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 Perspective Cities in global contextDiane E. Davis

Volume 29.1

March 2005

92109 International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

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 have been studying cities (Weber, 1927; Pirenne, 1936). Use of the concept global city did not necessarily gure in the early writings on cities, but international market connections and trade linkages did. In many of these works, physical, social and economic changes in cities were tied to national and international political conditions ranging from the demise of feudal or absolutist orders (Weber, 1958) to the rise of the modern nationstate (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 cities and reinforcing capitalist development. Still, the concern with economic aspects of urbanization among those who studied cities had its own particular geography. In the United States, most early generations of urban scholars did not emphasize the economic dynamics 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 the 1940s and 1950s, when US sociologists became ethnocentrically focused on American urban problems relating to community and culture, neighborhood transformation, and social deviance or disorder. Yet it is precisely the fact that European and American urbanists initially approached the study of cities somewhat differently that helps explain the content, character and assumptions of subsequent research on global cities or cities in 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 they global or otherwise. This may have owed partly to the peculiar geographical circumstances of their home nation. The extensive size of the US and the decentralized character of American politics meant that scholars who were interested in connecting the growth of cities to trade or market dynamics generally studied them in a regional or even sub-regional context, a set of concerns that were articulated through the development of central place theory, among others. The fact that the leading American urbanists of the times lived and researched smack dab in the middle of the continental US, in the Midwestern industrial city of Chicago, also may have reinforced the disinterest in relations between international trade (and thus the global economic context) and city growth or urban dynamics more generally.1 Whatever the reason, for years very few American scholars posed questions about cities in national context, perhaps with the
1 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.
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

Cities in global context

93

exception of Adna Weber (1899); and unless scholars were examining the Atlantic Coast cities in the initial decades of the countrys founding, a topic that concerned historians of slavery more than urban sociologists, the concern with international trading networks and 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 ideological proclivities of American sociologists as to the facts on the ground, geographical, demographic or otherwise. After all, many of the changes in Chicago studied by its urbanists could readily be traced to the national or even international political economy, understood either in terms of a burgeoning immigrant labor force fueling the machines of capitalist industrialization, or even in terms of the impact of a rural, slave-owning south on regional development and/or the post-second world war exodus of blacks to northern cities. But such global or economic dynamics usually were not examined, primarily because the hegemonic inuence of Durkheimian theory among urban sociologists meant that cities were normally viewed through the lens of culture rather than 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 when Marxist critiques entered the eld in the 1970s and 1980s, that global context truly started to be relevant, at least for US urbanists; and even then, only in a very circumscribed fashion. This initial shift in emphasis to other parts of the globe was partly grounded in a positivist passion for testing ideas, in this case those drawn from the European-derived grand theoretical narratives of sociology offered by the founders of the discipline. Practically the only counterfactual cases available for conrming prevailing theoretical propositions about the origins of fundamental social transformations were the nations of the so-called underdeveloped world of Latin America, East Asia and Africa. These were 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 oundering countryside. To the extent that American sociologists wanted to understand the origins and long-term effects of these dynamics, they had an empirical motivation for turning to these third-world cities.2 Moreover, because urban growth in the developing world was starting to show a pace that differed markedly from the US, American urbanists were inspired to revisit general claims about social and cultural values of modernity vs. traditionalism, urbanization and economic development, as well as to tease out how these processes were interrelated in practice. When American scholars rst took up this mantle, cold war concerns about truncated economic or political progress and the rise of communism in the developing world also served as motivation for the development of the eld, and for the specic content of much of the initial urban research.3 Some in the US feared that if cities hosted underemployed, poverty-ridden, uprooted citizens, these folks might be more likely to support populist or communist dictators. This political concern partly explains why so much of the initial American scholarship on third-world cities focused on Latin America, considered by many to be the USAs gurative backyard, not to mention a region with a 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 was a key aim. That US-based scholars who turned to third-world cities did so in the context of their own unique national political histories and narratives was not so unusual, of course, 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 Sociology published 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.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

