CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — WHILE the threat of another default still looms in Argentina, the country has made headlines for another reason: A growing number of its leaders, including President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, are starting to line up behind a proposal to move the capital from Buenos Aires to the much smaller (and reportedly sleepy) city of Santiago del Estero, in the middle-north of the country.

Mrs. Kirchner and others say the move would heal the divide between Buenos Aires, the cosmopolitan metropolis of more than 12 million people, and the hinterlands. But as attractive an idea as it might be on the surface, moving the capital could in fact make things worse for the beleaguered country.

Moving a capital city is more common than many people think. Over the last century, there has been an average of one move every six years, including to Brasília, Brazil (from Rio de Janeiro); Astana, Kazakhstan (from Almaty); and Naypyidaw, Myanmar (from Yangon). Many other countries have considered it, including Argentina itself in the 1980s, or still are, like South Korea.

The explicit reasons for these moves range from the congestion problems in an overcrowded capital — one reason claimed by the Nigerian government in moving its capital from Lagos to Abuja in 1991 — to the need for developing backward regions or balancing regional rivalries. Other governments cite the need to protect against foreign threats, whether real or largely imaginary.