Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.
Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The distribution of financial support is a challenging task which requires thoroughgoing analysis. Nowadays we have to invest more and more money into institutions that are responsible for maintaining national culture and identity. The claim posits this kind of support only for major cities and does not mention anything about other parts of the country. Probably, we can assume that the financial support for major cities is the first priority. According to the further statement, the main reason for this approach is that traditions are preserved and generated primarily in cities. In my opinion, this view is not fully developed and requires further consideration.
First, we should carefully examine the current state of main cities, let alone the problem of defining what the major cities are. Thus, many of the major cities are humongous multicultural melting pots, for example, London or Paris. These is truly a mix of cultures and traditions. It is sufficient to go by an underground from one station to another in order to get an impression as if somebody were in a different country. The big cities are no longer places where the national heritage can be easily preserved. The major cities are palimpsest where clashes of modern and old culture appear on a daily basis.
Secondly, I have to admit that I am aware of the specific situation regarding projects. This aim of preserving and generating cultural traditions requires a concentration of funds in one special area. New projects should be commenced and realized efficiently. In my opinion, this action might be planned for many years and finally each citizen should receive comparable support. It is crucial to distribute the financial funds evenly because each citizen pays taxes and ought to be given a possibility of development. Otherwise, we can face a situation that people from villages will start migrating to major cities and the final result can be that most of the cities will be overpopulated whereas the remaining land will be undeveloped and ultimately wasted.
Thirdly, many countries in the European Unions receive subsidies for small cities which cultivate traditions, still produce local food and strive to preserve the folk music. These endeavours show quite a different if not a contrary approach. Moreover, many universities are based in small or average-sized cities. For instance, Oxford or Cambridge are not the major cities in the UK, however, they host two of the best universities in the country. The community which lives in the cities is composed mainly of young and open minded people who care about the traditions and shape new society. To my mind, this regions should be supported abundantly.
In conclusion, there are some pros and cons but in my humble view the financial support should be evenly distributed. National traditions are formed by each citizen and nobody should be marginalized. We have to ensure that this approach will be taken into account and eventuall realized.