Cities in Global Context

8/12/2019 Cities in Global Context

1/18

Volume 29.1 March 2005 92109 International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing.9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USAIJURInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research0309-13172005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.March 200529192

109Symposium: Globalization and Cities in Comparative PerspectiveCities in global contextDiane E. Davis

Cities in Global Context:

A Brief Intellectual History

DIANE E. DAVIS

Studies of cities in global context have been around almost as long as scholars havebeen studying cities (Weber, 1927; Pirenne, 1936). Use of the concept global city didnot necessarily figure in the early writings on cities, but international market connections

and trade linkages did. In many of these works, physical, social and economic changesin cities were tied to national and international political conditions ranging from thedemise of feudal or absolutist orders (Weber, 1958) to the rise of the modern nation-state (Tilly, 1975; 1990) as well as the appearance of the social relations of modernity(Durkheim, 1933; Simmel, 1950), which themselves were seen as materializing in citiesand reinforcing capitalist development. Still, the concern with economic aspects ofurbanization among those who studied cities had its own particular geography. In theUnited States, most early generations of urban scholars did not emphasize the economicdynamics of urban development to the same degree as did their counterparts in Europe,and they rarely examined cities in global context. This was particularly true during the1940s and 1950s, when US sociologists became ethnocentrically focused on American

urban problems relating to community and culture, neighborhood transformation, andsocial deviance or disorder. Yet it is precisely the fact that European and Americanurbanists initially approached the study of cities somewhat differently that helps explainthe content, character and assumptions of subsequent research on global cities or citiesin global context, both here and abroad.

Tracking the geography of the field

In its initial incarnation, American urban sociology was remarkable for its failure to

contextualize urban questions in larger political and economic processes be theyglobal or otherwise. This may have owed partly to the peculiar geographicalcircumstances of their home nation. The extensive size of the US and the decentralizedcharacter of American politics meant that scholars who were interested in connectingthe growth of cities to trade or market dynamics generally studied them in a regional oreven sub-regional context, a set of concerns that were articulated through thedevelopment of central place theory, among others. The fact that the leading Americanurbanists of the times lived and researched smack dab in the middle of the continentalUS, in the Midwestern industrial city of Chicago, also may have reinforced the disinterestin relations between international trade (and thus the global economic context) and citygrowth or urban dynamics more generally.1 Whatever the reason, for years very few

American scholars posed questions about cities in national context, perhaps with the1 All this contrasted to the classical European scholarship, derived through study of the early modern

period, in which the international dynamics of trade and its impact on cities may have been seen

as analytically central because the small size of many European countries and the fluidity of their

borders at that early historical moment often meant that patterns of trade and economic exchange

developed in an international context practically by definition.


2/18

Cities in global context 93

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

exception of Adna Weber (1899); and unless scholars were examining the Atlantic Coastcities in the initial decades of the countrys founding, a topic that concerned historiansof slavery more than urban sociologists, the concern with international trading networksand urbanization also remained pretty much off the scholarly agenda.

However, the silences in the American urban literature about the global context of

urban patterns and processes owed as much to the academic blinders and ideologicalproclivities of American sociologists as to the facts on the ground, geographical,demographic or otherwise. After all, many of the changes in Chicago studied by itsurbanists could readily be traced to the national or even international political economy,understood either in terms of a burgeoning immigrant labor force fueling the machinesof capitalist industrialization, or even in terms of the impact of a rural, slave-owningsouth on regional development and/or the post-second world war exodus of blacks tonorthern cities. But such global or economic dynamics usually were not examined,primarily because the hegemonic influence of Durkheimian theory among urbansociologists meant that cities were normally viewed through the lens of culture ratherthan economy, let alone global context. It was only when scholars began studying cities

outside their national borders, starting in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and whenMarxist critiques entered the field in the 1970s and 1980s, that global context trulystarted to be relevant, at least for US urbanists; and even then, only in a verycircumscribed fashion.

This initial shift in emphasis to other parts of the globe was partly grounded in apositivist passion for testing ideas, in this case those drawn from the European-derivedgrand theoretical narratives of sociology offered by the founders of the discipline.Practically the only counterfactual cases available for confirming prevailing theoreticalpropositions about the origins of fundamental social transformations were the nationsof the so-called underdeveloped world of Latin America, East Asia and Africa. Thesewere countries saddled with poverty, hosting very limited industrialization, and

governed primarily under oligarchic pacts or by despotic or authoritarian governments;their cities were growing rapidly with traditional rural migrants leaving a flounderingcountryside. To the extent that American sociologists wanted to understand the originsand long-term effects of these dynamics, they had an empirical motivation for turningto these third-world cities.2Moreover, because urban growth in the developing worldwas starting to show a pace that differed markedly from the US, American urbanistswere inspired to revisit general claims about social and cultural values of modernity vs.traditionalism, urbanization and economic development, as well as to tease out howthese processes were interrelated in practice.

When American scholars first took up this mantle, cold war concerns about truncatedeconomic or political progress and the rise of communism in the developing world also

served as motivation for the development of the field, and for the specific content ofmuch of the initial urban research.3Some in the US feared that if cities hosted under-employed, poverty-ridden, uprooted citizens, these folks might be more likely to supportpopulist or communist dictators. This political concern partly explains why so much ofthe initial American scholarship on third-world cities focused on Latin America,considered by many to be the USAs figurative backyard, not to mention a region witha long tradition of leftist politics and, more to the point, easily touched by US imperial(and military) reach in which imposing democracy and promoting industrialization wasa key aim. That US-based scholars who turned to third-world cities did so in the contextof their own unique national political histories and narratives was not so unusual, ofcourse, as the same could be said for European urbanists who also turned their attention

2 When the March 1955 (vol. 60 no. 5) edition of the American Journal of Sociologypublished an

entire volume on World Urbanism, the importance of examining cities abroad even if not yet in

a global context was firmly established.

3 This also meant that there was considerable government funding for this type of research in the

1950s and 1960s, further fueling the development of the field.


3/18

94 Diane E. Davis


to third-world cities. But because European political history was somewhat different, sotoo was the content of the urban research, at least initially.

Specifically, European-trained urbanists seemed to be more accepting of generaltheories about the direct relationship between urbanization and national development(ideas derived from historical study of the European experience in the first place), and

thus they may have felt less need to use the developing country context as a testingground for ideas about modernity. If anything, European-based scholars of the 1960sand 1970s who studied cities of the third world were more interested in exploring theurban impacts of colonialism and post-colonialism, including the plethora of socialproblems and economic scarcities facing cities in the wake of formal independence(Breese, 1966; McGee 1967; 1971; Armstrong and McGee, 1968; King, 1976).Accordingly, they were more likely to examine employment patterns, inequalities andpoverty (McGee, 1973; Slater, 1975) than look for the urban origins of unmet nationalindustrialization goals, a concern of many of their American counterparts in this earlyperiod.4

The historical legacies of colonialism do more than shed light on the timing of much

of this literature in the period of post-colonial independence; they also help explain why,in contrast to their American counterparts, few European urbanists sought to blamepoverty and underdevelopment in third-world cities on personal pathologies or culturalattributes. Such victim blaming arguments could easily seem entirely off the mark (ifnot in poor taste) given the history of colonialism. Whatever the source, the moresympathetic gaze cast upon colonial and post-colonial subjects by European urbanistswas well-reflected in the methodological preference for anthropological studies of urbanlife and experience in third-world cities, especially the problems of rural-urbanmigration, poverty, unemployment, tertiarization and other urban social dynamics(Gilbert, 1975; Bromley and Gerry, 1979). Colonial legacies further explain why somany European-trained urbanists were as likely to focus on African, South and East

Asian cities (Elkan, 1960; Gutkind, 1967; McGee, 1967; 1973) as on Latin Americancities, the latter of which remained the preferred point of entry for many US urbanists.

