I live in The Netherlands and it's not functionally a very large low density city. The main part of the country (de randstad [1]), but the rest isn't. And we need to pay to make sure there are facilities there, the government currently is just draining the natural resources and giving nothing in return.

I don't know how a large country functions, but for the Netherlands there is a clear need to invest more in the rest of the country.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad

Bit of devil's advocate here, but would it make more sense to invest heavily in the Randstad so that more people can live there and enjoy the benefits of being in a heavily networked area?

I just moved to the Netherlands (in the Randstad) and it's arguably better for the country that I moved to a place that already is dense and efficient to provide services to. Though it would be nice if it were above sea level.

I don't live in the Randstad but I'm sure in some years everything will have closed up.

One thing I will say though is that the area outside of it - pick any direction - is idyllic and doesn't seem to be struggling economically. Loads of local businesses, loads of people just going about their day, buying houses, having kids, etc. It's idyllic and I don't really understand why all the activity seems to be in the Randstad.

I mean I do get it, it's a chicken / egg problem; talent travels to the cities because that's where the best jobs are, the best jobs go to the cities because that's where talent is.

But I would like the government to incentivize more "work where you live" schemes; smaller sattelite offices for larger employers, remote work (obviously), extra income and subsidies if you work remotely (because of reduced office costs and to discourage commuting, since our roads and railways are all full up).

I totally agree about how the lower investment in the non-Randstad parts of the country does not seem to have a negative affect. At least the further-away cities/towns that I’ve visited have been absolutely gorgeous. People are friendly, streets are clean, parks are well-kept, public transportation is world-class even in small towns.

I think part of the issue is that if you're a couple there's a huge advantage to being within commute distance from multiple cities.

In this case it's more that almost the entire country is within a couple of hours of the Randstad. The whole country can act as a single economic unit, which isn't doable even in Germany, France, and the UK, let alone Canada or China. You can drive or take the train from Groningen to Eindhoven and back in a single working day with hours to spare; you can't even do that between Toulouse and Marseille, let alone further!

If anything it's a good thing - it means investment in Amsterdam benefits far more people than just those in Amsterdam.

Singapore relies on Malaysia (hmm wonder when and why Malaya picked up that "sia"); Hong Kong relies on China; the Netherlands relies on the EU.

Which of their neighbors do you think Japan is safe to rely on to feed their population?

edit: Note that China just the other day extended their 9-dash line to a 10-dash line

The problem with these examples is they're heavily skewed once a single metric, eg small land area (Singapore, HK, Netherlands) or extreme resource disparity (SA & UAE). Generalizing from outlier examples is rarely a good idea.

Pretty much by definition a country with no small towns in gonna be all city. Those are necessarily outliers.