Paper short abstract:

Facing metropolisation, role of secondary towns against rural areas has not changed. Form of control has changed. Demonstration based on four variables: geographical accessibility, residence of the dynamic workers, source of invested capital, nature and quality of services offered by secondary town.

Paper long abstract:

Dynamic rural areas in sub-Saharan Africa tend to develop more direct relations with metropolises without the intermediary of secondary cities as was the case in the 1980s and 1990s. Their role as centrality that structure rural development has not changed. Only the form of control has changed and requires a renegotiation of functions in an evolving relationship of complementarity. Four variables underlie the loss of control:

- Nature and the configuration of the road network between metropolises-secondary town-rural areas. It determine the level of accessibility and therefore the number of transit to reach the metropolis.

- Place of residence of actors involved in the development of the rural areas. It is not only the villagers who make up the rural labor force. Some dynamic workers come from secondary towns on a daily or weekly mobility route.

- Origin of the capital and its transit through the secondary town. Beyond the labor force, if the capital invested in the rural areas come from the cities, they will develop the secondary town as much as the beneficiary countryside. We are witnessing the development of microfinance institutions in secondary towns in order to support the flow of exchanges between rural areas and metropolises.

- Nature and quality of control by the services provided by the secondary town. If services such as hotels, supermarkets and stores are developed in the secondary town, it will control more its periphery by an attracting effects both on villagers and on metropolitans when transited to the rural areas.