In addition to location, this carving out of geographic domains also had its impacton the content and nature of the urban scholarship that was produced. Urban scholarswho turned to Latin America were directly influenced by the emergence of dependencytheory, which linked developments within and between the peripheral south and corecities and nations of the north to larger structural relations of dependency andunderdevelopment. Their research on cities, accordingly, was more likely to be framedin the context of larger structural relations between cities, the countryside and metropolesin the advanced capitalist world. In contrast, urban scholars who did not turn to LatinAmerican cities, but looked to Africa or Asia, were not faced with the same intellectual

debates about dependency and core-periphery relations, at least not immediately; andthis made it much more likely that urbanists studying Africa and East Asia wouldmaintain their focus on the more micro-anthropological dimensions of urban life in cities.

To be sure, among American urbanists the anthropological tradition did remain strongfor several decades, even among those who studied Latin American cities. This was clearin the plethora of writings on the folk-urban continuum and urbanization as a socialprocess, including the ways that urbanization produced individualism, severed kinshipbases of social organization and produced a culture of poverty (see, for example,Redfield, 1941; 1953; Hauser, 1957; Lewis, 1961). This more anthropologically savvymethodology was most dominant among the early generation of scholars, whose

4 A caveat about sources here. The literature review on which this essay is built rests almost entirely

on the study of works published in English and Spanish. As a colonial power, France also was central

to the history and study of many cities in the developing world, especially post-colonial cities in

Africa and Asia. One might presume that writings of French urbanists would have paralleled those

of their British counterparts in methodology and focus. But with limited knowledge of this material,

and no systematic inclusion of this literature in our review, any such commentary must remain at

the level of speculation.


4/18



writings fell into the category of comparative urbanization and whose urban work wasmore influenced by the Chicago School and its focus on the cultural aspects of urbanlife. But even this literature had a relatively short shelf-life, and starting in the mid- tolate 1970s, the anthropological tradition in US-based scholarship on third-world citieswas slowly but steadily superceded by more macro-sociological approaches.

Some of the shifting emphasis towards what Charles Tilly calls large structures andprocesses, as opposed to individuals and their everyday practices, owed to the growingpopularity of social ecology among American scholars, which privileged systems-research and by so doing motivated the study of urbanization as a demographic andspatial process that molded the size and character of cities (Hauser and Schnore, 1965;Berry, 1973).5Such efforts to quantify third-world urban population patterns across timeand place (Hoyt, 1962; Davis, 1969), to identify the extent to which urbanismmaterialized in different localities around the world (Geertz, 1963; Breese, 1966;Mangin, 1970), and to elucidate the social and economic dynamics of growth in thesecities (Browning, 1958; Germani, 1967) led to further interest in the larger structuralrelationships between urbanization and patterns of economic development among

American scholars. When, on the heels of this trend, the political economy critiquebecame dominant starting in the late 1970s and continuing throughout the 1980s, thefield of third-world urban studies experienced a fundamental shift toward structuraldynamics, leading more American urbanists towards the study of cities in global context.

Linking conditions on the ground to the global context

As third-world cities continued to burgeon in size over the 1960s and 1970s, scholarsfaced the fact that even with high urbanization rates, developmental gains in most ofthe third world remained minimal, and in fact seemed to be getting worse rather thanbetter, not only in comparison to the modal patterns established in industrializing Europeand the United States, but also as measured in per capita income, GNP, sectoral (i.e.primary, secondary and tertiary) balance, employment patterns and possibilities, andpractically all other standard macroeconomic indicators (Friedmann, 1967; Friedmanand Sullivan, 1972; Bromley and Gerry, 1979). Of course, there was still disagreementabout why the situation was so dismal. The predominant argument in the 1950s andearly 1960s, among American scholars at least, had been that both high rates ofurbanization and the sorry plight of developing nations were due to the backward socialand economic nature of their countries, or especially their citizens, who were notsufficiently achievement oriented. These claims were used to explain whyindustrialization was minimal, and why the growth of cities did not seem to correlatewith social and economic modernization.

Most scholars taking this position also tended to assume that the US served as amodel of successful economic development, owing to its decentralized, log-normaldistribution of cities. They also tended to ignore international dynamics, and insteadpaid attention to the extent to which urban systems in developing countries achieved alog-normal rank-size distribution, as opposed to being dominated by one or two largecities, a condition known as primacy (Berry, 1961; Vapnarsky, 1966). The assumptionwas that rapid urban growth especially if it manifested itself in primacy was afetter to national development. Thus, many urban scholars identified the sameinterrelationship between the growth of cities and national development as had thedisciplinary founding fathers, but reversed the order of causality, with urbanization inthe developing world negatively linked to national development. In counter-attack, these

5 In this transitional period of the 1970s, we see a convergence in US and European urban scholarship,

including among those studying first and third-world cities, at least in terms of a common focus on

the internal structure and dynamics of urban life. But even then, US scholars were more concerned

with the demographic side and European scholars more interested in the employment and poverty

side.


5/18

96 Diane E. Davis


ideas were criticized as inherently western-biased, if not drawn directly from theAmerican experience, and thus inapplicable to the third world (McGreevey, 1971; El-Shakhs, 1972).

While there was no immediate resolution on this contentious issue, in the process therelated concept of over-urbanization gathered widespread attention. Of course, a city

could only be too urbanized if it grew beyond its expected or economically efficientsize, which often was calculated on the basis of rank-size distribution. But to the extentthat most third-world countries fell into the latter camp, with their cities ballooning insize beyond their fiscal and infrastructural capacities, the fact of rapid and seeminglyuncontrollable urban growth became of central scholarly importance, even if there wasdisagreement over the discursive telosappropriated to describe it (Quijano, 1967; Santos,1971; Hardoy, 1975). Soon scholars began to study the political power structures andeconomic or employment patterns that produced what Michael Lipton (1977) calledurban bias, including rural-urban migration and the national investment decisions thatover-privileged a few urban centers at the expense of struggling provincial towns and theimpoverished countryside (Field, 1970; Friedmann, 1975; Garza, 1983). This was because

the increasing urban equality and economic polarization accompanying these trends alsosustained urban social movements and overall political coalitions that themselves limitednational developmental prospects, by bringing to power governments with restrictions onforeign investment, populist economic policies, and/or protectionist measures thatfrequently undermined short-term efficiency goals (Friedmann, 1973; 1978).

