practically the official newspaper of such people), who are non too subtly arguing that smart young energetic people and places are people who agree with academics, and old decaying declining people and places are people who don't.

But there are many other ways to explain contemporary political shifts. I see no reason to link it to demographics.

In the US, I’m pretty sure it’s because ppl can’t afford to have kids.

>Why is internationalism a practical necessity in cities? Are there no cities in the world with quite ethnically homogenous populations? Have the authors visited eastern European or Russian cities? Or African cities?

These cities are far more interconnected, both internally and externally, than the countryside.

Also, I hate it when someone claims they have an alternative explanation, but don't present it so that we can examine it critically.