URBS 230 2025 Global cities to post

Urbanization: Global and Historical Perspectives URBS 230 Global Cities.

CITIES AND GLOBAL CONNECTIONS (JONAS, MCCANN, THOMAS 2015)  There’s nothing new about urban “globalness”  Cities have always been nodes (central places) in larger networks; this is their essential feature (Abu-Lughod 1999)  E.g., early trading cities (Timbuktu) OR the Silk Road.

All cities are “global”—but in different ways (Massey 1994) Every city is shaped by a unique combination of flows and connections with other places Kilburn High Road, London “A GLOBAL SENSE OF PLACE” (MASSEY 1994) Shopping street,.

ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION • New transportation and communication technologies • Trade liberalization & increased mobility of capital • Rise of transnational corporations via offshoring • Changing international division of labour Since 1970s = “globalization”: increasing interconnection and interdependency of people and places around the world - not just ‘trade’ Source: nullGettyImages.

POLITICAL GLOBALIZATION • “Hollowing out” of nation-states • Rise of supranational political institutions (UN, CARICOM, African Union, European Union, NATO, etc.) & city as key actors • “Post-national citizenship” and the rise of transnational elites CULTURAL GLOBALIZATION • Rise of communication technologies and social media • Movement of ideas, styles, music, film across borders • Rise of regional, religious, linguistic, and other affinities BTS ; K-Pop. Source: https://cottonbrazil.com/blog/k-pop-and- fashion-the-influence-of-south-korean-music-on-trends-and- consumption-habits/.

Globalization is . . . Uneven (it creates winners and losers between cities and within cities – power differences) Contested (not “natural” or inevitable) Incomplete (an ongoing process).

THE “GLOBAL CITIES LITERATURE” (JONAS, MCCANN, THOMAS 2015) For most urban scholars, “global cities” = the role that certain cities play in organizing the global economy  part of an ‘urban hierarchy’.

“WORLD CITIES”(FRIEDMANN AND WOLFF 1982) Certain cities were taking on particular roles in the global economy These cities were home to “command and control” functions of transnational corporations Clusters of elite decision-makers influencing decision- making and finance Focus: corporate headquarters of transnational corporations as basis of city power Concentrated in cities like Tokyo, New York, and London.

 Difference in city roles “. . . gives rise to an urban hierarchy of influence and control. At the apex of this hierarchy are found a small number of massive urban regions that we shall call world cities. Tightly interconnected with each other through decision-making and finance, they constitute a worldwide system of control over production and market expansion” (Friedmann and Wolf 1982: 301)  —Friedmann and Wolff 1982, 310 Friedmann (1986).

“GLOBAL CITIES” (SASSEN 2001)  Elaborated on the “world cities” approach  Economic “command and control” functions have become so complex that they are increasingly outsourced to specialized firms  Focus: “advanced producer services” (APS) that support transnational firms as basis of power Finance, banking, insurance, real estate, law, accounting, advertising, business consulting  APS are clustered in certain cities—despite globalization, physical proximity matters.

MEASURING AND MAPPING WORLD AND GLOBAL CITIES  Founded in 1998, the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) research network produces maps and rankings of global cities  Main criteria: cities’ economic importance (“command and control”) = concentration of advanced producer services not other indicators, such as?  Highly influential in urban studies and policy..

GaWC (1998).

INEQUALITY AND GLOBAL CITIES  Sassen (1991): globalization is not universally beneficial  Global cities are home to stark inequalities (social & spatial)  Transnational business elites are supported by “second tier” of low-wage, precarious, often racialized and migrant service workers  Business elites drive up land and housing prices, fuelling gentrification & displacement.

 Focus on a specific, elite world of business & finance  Ignore other kinds of global influence  Less about “cities” than small “citadel” districts  Emphasize hierarchy and competition between cities  Dominated by global North Africa and South Asia almost entirely off the map  Creates significant gaps: large cities (3+ million) not classified as world cities Tehran, Khartoum, Rangoon, Pyongyang, Chittagong, etc. CRITIQUES OF WORLD-CITIES AND GLOBAL-CITIES APPROACHES.

 This framing can make governments, citizens, and organizations insecure, envious, and competitive  GaWC was tracking the empirical (‘what exists’), but policymakers in ‘not- so-global’ cities make this criteria ‘normative’ (‘what should be’)  Becoming “global” or ”world-class” is seen as ideal or imperative  Alternative urban futures are foreclosed  What if becoming “global” isn’t the best future for every city?.

ROBINSON’S (2006) CRITIQUE The global cities literature . . . • suffers from an implicit developmentalism: assumption that Western-style development is the best way to improve lives • promotes hierarchy and competitiveness • only counts some people’s “globalness” • has harmful policy implications: cities spend resources on becoming “global” instead of attending to other needs and kinds of development.

“ORDINARY CITIES” (ROBINSON 2006)  An alternative to the “global cities” concept  Inclusive of all cities, especially those in the global South E.g., Lusaka, Zambia  All cities are global and ordinary  they’re shaped by common flows and forces but also complex and diverse  We can understand cities better—and imagine different urban futures—by studying a wider range of cities.

“Research on cities needs to be undertaken in a spirit of attentiveness to the possibility that cities elsewhere might perhaps be different and shed stronger light on the processes being studied. The potential to learn from other contexts, other cities, would need to always be kept open.”  Robinson 2006: 168.

Summary  ‘Global cities literature’ focus on economic ’command and control’  Key distinction between ‘world city’ and ‘global city’ concepts - each one focuses on a different basis of power  There are limits to this body of literature: ’Global North’ emphasis - and within the ‘global North, certain districts; heightens competition and places Western-style development as model for different settings  Alternative: acknowledge the global-ness – and ordinariness - of all cities … widen the range of cities from which we learn about processes of globalization.