To a certain degree, social, economic and political problems became so salient in citylandscapes of the developing world that many scholars turned their attention directly tothem (Walton and Masotti, 1976; Abu-Lughod and Hay, 1977). Over the 1970s, therewere countless studies of the political and macroeconomic origins of urban marginalityand informal settlements, and the physical and economic polarization they implied (seeMangin, 1970; Perlman, 1976; Walton, 1978; Germani, 1980; Gilbert, 1994; Gugler,

1988). Among the most documented issues were urban housing and employmentscarcities, rural-urban migration flows, illegal settlements and urban marginality(Perlman, 1976; Drakakis-Smith, 1980), as well as migrant or informal sector politics(Cornelius, 1973). There was also considerable interest in the national political andeconomic conditions that made these urban problems so pervasive (Eckstein, 1977;Walton, 1977; Roberts, 1978) and, conversely, in the ways these urban conditionsaffected political and economic developments in third-world cities ranging from theemergence of social movements to the rise of populism (Cornelius, 1973; Germani,1973; Michl, 1973; Castells, 1983; Kowarick, 1985).

Initially, the macroeconomic framing of these studies did not necessarily extend tothe global context, or at least not right away. In this early period, most scholars interested

in political dynamics, as well as in social, economic and territorial polarization withinand between third-world cities and their hinterlands, sought to link these urbanizationpatterns to nationalforces and conditions, both political and economic, ranging fromstate formation/regime type, urban and regional policy-making, and local-nationalpolitical articulations (Germani, 1978; Coniff, 1982; Garza, 1983; Gilbert and Ward,1985) to migrant decision-making (Davis, 1981) and firm-level location decisions madeby private sector actors (Garza, 1980).

As the 1980s unfolded, however, this began to slowly change. Much of the shift infocus coincided with the 1979 English translation of F.E. Cardoso and E. Fallettosclassic treatise on dependency, which popularized a focus on the global context ofnational development. Urbanists followed suit, and became much less likely to pose

questions about the relations between urbanization and development unless they wereframed within a focus on international economic conditions (Portes and Walton, 1981;Walton, 1985; Drakakis-Smith, 1987; Portes, 1989; Davis, 1991). Many went so far asto bypass the nation-state in its entirety not to mention everyday life in cities bydirectly examining how global economic context affected the form and function of third-world cities. The main idea in good currency was that capitalist development on a global


6/18


7/18

98 Diane E. Davis


mediated by national context, of course that helped catapult the latter issues to thetop of the urban agenda in the first place.

Granted, part of the shift in focus away from third-world cities, at least amongAmerican scholars, also owed to disciplinary developments in the United States. Thefield of urban sociology had long been on the wane, with studies of how cities

transformed themselves physically and even economically speaking pretty muchoff the scholarly map since the slow but study demise of social ecology starting in the1970s. By the 1980s, American urban sociology had become a disjointed aggregationof diverse empirical research aims on unemployment, racial conflict, residentialsegregation, welfare, drugs, etc., united by little except the questionable assumption thatsuch problems were always greatest within cities.7In this intellectual climate, concernsabout the larger political and economic role played by cities let alone their articulationwith large-scale structures and processes associated with the global economy werenot very well received in the larger discipline. To be sure, those who studied third-worldcities had always been somewhat marginalized in American urban sociology, becauseof the general ethnocentrism of American academia. But declining interest in urban

sociology in general laid an even rockier foundation for third-world urban studies, asubfield which was already beset by its own methodological challenges.

From cities in global context to global cities

At first glance, it appears that the final nail was hammered into the third-world urbanistscoffin in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The failures of communism this eventsymbolized presented an ideological challenge to academic Marxism, for which manyscholars of dependent urbanization and/or third-world urbanization had long professedan elective affinity, thereby further marginalizing them and their contributions. Yet thismajor world event also raised new questions about the post-cold war global environmentin which advanced capitalist countries would be competing among themselves for newpositions/sources of power in the international economy.8By the mid-decade, it wasbecoming increasingly clear that the end of the cold war and the world-wide popularityof neoliberalism were changing the global context dramatically, with repercussions forboth the developed and the developing world. The international economy saw a breakingdown of protectionist economic policies and an acceleration and densification of worldtrade. Paradoxically, both sets of conditions boded well for the study of global cities but not necessarily the usual (i.e. third world) suspects. Rather, the global city

7 Some of this may have to do with the anti-urban political culture that prevails in American society

and politics; and some of it may have to do with the history of immigration/migration and the waysin which US urban research so readily morphed into ethnic and racial studies, and by so doing lost

hold of many of the key macro-dynamics of urban development. In Europe, in contrast, scholarship

on urban dynamics seems to have maintained a higher visibility and more sustained intellectual

salience for a variety of historical and disciplinary reasons, some of which may have to do with the

indisputable importance of cities in European politics and culture, the cross-fertilization between

sociology and geography, or possibly even the continued salience of Marxist scholarship in which

cities are identified as the site of capitalist accumulation and class dynamics.

8 These changes hit third-world urbanists particularly hard, given the fact that research on dependent

urbanization had long been posed in the context of a normative critique of capitalism and a

repudiation of the imperial project associated with its global expansion. This tension over whether

the main concern of third-world scholarship was to assess third-world dynamics or advocate for a

particular political position on capitalism actually manifested itself in the larger disciplinary

community. In the mid-1990s the American Sociological Association section, called the Political

Economy of the World System (PEWS), underwent a contentious internal debate about renaming

itself. In the debate, members were divided over what defined the study of the third world (the

theme that originated the sections foundation in earlier decades). At this time, many identified a

Marxist orientation and a commitment to social change, as much as the embrace of the world-system

paradigm, as a key membership attribute.


8/18



nomenclature now began to be applied to the worlds major economic centers like NewYork, London and Tokyo.

In US circles, Saskia Sassens (1991) book, The Global City: New York, London,Tokyoplayed a very important role in this trend. The terms global city and world citywere not entirely new, of course, nor did the general ideas embodied in the global city

discourse trace only to Saskia Sassen, having been formulated earlier in the 1980s byJohn Friedmann and his collaborators (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982; Friedmann, 1986),and having been given considerable empirical clarity and theoretical substance in thework of Anthony King (1990a; 1990b), among others, who wrote his Global Cities:Post-Imperialism and the Internationalization of London around the same time. Butboth Friedmann and King had developed their ideas about world or global citiesthrough their empirically-grounded research and engagement with the third world insome way or another, with King examining both the developed and developing world,and Friedmann mostly the latter. In Sassens writings (1991; 2000; 2002) the emphasiswas not on the developing world at all, but the advanced capitalist world, and it may befor precisely this reason that her writings generated so much interest and commentary,

at least in American sociology. Not only were these the cities that most Americansknew and loved; they also tended to be big, exciting and prosperous cities indemocratic nations, with few challenges to their national sovereignty. This combinationof attributes helped insure that they were more likely to be active and central subjectsin the globalization process, with bright futures to boot, not mere dependents orvictims, as in the past. In the heyday of pro-globalization rhetoric, such ideas werevery appealing.

Whatever the reason for their appeal, the timing and content of this new wave ofwritings on global cities in the advanced capitalist world catapulted several conceptsand ideas that earlier had been seen as pertaining only to the underdeveloped world rightinto the mainstream of American sociology, urban and otherwise, and by so doing helped

legitimize and popularize them. One result was that more and more scholars began toaccept the premise that the ways globalization worked itself out in (and through) citiesshould be a central point of entry for studying the transformative sociological changesof our times, mainly because urban locales serve as critical nodes in the globalizationprocess. But again, these arguments were now being made with cities in the advancedcapitalist context as a main focus of study. This can be seen, for example, in the growinginterest in the ways that the globalization of capital and labor affected both urbanemployment patterns and shifts in the sectoral character of the urban economy in somany European and American cities (Sassen, 1991; Fainstein et al., 1992; Baum, 1998;Moulart et al., 2001). Remember, such themes had long been dominant in the study ofthird-world cities.