94

Diane E. Davis

to third-world cities. But because European political history was somewhat different, so too was the content of the urban research, at least initially. Specically, European-trained urbanists seemed to be more accepting of general theories about the direct relationship between urbanization and national development (ideas derived from historical study of the European experience in the rst place), and thus they may have felt less need to use the developing country context as a testing ground for ideas about modernity. If anything, European-based scholars of the 1960s and 1970s who studied cities of the third world were more interested in exploring the urban impacts of colonialism and post-colonialism, including the plethora of social problems 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 and poverty (McGee, 1973; Slater, 1975) than look for the urban origins of unmet national industrialization goals, a concern of many of their American counterparts in this early period.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 blame poverty and underdevelopment in third-world cities on personal pathologies or cultural attributes. Such victim blaming arguments could easily seem entirely off the mark (if not in poor taste) given the history of colonialism. Whatever the source, the more sympathetic gaze cast upon colonial and post-colonial subjects by European urbanists was well-reected in the methodological preference for anthropological studies of urban life and experience in third-world cities, especially the problems of rural-urban migration, poverty, unemployment, tertiarization and other urban social dynamics (Gilbert, 1975; Bromley and Gerry, 1979). Colonial legacies further explain why so many 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 American cities, 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 impact on the content and nature of the urban scholarship that was produced. Urban scholars who turned to Latin America were directly inuenced by the emergence of dependency theory, which linked developments within and between the peripheral south and core cities and nations of the north to larger structural relations of dependency and underdevelopment. Their research on cities, accordingly, was more likely to be framed in the context of larger structural relations between cities, the countryside and metropoles in the advanced capitalist world. In contrast, urban scholars who did not turn to Latin American 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; and this made it much more likely that urbanists studying Africa and East Asia would maintain their focus on the more micro-anthropological dimensions of urban life in cities. To be sure, among American urbanists the anthropological tradition did remain strong for several decades, even among those who studied Latin American cities. This was clear in the plethora of writings on the folk-urban continuum and urbanization as a social process, including the ways that urbanization produced individualism, severed kinship bases of social organization and produced a culture of poverty (see, for example, Redeld, 1941; 1953; Hauser, 1957; Lewis, 1961). This more anthropologically savvy methodology 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.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

95

writings fell into the category of comparative urbanization and whose urban work was more inuenced by the Chicago School and its focus on the cultural aspects of urban life. But even this literature had a relatively short shelf-life, and starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the anthropological tradition in US-based scholarship on third-world cities was slowly but steadily superceded by more macro-sociological approaches. Some of the shifting emphasis towards what Charles Tilly calls large structures and processes, as opposed to individuals and their everyday practices, owed to the growing popularity of social ecology among American scholars, which privileged systemsresearch and by so doing motivated the study of urbanization as a demographic and spatial process that molded the size and character of cities (Hauser and Schnore, 1965; Berry, 1973).5 Such efforts to quantify third-world urban population patterns across time and place (Hoyt, 1962; Davis, 1969), to identify the extent to which urbanism materialized in different localities around the world (Geertz, 1963; Breese, 1966; Mangin, 1970), and to elucidate the social and economic dynamics of growth in these cities (Browning, 1958; Germani, 1967) led to further interest in the larger structural relationships between urbanization and patterns of economic development among American scholars. When, on the heels of this trend, the political economy critique became dominant starting in the late 1970s and continuing throughout the 1980s, the eld of third-world urban studies experienced a fundamental shift toward structural dynamics, 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, scholars faced the fact that even with high urbanization rates, developmental gains in most of the third world remained minimal, and in fact seemed to be getting worse rather than better, not only in comparison to the modal patterns established in industrializing Europe and the United States, but also as measured in per capita income, GNP, sectoral (i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary) balance, employment patterns and possibilities, and practically all other standard macroeconomic indicators (Friedmann, 1967; Friedman and Sullivan, 1972; Bromley and Gerry, 1979). Of course, there was still disagreement about why the situation was so dismal. The predominant argument in the 1950s and early 1960s, among American scholars at least, had been that both high rates of urbanization and the sorry plight of developing nations were due to the backward social and economic nature of their countries, or especially their citizens, who were not sufciently achievement oriented. These claims were used to explain why industrialization was minimal, and why the growth of cities did not seem to correlate with social and economic modernization. Most scholars taking this position also tended to assume that the US served as a model of successful economic development, owing to its decentralized, log-normal distribution of cities. They also tended to ignore international dynamics, and instead paid attention to the extent to which urban systems in developing countries achieved a log-normal rank-size distribution, as opposed to being dominated by one or two large cities, a condition known as primacy (Berry, 1961; Vapnarsky, 1966). The assumption was that rapid urban growth especially if it manifested itself in primacy was a fetter to national development. Thus, many urban scholars identied the same interrelationship between the growth of cities and national development as had the disciplinary founding fathers, but reversed the order of causality, with urbanization in the 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.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