But what is most striking about this new wave of scholarship is that when comparedto the antecedent literature on third-world cities and globalization, the unit of analysisfor theorizing connections had changed, as had the nature of the connections, and bothproduced slightly different claims and different types of research to the forefront of thescholarly agenda. One key characteristic of the newer scholarship as implied earlier is the fixation with cities of enormous economic importance, and not merely ofconsiderable size. As noted above, those cities that are most likely to be identified asglobal are those whose growth and character are seen as owing to the generativeeconomic role they play, not just within their national borders, but also withinincreasingly global networks of production and consumption (Hill, 1986; Hendersonand Castells, 1987; Lo and Yeung, 1998; Sassen, 2000). This also means that what we

now call global cities are much less likely to be seen as fetters on the nationaldevelopment of their host countries, as in the past, and more likely to be conceptualizedas the mechanisms through which global economic integration takes root and greaterprosperity is achieved. And this, in turn, means that much of the contemporary researchhas been normatively oriented towards understanding contemporary cities in light ofhow they stack up to these paradigmatically prototypical global cities of the affluent


9/18

100 Diane E. Davis


north, which means the focus is often on certain positive economic indicators andwhether they have been achieved.

While such measurement aims have sustained exciting new research on direct foreigninvestment, corporate location, and social and spatial polarization long the bread andbutter of third-world urban studies they also have privileged certain methodologies

(quantitative) over others (anthropological). And as a theoretical and empirical referencepoint, this global city yardstick has been seen as so oppressive, for some urban scholarsat least, that they have called for study of diverse but ordinary cities understood intheir historically-specific complexity rather than in paradigmatic terms, be they globalcity-related or otherwise (Robinson, 2003: 260). Whatever the empirical ormethodological constraints it imposes, the emphasis on global cities as prosperouslocales towards which all cities should be aspiring may explain why most scholars ofcities and globalization now as in contrast to the past generally fail to ask whatprice must be paid to achieve global city status (Kowarick, 1986). The intellectualchallenge, of course, is what to make of all this. How much of this shift in emphasis tothe generative economic impact of global city connections owes to the fact that more

scholars now are examining major cities in a post-Fordist period, when the globaleconomy itself may have transformed considerably, at least in comparison to the post-second world war period when cities were first examined in a global context? How muchof our understanding of global cities owes to the fact that globalization wrenches certaincities out of their national contexts in ways that allow a lateral convergence amongprosperous cities that itself serves as lubrication for global processes?

A second characteristic feature of the new work on global cities is that it appears tobe producing a relatively new geographic focus, a shift which itself may shedconsiderable light on the queries posed above. Over the last four decades most scholarsinterested in the urbanization-economic development nexus examined the third world,and within it, primarily the most distressed nations of Latin America, South and East

Asia, and Africa. Now, in stark contrast, it is the US and Europe who sit in the centerof the conceptual map (Sassen, 1991; Fainstein et al., 1992; Kresl and Geppert, 1995;Clark, 1996; McNeil, 1996; Abu-Lughod, 1999; Graham, 1999; Marcuse and VanKempen, 2000), with the latter bringing the field full circle in terms of its countryorigins. Nowhere has this trend combined with the shift toward the study of affluentcities been more obvious than in Short and Kims recent book on the topic, titledGlobalization and the City(1999). Their tabular chronology of the field presented inthe text as a guide to the literature on globalization and urban change includes onlythree (of more than fifty) references to works published before 1989; and two-thirds ofthe cities they identified as global were located in the US and Europe.

To be sure, many urban scholars are studying East Asian cities, and they are doing

so through the lens of the global city paradigm (Olds et al., 1999; Haila, 2000; Shin andTimberlake, 2000; Tyner, 2000; Wu, 2000; Douglas, 2001; Olds, 2001). But what isnoteworthy about this eastward focus is that it comes without equal attention southward.In stark contrast to the earlier generations of scholarship, when Latin American andAfrican cities gathered significant attention, only a handful of Latin American cities arebeing studied in global context these days (Kowarick, 1986; Parnreiter, 2000), with evenfewer African (Johannesburg is the exception) and South Asian cities thrown into themix despite the clear importance of shifting global dynamics, urban and otherwise,in almost all these regions of the world. Of course, it is because East Asian cities aremore likely to sit in a macro-economically prosperous national context that they aremore likely to be seen as global. This fact also explains why we see comparisons

between East Asian and European or American global cities (Haila, 1999). But thequestion that arises is whether there is some implicit or unexplored assumption as towhether global cities can only exist in economically vigorous nations, or in those intransition to such status? If so, what is the tail and what is the dog here? Do global citiesgenerate national prosperity, or does national prosperity generate global cities?Moreover, how would we juxtapose such assumptions with the evidence that seems to


10/18



suggest that, for already poor countries at least, it might be the absence of globallinkages that thwarts urban prosperity, or is it some other mediating factor that holdsgreater explanatory power, independent of the degrees/extent of linkage? And then thereare the methodological questions: can we actually do reliable theory building (let alonetesting) about global cities if we only have a predominance of like cases?

New directions forward

As we think about possible answers, it is worth remembering that considerable analyticheadway in earlier debates about the urban, national or global context of economicprosperity was made by scholars who sought a deeper understanding of the social,political and spatial factors mediating the relationships between cities and the globalcontext. Thus, it is helpful to see whether a similar approach appears in some of themost recent literature on global cities, and whether it leads to similar conclusions as inthe past. One popular approach in the contemporary literature has been to focus directly

on transnational networks in which cities are embedded, and then analyze thecomposition and character of these networks in a global context (Portes, 1996; Castells,1996; 2001; Taylor, 2000; Tyner, 2000; Smith, 2001; Sassen, 2002). This is an approachthat is quite compatible with the growing interest in the changing locations oreconomic roles cities play in a regional, national or international hierarchy of urbanplaces (see Knox and Taylor, 1995). It is also an approach that was used to study citiesembedded in colonial and imperial networks in the past. But for many of these scholars,the focus is as likely to be the transnational network itself, as the institutions or practicesmediating the relationship between particular cities and the development of the network.

A second, equally popular approach shares a concern with global networks, butfocuses on territorially-bounded locations in these global networks as much as the

networks themselves. To use Manuel Castells terminology, those taking this approachare as concerned with spaces of places as spaces of flows, although they alsounderstand that one does not exist without the other (Borja and Castells, 1997; Levitt,2001). In this group we might include urban scholars who focus on particular cities, asdid Sassen (1991), who argued that the globalization of capital and labor fuels the growthand economic successes of some cities (i.e. New York) while constraining others (i.e.Detroit), in the process exacerbating regional economic polarization.

Yet a third approach is the regional approach, understood in transnational as muchas intra-national terms. This seems to be the most novel direction being taken in thestudy of cities and globalization, at least as compared to the past, when the notion ofregion referred to a spatial territory within a single nation-state. Scholars of Europe, and

slightly less so East Asia, are now studying the urban effects of globally-integrated(transnational) regionalism, in no small part because their home nations are ever morecaught up in these dynamics. Many study how globalization has increased transnationaleconomic integration in such a way as to form mega-regions with their ownsupranational governing institutions (Brenner, 1998; 1999; Wallace, 2000; Le Gals,2002; Scott, 2002). When locales that are on the receiving end of global investmentsand labor flows assume greater political and economic significance as a result, some arequestioning how long it will take for globally-integrated cities to bypass the nation-stateand negotiate directly with each other in larger regional pacts (Simmonds and Hack,2001). Both lines of research have direct implications for understanding the dynamicsof cities as well as the global context in which they operate, if only because they

underscore the ways that, in an increasingly globalized world, the nation-state or othersubnational or supranational jurisdictions either come under challenge or remain themost politically relevant unit for mediating among cities, addressing intra-nationalregional disparities, and/or coordinating new practices and institutions.

The million dollar question is to what extent and why? But this is exactly whereearlier decades of research on cities in a global context may once again become valuable.


11/18

102 Diane E. Davis


To the extent that questions about the interconnected relationships between cities,regions and nations were once the mainstay of studies of early modern Europe, and laterof the third world, the developmental context where regional analysis reigned supremefor several decades (see Friedmann and Alonso, 1964; Hardoy and Geisse, 1972),scholars could turn to the past and across developmental categories for insights.

But when they get there they also will find the nation-state, an actor that had gatheredsignificant attention in this earlier literature, but that seems to have gone AWOL in thecontemporary writings, in no small part owing to the claims of globalization theoriststhat national governments have little control over flows of capital passing through theirborders. The good news is that recent efforts to correct this blind spot are now beginningto appear. Saskia Sassen (1998: 185) has recently acknowledged that the proposition ofa declining significance of the state in the global economy has been overemphasized,and that it would be more accurate to say that globalization has transformed the state.But the question still is: how? Does the state play a different role in different cities/nations around the globe? How exactly do different states impact city dynamics (in thecontext yet perhaps analytically independent of globalization per se)? Are there

identifiable differences among states or regime-types in these regards, or do global citiesin democratic, authoritarian and communist societies develop similarly? What aboutestablished democracies versus predatory democracies in the post-authoritarian world(e.g. Russia)? Again, because these questions about states and regime types were oncethe source of critical debate in the earlier third-world urban literature, it may be time torefer to these writings as we examine the relationship between globalization and urbandynamics in the current period.

The same need to look backward might be necessary if we want to understand urbanpolitics and society in the contemporary global city. While culture is a growing sourceof interest in the current literature (King, 1976; 1990b; Olds, 2001), perhaps even moreso than in the older, anthropologically-oriented studies of third-world cities, there is still

surprisingly little on social movements, civil society and popular politics in thecontemporary global city literature, especially that focused on the advanced capitalistcontext. The latter points of entry are still more likely to be found in the general literatureon globalization, in the form of studies of anti-globalization protests for example (Smithet al., 1997; Guidry et al., 2000). With few exceptions (see Evans, 2002), writings thatfocus on anti-globalization or transnational social movements have not necessarily beensituated in the context of the city; and even when they are, as with Waltons research(1994) on food riots in Latin American cities spurred by IMF-imposed stabilizationmeasures, they are as frequently theorized as anti-liberalization or anti-globalizationmovements as much as urban movementsper se. What we still need to know, then, isthe extent to which globalization-fueled social movements, if they do materialize in

cities, emerge in opposition to urban dynamics or, in particular, to something aboutglobal citiness, as opposed to globalization itself.

Turning to the cases

It is precisely these questions about states, social movements, urban politics and urbancivil society that the two cases studies in this symposium seek to answer. With a focuson Latin America and Turkey, respectively, Brian Roberts and Caglar Keyder pushforward our understanding of globalization and how it articulates with socialmovements, regime-type and the role of the state to affect cities of the developing world.In the first of the two, titled Globalization and Latin American Cities, Bryan Roberts

offers the useful distinction between globalization from above and globalization frombelow, focusing on the political as much as the economic consequences ofglobalization. Roberts examines the effect of a greater dependence on global economicforces (measured, for example, by the share of inputs/outputs in GDP, and levels ofForeign Direct Investment attracted by the privatization of state-owned companies) ona number of variables. These include: (1) greater urban specialization in producer

1


12/18



services of urban centers; (2) economic security; (3) inequality; (4) spatial segregation;and (5) decentralization. Of these five, perhaps the latter has the most relevance for thenorth-south comparison. So the question to be pondered is whether the extent or rangeof urban spatial polarization Roberts sees in Latin America would be different from thatin the developed world; or does globalization homogenize cities, making them all

equally polarized in ways that was not clear decades ago?At present, the rise of gated communities and the development of a fragmented,

postmodern urbanism in globalizing cities as diverse as Johannesburg, Los Angelesand So Paolo suggests some shared patterns in terms of spatial polarization, althoughthe same patterns of social and economic polarization may not be so readily replicatedin these three cases (Murray, 2003). Still, it is fair to ask how much of the polarizationin Latin American cities is related to globalizationper se, and how much to neoliberalism(as a policy doctrine which privileges markets over politics and can operate in a localor national context as in a global context),9or even political transition, as clearly is thecase with Johannesburg. And are local, national or international political elites the keyplayers? Moreover, would local (i.e. urban or national) bureaucratic-political elites in

the developed world be more likely to pursue policies significantly different fromtransnational capitalist elites than they would in the developing world, and if so, doesthis have to do with the global or the local? Of course, it is possible that in the developingcountry context it is much more difficult to disarticulate all these actors and levels ofdetermination. Yet it is worth asking whether this has do with what we used to calldependency and what now might be termed the pecking order of relations betweeninternational, national and local elites or globalizationper se?

Roberts gives a preliminary answer to this question when he argues that most urbantransformations will not occur from below but from above, that is, through capitalistinvestment in real estate intensified by globalization, owing to changing social, spatialand political conditions associated with transformations of the neoliberal state and the

more globalized urban economy. But he does not ignore the from below dimension.Roberts concurs with other analysts such as Castells and Wallerstein that economicglobalization often intensifies citizenship concerns. People in cities experiencing thedislocations associated with privatization and the loss of a social safety net allelements associated with globalization react through mobilization in urban socialmovements, demands for participation in local governance, and rights advocacy. Theprocess of public mobilization also has motivated elites to employ the discourse ofdemocracy and rights, and sometimes this has been accompanied by the emergence ofnew forms of public deliberation and negotiation such as local roundtables.10

In his article on Istanbul, Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul, CaglarKeyder furthers our understanding of the from below dimensions of globalization by

examining their impact on the socio-spatial dimension of the city, and on socialexclusion as a notion distinct from economic exclusion (or polarization). In examiningthe mechanisms that mediate globalization and the urban experience, he focusesparticular attention on the processes of inclusion/exclusion and polarization/integrationof social groups (at the political, economic and cultural levels) during several recentdecades of the citys growth. With special attention paid to in-migrants who seek tobenefit from the citys economy, Keyder argues that the process of integration facingmigrants during the modernization period of earlier decades has now changed, owingto the advent of what he calls globalization-influenced growth of the 1990s. Thus,where the Roberts essay draws its claims about the impact of globalization on cities via

9 To the extent that neoliberalism brings open borders, it can help facilitate globalization; but it is

important to maintain an analytic distinction between the two. After all, the history of developing

countries shows urban and national economies directly pulled into the orbit of global capitalist

expansion, but often it was state-centered protectionism and authoritarianism that greased the

wheels of this form of globalization, not neoliberalism.