96

Diane E. Davis

ideas were criticized as inherently western-biased, if not drawn directly from the American experience, and thus inapplicable to the third world (McGreevey, 1971; ElShakhs, 1972). While there was no immediate resolution on this contentious issue, in the process the related concept of over-urbanization gathered widespread attention. Of course, a city could only be too urbanized if it grew beyond its expected or economically efcient size, which often was calculated on the basis of rank-size distribution. But to the extent that most third-world countries fell into the latter camp, with their cities ballooning in size beyond their scal and infrastructural capacities, the fact of rapid and seemingly uncontrollable urban growth became of central scholarly importance, even if there was disagreement over the discursive telos appropriated to describe it (Quijano, 1967; Santos, 1971; Hardoy, 1975). Soon scholars began to study the political power structures and economic or employment patterns that produced what Michael Lipton (1977) called urban bias, including rural-urban migration and the national investment decisions that over-privileged a few urban centers at the expense of struggling provincial towns and the impoverished countryside (Field, 1970; Friedmann, 1975; Garza, 1983). This was because the increasing urban equality and economic polarization accompanying these trends also sustained urban social movements and overall political coalitions that themselves limited national developmental prospects, by bringing to power governments with restrictions on foreign investment, populist economic policies, and/or protectionist measures that frequently undermined short-term efciency goals (Friedmann, 1973; 1978). To a certain degree, social, economic and political problems became so salient in city landscapes of the developing world that many scholars turned their attention directly to them (Walton and Masotti, 1976; Abu-Lughod and Hay, 1977). Over the 1970s, there were countless studies of the political and macroeconomic origins of urban marginality and informal settlements, and the physical and economic polarization they implied (see Mangin, 1970; Perlman, 1976; Walton, 1978; Germani, 1980; Gilbert, 1994; Gugler, 1988). Among the most documented issues were urban housing and employment scarcities, rural-urban migration ows, 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 and economic conditions that made these urban problems so pervasive (Eckstein, 1977; Walton, 1977; Roberts, 1978) and, conversely, in the ways these urban conditions affected political and economic developments in third-world cities ranging from the emergence 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 to the 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 within and between third-world cities and their hinterlands, sought to link these urbanization patterns to national forces and conditions, both political and economic, ranging from state formation/regime type, urban and regional policy-making, and local-national political articulations (Germani, 1978; Coniff, 1982; Garza, 1983; Gilbert and Ward, 1985) to migrant decision-making (Davis, 1981) and rm-level location decisions made by private sector actors (Garza, 1980). As the 1980s unfolded, however, this began to slowly change. Much of the shift in focus coincided with the 1979 English translation of F.E. Cardoso and E. Fallettos classic treatise on dependency, which popularized a focus on the global context of national development. Urbanists followed suit, and became much less likely to pose questions about the relations between urbanization and development unless they were framed within a focus on international economic conditions (Portes and Walton, 1981; Walton, 1985; Drakakis-Smith, 1987; Portes, 1989; Davis, 1991). Many went so far as to bypass the nation-state in its entirety not to mention everyday life in cities by directly examining how global economic context affected the form and function of thirdworld cities. The main idea in good currency was that capitalist development on a global
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