10 See, for example, Habitat (2001), Cities in a Globalizing World, especially Chapter 5: Politics of the

Global City: Claiming Rights to Urban Spaces.


13/18

104 Diane E. Davis


cross-sectional comparison of several Latin American locales, Keyder utilizes a morelongitudinal methodology and focuses on one city, comparing earlier historical periodswith contemporary dynamics. Both techniques lead to similar findings about theimportance of regime-type and the states larger development aims.

Specifically, Keyder finds that in earlier periods, the modernizing project of the

Kemalist State was characterized by active paternalistic policies such as large statesubsidies, state control of land and city spaces, state employment and access to housingand land, Fordism (linking production and consumption), population control, and thegoal of homogenizing the population (culturally) to the normative model of a modernand secular Turkish citizen/subject. Crucially, however, access to employment, housingand/or land provided a social base for migrants turned urban residents, who organizedcollectively and used clientelistic networks to pursue their interests, all of whichprovided a framework for the incorporation of these new migrants into the city. By the1990s this model no longer held. The nationalist development model collapsed, takingwith it the access to employment and urban land and thus the ability to organize intocommunity based-interest groups.

In accounting for these changes, Keyder points to three factors, two of which relateto the role of states and regime-types as well as their preferred models of development,both political and economic. Of these two, the first key determinant of contemporaryurban dynamics in Istanbul is the end of the Kemalist developmentalist project of nation-building; the second is the end of state direction and protection of the national economy;and the last is globalization, which according to Keyder now dominates Istanbulsevolution. Although in Keyders account the dynamic interrelationship between thesethree factors is not always clear, what is obvious is that neoliberalism, privatization and,presumably, much less free urban land and housing all present migrant newcomers tothe city with dimmer prospects. Given scarcer resources, already well-organizedcommunities are less inclined to include newcomers. Greater inequality, poverty and

exclusion are the results.Contained in this argument is yet another interesting hypothesis that allows Keyder

to bring new developments in civil society and culture to a certain extent into themix: because newcomers have less access to material resources in the context of a lesshegemonic national cultural project, they turn their attention and contestation frommaterial to cultural demands, or to use Nancy Frasers apt formulation, from demandsfor redistribution to demands for recognition. Moreover, the loss of legitimacy of thenotion of the political community being based on a homogenous national subject alsomeans that the problem of new urban migrants in an environment of greaterglobalization and liberalization is interpreted by dominant middle classes in terms ofcultural difference. This is most notable for the case of Kurdish ethnic identity.

Ultimately, this process feeds on itself in ways that suggest a departure from thecorporatist and clientelist politics that mediate urban social claims in earlier times andother places. Indeed, Keyder shows that demands for recognition are less able to besatisfied through clientistic and patronage politics, thereby undermining the lattersusefulness, thus channeling demands more into cultural demands, which in turn free thestate to pursue more liberalizing and globalization projects. The urban result is a greaterdegree of socio-spatial fragmentation as well as exclusion.11

Finally, it may be worth noting that Keyders analysis of local politics in Istanbul asbeing structured primarily by place of residence rather than place of work echoes animportant strand of the urban politics literature developed in North America but that hasrarely been applied systematically in the case of third-world cities.12This finding again

11 It is worth recalling here the opposite argument developed for the US, namely that urban politics

in fact deals more easily with allocational issues, including cultural demands, than with economic

redistribution (see Peterson, 1983). It would be interesting to compare this logic in the two different

contexts.

12 On the consequences of the workplace/residence community divide for urban analysis, see

Katznelson (1981) and Tajbakhsh (2000).


14/18



raises the question of where globalization fits into the account, not just in Istanbul, butperhaps in American cities. Specifically, when does social (and spatial) exclusion reflectthe direct consequences of globalization, or even its absence, and when does it trace tolocal political cultures and/or land use dynamics? Castells, for example, speaks aboutthe black holes of the global information network, i.e. the ghettos that fall outside the

flows of resources (1998), while as noted earlier many have argued thatpolarization is an integral part of the global city (Sassen, 1998). But even so, what couldbe better specified is the distinction between economic polarization, social polarizationor spatial polarization and, specifically, whether a certain form/dimension of polarizationis more or less likely to occur when processes are shaped locally (both urban andnational) as opposed to globally (i.e. with a transnational logic), or under certainconditions (e.g. certain regime-types). And again, what roles do urban governance andlocal party politics play in these scenarios? It is worth recognizing that Istanbul (as wellas other Turkish major cities in the 1980s) was a site for the electoral victory of thethen-Islamist Refah party. Thus it is possible that efforts to Islamicize urban space mayalso have factored into post-election policy. Although it appears that today there is not

necessarily a local Islamic agenda distinguishing it from other urban agendas, in Istanbulor elsewhere, this does not necessarily mean that these or other cultural forces cannotinfluence urban policy and development in ways that might counter the pressures forglobalization. In any case, further research would be needed to clarify how and why.

We close with the hope that scholars will consider these and other similar questionswhen they read the articles that comprise this symposium. We also hope our efforts willproduce more such comparative queries, and as applied to a variety of comparativecontexts: in the same cities over time, within and across cities in the same regions, andbetween the affluent north and the not-so-affluent south. In the meantime, we havethe findings from these two rich case-study articles, combined with a sense of how thefield has evolved over the last several decades, to get us started. If the juxtaposition of

all these materials can help lay some of the groundwork for further discussion and futureresearch on this essential subject of study, then these efforts will not have been in vain.

Diane Davis ([email protected]), Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Building 9-637, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139,USA.

References

Abu-Lughod, J. (1999)New York, Chicago, LosAngeles: Americas global cities. University

of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. and R. Hay (eds.) (1977) Third world

urbanization. Maaroufa Press, Chicago.Armstrong, W. and T.G. McGee (1968)

Revolutionary change and the third worldcity: a theory of urban involution.Civilisations18, 35378.

Baum, S. (1998) Sydney, Australia: a globalcity? Testing the social polarization thesis.Sage Urban Studies Abstracts34.11, 11811901.

Berry, B.J.L. (1961) City distribution andeconomic development.EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change9, 5738.

(1973) The human consequences ofurbanization. St Martins Press, New York.

Borja, J. and M. Castells (1997) Localand global: the management of cities

in the Information Age. Earthscan,London.

Boulding, K. (1978) The city as an element inthe international system. In L.S. Bournedand W. Simmons (eds.), Systems of cities,Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Breese, G. (1966) Urbanization in developingcountries. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs.

Brenner, N. (1998) Global cities, glocal states:global city formation and state territorialrestructuring in contemporary Europe.Review of International Political Economy5.1, 137.

(1999) Globalisation asreterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urbangovernance in the European Union. UrbanStudies36.3, 43151.

Bromley, R. and C. Gerry (1979) Casual workand poverty in third world cities. John Wileyand Sons, New York.


15/18

106 Diane E. Davis


Browning, H. (1958) Recent trends in LatinAmerican urbanization.Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political Science316,11120.

Castells, M. (1983) The city and the grassroots.

University of California Press, Berkeley andLos Angeles, CA. (1996) The rise of the network society.

Volume I: the information age. BasilBlackwell, Oxford.

(2001) The information galaxy:reflections on the internet, business, andsociety. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

and P. Vlez (eds.) (1971)Imperialismoy urbanizacin en Amrica Latina. GustavoGili, Barcelona.

Chase-Dunn, C. (1976) Toward a formal

comparative study of the world system.SUNY Press, Binghamton.

(1985) The system of world cities AD8001975. In M. Timberlake (ed.),Urbanization in the world economy,Academic Press, Orlando.

Clark, D. (1996) Urban world/global city.Routledge, London.

Cockcroft, J., A.G. Frank and D. Johnson(1972)Dependency and underdevelopment:Latin Americas political economy. Anchor

Books, New York.Coniff, M. (ed.) (1982)Latin Americanpopulism in comparative perspective.University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Cornelius, W. (1973) Political learning amongthe migrant poor. Sage Publications,Beverly Hills.

Davis, D. (1981) Rank-size distribution,migration, and economic development: thecase of Mexico. Studies in ComparativeInternational Development16.6, 84107.

(1991) Urban fiscal crisis and politicalchange in Mexico: from global origins tolocal effects.Journal of Urban Affairs13.1,17599.

(1994) Urban leviathan: Mexico City inthe twentieth century. Temple UniversityPress, Philadelphia.

Davis, K. (1969) World urbanization, 19501970. University of California Press,Berkeley, CA.

Douglas, M. (2001) Mega-urban regions and

world city formation: globalisation in theeconomic crisis and urban policy issues inPacific Asia. Urban Studies37.2, 231535.

Drakakis-Smith, D. (1980) Urbanisation,housing, and the development process. StMartins Press, New York.

(1987) The third world city. MethuenPress, London.

Durkheim, E. (1933) The division of labor insociety. MacMillan Press, London.

Eckstein, S. (1977) The poverty of revolution:

the state and the urban poor in Mexico.Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Elkan, W. (1960)Migrants and proletarians:

urban labour in the economic developmentof Uganda. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

El-Shakhs, S. (1972) Development, primary,and system of cities.Journal of DevelopingAreas7, 1135.

Evans, P. (1979)Dependent development: thealliance of multinational, state, and localcapital in Brazil. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ. (ed.) (2002)Livable cities: urban

struggles for livelihood and sustainability.University of California Press, Berkeley andLondon.

Fainstein, S., I. Gordon and M. Harloe (1992)Divided cities: New York and London in thecontemporary world. Blackwell, Oxford.

Field, A. (ed.) (1970) City and countryside inthe third world: issues in the modernizationof Latin America. Schenkman Press,

Cambridge.Friedmann, J. (1967)A general theory ofpolarized development. Ford Foundation,Santiago.

(1973) Urbanization, planning, andnational development. Sage Publications,Beverly Hills, CA.

(1975) The urban transition: comparativestudies of newly industrializing countries.Working paper, UCLA School ofArchitecture and Urban Planning, LosAngeles.

(1978) The role of cities in nationaldevelopment. In L.S. Bourne and J.W.Simmons (eds.), Systems of cities: readingson structure, growth, and policy, OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

(1986) The world city hypothesis.Development and Change17, 6983.

and W. Alonso (eds.) (1964)Regionaldevelopment and planning: a reader. MITPress, Cambridge, MA.

and F. Sullivan (1972) The absorption

of labor in the urban economy: the case ofdeveloping countries. UCLA School ofArchitecture and Urban Planning, LosAngeles.

and G. Wolff (1982) World cityformation: an agenda for research and


16/18



action.International Journal of Urban andRegional Research6, 30944.

Garza, G. (1980)Industrializacin de lasprincipales ciudades de Mxico, 18211970. El Colegio de Mxico, Mexico

City. (1983) Desarollo econmico,urbanizacin, y polticas urbano-regionalesen Mxico.Demografa y Economa18,15788.

Geertz, C. (1963) Peddlars and princes: socialdevelopment and economic change inIndonesian towns. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Germani, G. (1967) The city as an integratingmechanism: the concept of socialintegration. In G.H. Beyer (ed.), The urban

explosion in Latin America, CornellUniversity Press, Ithaca.

(1973)Modernization, urbanization, andthe urban crisis. Little, Brown & Company,Boston.

(1978)Authoritarianism, fascism, andnational populism. Transaction Books, NewBrunswick, New Jersey.

(1980)Marginality. Transaction Books,New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Gilbert, A. (1975) Urban and regional

development programs in Colombia since1951.Latin American Urban Research5,24176.

(1994) The Latin American city. LAB,London/Monthly Review Press, New York.

(ed.) (1996) The mega-city in LatinAmerica. United Nations university, Tokyo.

and P. Ward (1985)Housing, the stateand the poor: policy and practice in threeLatin American cities. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Graham, S. (1999) Global grids of glass: on

global cities telecommunications, andplanetary urban networks. Urban Studies36.5/6, 92949.

Gugler, J. (ed.) (1988) The urbanization of thethird world. Oxford University Press, NewYork.

Guidry, J., M. Kennedy and M. Zald (2000)Globalization and social movements:culture, power, and the transnational publicsphere. University of Michigan Press, AnnArbor.

Gutkind, P. (1967) The energy of despair:social organization of the unemployed intwo African cities. Civilisations17, 186211.

Habitat (2001) Cities in a globalizing world.Stylus Publishing, Sterling VA.

Haila, A. (1999) City building in the East andWest: United States, Europe, Hong Kong,and Singapore compared. Cities14.4, 25967.

(2000) Real estate in global cities:

Singapore and Hong Kong as propertystates. Urban Studies37.2, 224156.Hardoy, J. (ed.) (1975) Urbanization in Latin

America: approaches and issues. AnchorBooks, New York.

and G. Geisse (eds.) (1972) Polticas dedesarrollo urbano y regional en AmricaLatina. SIAP, Buenos Aires.

Hauser, P. (1957) Urbanization in Asia and theFar East. UNESCO Research Centre,Calcutta.

and L. Schnore (eds.) (1965) The study of

urbanization. John Wiley and Sons, NewYork.

Henderson, J. and M. Castells (1987) Globalrestructuring and territorial development.Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Hill, R.C. (1986) The spiders web:transnational production and world urbandevelopment. Working Paper No. 21,University of Hong Kong, Centre for UrbanStudies and Urban Planning.

Hoyt, H. (1962) World urbanization:

expanding population in a shrinkingworld. Urban Land Institute, Washington,DC.

Katznelson, I. (1981) City trenches: urbanpolitics and the patterning of class inAmerica. Pantheon Books, New York.

King, A. (1976) Colonial urban development:culture, power and environment. Routledgeand Paul, Boston.

(1990a) Global cities: postimperialismand the internationalization of London.Routledge, London.

(1990b) Urbanism, colonialism, and theworldeconomy: cultural and spatialfoundations of the world urban system.Routlege, London.

Knox, P. and P. Taylor (1995) World cities in aworld system. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Kowarick, L. (1985) The path ways toencounter: reflections on the social strugglein So Paolo. In D. Slater (ed.),New socialmovements and the state in Latin America,

Foris, Amsterdam. (1986) So Paolo the price of worldcity status.Development and Change17.1,15974.

Kresl, P.K. and G. Geppert (eds.) (1995)NorthAmerican cities and the global economy:


17/18

108 Diane E. Davis


challenges and opportunities. SagePublications, Beverly Hills.

Le Gals, P. (2002)European cities: socialconflicts and governance. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Levitt, P. (2001) The transnational villagers.University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Lewis, O. (1961) The children of Sanchez:

autobiography of a Mexican family.Random House, New York.