97

scale produced and/or reinforced mercantilist relations that fueled the growth of cities, even as they disadvantaged the countryside and the host nation as a whole. Scholars focused not just on the ways that globally unequal, semi-imperial relations between core and periphery brought a few large cities, themselves parasitic with respect to their hinterlands, a condition frequently called dependent urbanization (Timberlake, 1985; Smith, 1996). They also examined the ways these external relations produced a form of internal extraction predicated on extreme income and investment polarization between city and countryside, which further fueled migration, contributed to over-urbanization, and reinforced income and other inequalities within cities and nations themselves (Timberlake and Kentor, 1983; Chase-Dunn, 1985; Timberlake, 1987). In highlighting the larger structures of inequality in which third-world cities and nations were embedded, this new generation of urbanists did build on earlier pathbreaking work produced in the 1970s on the global context of third-world urbanization (Castells and Vlez, 1971; Boulding, 1978) as well as earlier writings on internal colonialism (Walton, 1975; London, 1980), primacy (Myers, 1975) and uneven development (Roberts, 1975), with the latter three scholars quite inuential in applying the same concepts long used to study empire and capitalist hegemony on a global scale to the local and national scales. But despite a shared concern with colonialism and uneven development, the scholars writing in the late 1980s established a path that ultimately changed the analytic point of entry within third-world urban studies. For one thing, many of these scholars began emphasizing the dependent and worldsystemic context of third-world urbanization to such a great extent that it became much easier to lose sight of how the local, regional and national context also inuenced urban development (a primary concern of the earlier generation of third-world urbanists). Studies of third-world cities that did not take the global context as a key frame of reference were, in fact, few and far between by the 1990s, with only a few exceptions (Davis, 1994; Gilbert, 1996). For another, much of this new urban scholarship was directed towards strengthening claims about a strong connection between dependent urbanization and under-development in the context of a world-system, in an urban recasting of seminal arguments about globally-produced national dependency and underdevelopment (see Cockcroft et al., 1972) or the structural logic of the capitalist world-system (Wallerstein, 1974; Chase-Dunn, 1976). Both reformulations, but especially the latter, contributed to the analytic disarticulation of cities and nations because of the weight attributed to the structural dynamics of capitalism on a global scale, thereby providing further intellectual space for studying the relationship between cities and globalization, but bypassing the nation in the process. With the global framework nearing hegemony among scholars of the developing world, a considerable number of scholars began to drop their interest in cities, turning instead to national politics and culture, macroeconomic development and/or global dynamics in their own right. This led to more research on such topics as the transnational-national state and class alliances, the global capitalist class, commodity chains, global outsourcing, etc. (Evans, 1979; Sklair, 1991), while the study of cities moved surreptitiously to the sidelines. Stated differently, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, the study of third-world cities seemed to be taking second bill to the study of globalization,6 despite the fact that it was the interconnections between the two as
6 Adding to the demise of third-world urban studies was the fact that area studies and thus individual nations in which cities were seen as playing an economic, social or political role were newly at risk of disappearing from the intellectual map. This was because in the 1990s, the New York-based Social Science Research Council, a bellwether for larger trends and orientations in US social sciences, made a conscious effort to discourage area studies and to support research and working groups that relied on comparative methodology or that emphasized commonalities across the globe rather than differences in historical specificities at the level of the country or region. This trend not only privileged globalization studies, it reduced support for anthropological, sociological or political studies of the urban experience abroad. I wish to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for alerting me to this point as well as for several other key issues of critical relevance to the larger argument.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

98

Diane E. Davis

mediated by national context, of course that helped catapult the latter issues to the top of the urban agenda in the rst place. Granted, part of the shift in focus away from third-world cities, at least among American scholars, also owed to disciplinary developments in the United States. The eld of urban sociology had long been on the wane, with studies of how cities transformed themselves physically and even economically speaking pretty much off the scholarly map since the slow but study demise of social ecology starting in the 1970s. By the 1980s, American urban sociology had become a disjointed aggregation of diverse empirical research aims on unemployment, racial conict, residential segregation, welfare, drugs, etc., united by little except the questionable assumption that such problems were always greatest within cities.7 In this intellectual climate, concerns about the larger political and economic role played by cities let alone their articulation with large-scale structures and processes associated with the global economy were not very well received in the larger discipline. To be sure, those who studied third-world cities had always been somewhat marginalized in American urban sociology, because of the general ethnocentrism of American academia. But declining interest in urban sociology in general laid an even rockier foundation for third-world urban studies, a subeld which was already beset by its own methodological challenges.