Lipton, M. (1977) Why poor people stay poor:urban bias in world development. TempleSmith, London.

Lo, F. and Y. Yeung (1998) Globalization andthe world of large cities. United NationsUniversity, Tokyo.

London, B. (1980)Metropolis and nation

Thailand: the political economy of urbandevelopment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Mangin, W. (ed.) (1970) Peasants in cities:readings in the anthropology ofurbanization. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Marcuse, P. and R. van Kempen (eds.) (2000)Globalizing cities: a new spatial order?Routledge, New York.

McGee, T.G. (1967) The Southeast Asian city:a social geography of the primate cities ofSoutheast Asia. G. Bell & Sons Ltd,

London. (1971) The urbanization process in thethird world. G. Bell & Sons, London.

(1973) Hawkers in Hong Kong: a studyof policy and planning in a third world city.Occasional Paper No. 17, University ofHong Kong, Centre for Asian Studies, HongKong.

McGreevey, W. P. (1971) A statistical analysisof primary and lognormality in the sizedistribution of Latin American cities, 19501960. In R. Morse (ed.), The urban

development of Latin America, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford.

McNeill, D. (1996) Globalization and theEuropean city. Cities16.3, 1438.

Michl, S. (1973) Urban squatter organizationas a national government tool: the case ofLima.Latin American Urban Research4,15581.

Moulart, F., E. Salen and T. Werquine (2001)Euralille: large scale urban development andsocial polarization.European Union Urban

and Regional Studies8.2, 14560.Murray, M. (2003) The spatial dynamics ofpostmodern urbanism: exploring evolvingpatterns of social polarization andfragmentation in So Paolo andJohannesburg. Unpublished manuscript,

Department of Sociology, State Universityof New York, Binghamton.

Myers, D. (1975) The politics of intensifyingprimacy.Latin American Urban Research6,22759.

Olds, K. (2001) Globalization and urbanchange: capital, culture, and Pacific Rimmegaprojects. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

et al.(eds.) (1999) Globalization and theAsia-Pacific: contested territories.Routledge, London.

Parnreiter, C. (2000) Globalization and mega-cities.Mittelungen Der OstgerreichischenGeographischen Gesellschaft142, 21538.

Perlman, J. (1976) The myth of marginality:urban poor and politics in Rio de Janeiro.

University of California Press, Berkeley,CA.

Peterson, P. (1983) City limits. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Pirenne, H. (1936)Economic and social historyof medieval Europe. Harcourt, Brace, andJovanovich, New York.

Portes, A. (1989) Latin American urbanizationin the years of the crisis.Latin AmericanResearch Review20.3, 749.

(1996) Global villagers: the rise of

transnational communities.AmericanProspect(MarchApril), 747. and J. Walton (1981)Labor, class, and

the international system. Academic Press,New York.

Quijano, A. (1967) La urbanizacin de lassociedad en Latinoamerica.RevistaMexicana de Sociologa29, 669703.

Redfield, R. (1941) The folk culture of theYucatan. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

(1953) The primitive world and its

transformations. Cornell University Press,Ithaca.

Roberts, B. (1975) Center and periphery in thedevelopment process.Latin AmericanUrban Research6, 77108.

(1978) Cities of peasants: the politicaleconomy of urbanization in the third world.Arnold Press, London.

Robinson, J. (2003) Johannesburgs futures:beyond developmentalism and globalsuccess. In R. Tomlinson, R.A. Beauregard,

L. Bremner and X. Mangcu (eds.),Emerging Johannesburg: perspectives onthe postapartheid city, Routledge, New Yorkand London.

Santos, M. (1971)Les villes du tiers monde.M-T. Gnin, Paris.


18/18



Sassen, S. (1991) The global city: New York,London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press,Princeton, NJ.

(1998) Globalization and its discontents:essays on the new mobility of people and

money. The New Press, New York. (2000) Cities in a world economy. PineForge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.

(2002) Global networks, linked cities.Routledge, New York.

Scott, A.J. (2002) Global city-regions: trends,theory, policy. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Shin, K. and M. Timberlake (2000) Worldcities in Asia: cliques, centrality, andconnectedness. Urban Studies37.12, 225785.

Short, J. R. and Y. Kim (1999) Globalizationand the city. Addison, Wesley andLongman, New York.

Simmel, G. (1950) The sociology of GeorgSimmel. The Free Press, New York.

Simmonds, R. and G. Hack (2001) Global cityregions: their emerging forms. Spon,London and New York.

Sklair, L. (1991) Sociology and the globalsystem. Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore.

Slater, D. (1975) Underdevelopment andspatial inequality. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Smith, D. (1996) Third world cities in global

perspective: the political economy ofuneven urbanization. Westview Press,Boulder, CO.

Smith, J., C. Chatfield and R. Pagnucco (1997)Transnational social movements and globalpolitics: solidarity beyond the state.Syracuse University Press, Syracuse,NY.

Smith, M.P. (2001) Transnational urbanism:

locating globalization. Blackwell, MaldenMA.

Tajbakhsh, K. (2000) The promise of the city:space, identity, and politics in contemporarysocial thought. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Taylor, P. (2000) World-city network: anew meta-geography?Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers90.1, 12334.

Tilly, C. (1975) The formation of national

states in Western Europe. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ. (1990) Coercion, capital, and European

states: AD 9901992. Blackwell,Cambridge, MA and Oxford.

Timberlake, M. (ed.) (1985) Urbanization inthe world economy. Academic Press,Orlando.

(1987) World system theory and the studyof comparative urbanization. In M.P. Smith

and J.R. Feagin (eds.), The capitalist city,Blackwell, Oxford. and J. Kentor (1983) Economic

dependences, overurbanization, andeconomic growth: a study of less developedcountries. Sociological Quarterly24.4,484507.

Tyner, J. (2000) Global cities and circuits ofglobal labor: the case of Manila,Philippines. The Professional Geographer52.1, 6174.

Vapnarsky, C. (1966) On rank-size distribution

of cities: An ecological approach.EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change17.4,58495.

Wallace, H. (2000) Europeanization andglobalization: complementary orcontradictory trends?New PoliticalEconomy5.3, 36982.

Wallerstein, I. (1974) The modern worldsystem. Academic Press, New York.

Walton, J. (1975) Internal colonialism:problems of definition and measurement.

Latin American Urban Research5, 2952. (1977)Elites and economic development:comparative studies in the politicaleconomy of Latin American cities.University of Texas, Austin.

(1978) Guadalajara: creating the dividedcity.Latin American Urban Research6, 2551.

(ed.) (1985) Capital and labor in theurbanized world. Sage Publications,Beverly Hills.

(1994) Free markets and food riots: The

politics of global adjustment. Blackwell,Cambridge, MA.

and L. Masotti (1976) The city incomparative perspective: crossnationalresearch and new directions in theory. SagePublications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Weber, A. (1899) The growth of cities in thenineteenth century. Columbia UniversityPress, New York.

Weber, M. (1927) General economic history.Greenburg Press, New York.

(1958) The city. The Free Press, NewYork.Wu, F. (2000) The global and local dimensions

of place-making: remaking Shanghai as aworld city. Urban Studies37.2, 135977.

Cities in Global Context

Documents

Transcript of Cities in Global Context