From cities in global context to global cities

At rst glance, it appears that the nal nail was hammered into the third-world urbanists cofn in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The failures of communism this event symbolized presented an ideological challenge to academic Marxism, for which many scholars of dependent urbanization and/or third-world urbanization had long professed an elective afnity, thereby further marginalizing them and their contributions. Yet this major world event also raised new questions about the post-cold war global environment in which advanced capitalist countries would be competing among themselves for new positions/sources of power in the international economy.8 By the mid-decade, it was becoming increasingly clear that the end of the cold war and the world-wide popularity of neoliberalism were changing the global context dramatically, with repercussions for both the developed and the developing world. The international economy saw a breaking down of protectionist economic policies and an acceleration and densication of world trade. 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 ways in 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.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

99

nomenclature now began to be applied to the worlds major economic centers like New York, London and Tokyo. In US circles, Saskia Sassens (1991) book, The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo played a very important role in this trend. The terms global city and world city were 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 by John Friedmann and his collaborators (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982; Friedmann, 1986), and having been given considerable empirical clarity and theoretical substance in the work of Anthony King (1990a; 1990b), among others, who wrote his Global Cities: Post-Imperialism and the Internationalization of London around the same time. But both Friedmann and King had developed their ideas about world or global cities through their empirically-grounded research and engagement with the third world in some way or another, with King examining both the developed and developing world, and Friedmann mostly the latter. In Sassens writings (1991; 2000; 2002) the emphasis was not on the developing world at all, but the advanced capitalist world, and it may be for 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 Americans knew and loved; they also tended to be big, exciting and prosperous cities in democratic nations, with few challenges to their national sovereignty. This combination of attributes helped insure that they were more likely to be active and central subjects in the globalization process, with bright futures to boot, not mere dependents or victims, as in the past. In the heyday of pro-globalization rhetoric, such ideas were very appealing. Whatever the reason for their appeal, the timing and content of this new wave of writings on global cities in the advanced capitalist world catapulted several concepts and ideas that earlier had been seen as pertaining only to the underdeveloped world right into 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 to accept the premise that the ways globalization worked itself out in (and through) cities should be a central point of entry for studying the transformative sociological changes of our times, mainly because urban locales serve as critical nodes in the globalization process. But again, these arguments were now being made with cities in the advanced capitalist context as a main focus of study. This can be seen, for example, in the growing interest in the ways that the globalization of capital and labor affected both urban employment patterns and shifts in the sectoral character of the urban economy in so many 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 of third-world cities. But what is most striking about this new wave of scholarship is that when compared to the antecedent literature on third-world cities and globalization, the unit of analysis for theorizing connections had changed, as had the nature of the connections, and both produced slightly different claims and different types of research to the forefront of the scholarly agenda. One key characteristic of the newer scholarship as implied earlier is the xation with cities of enormous economic importance, and not merely of considerable size. As noted above, those cities that are most likely to be identied as global are those whose growth and character are seen as owing to the generative economic role they play, not just within their national borders, but also within increasingly global networks of production and consumption (Hill, 1986; Henderson and 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 national development of their host countries, as in the past, and more likely to be conceptualized as the mechanisms through which global economic integration takes root and greater prosperity is achieved. And this, in turn, means that much of the contemporary research has been normatively oriented towards understanding contemporary cities in light of how they stack up to these paradigmatically prototypical global cities of the afuent
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

100

Diane E. Davis

north, which means the focus is often on certain positive economic indicators and whether they have been achieved. While such measurement aims have sustained exciting new research on direct foreign investment, corporate location, and social and spatial polarization long the bread and butter of third-world urban studies they also have privileged certain methodologies (quantitative) over others (anthropological). And as a theoretical and empirical reference point, this global city yardstick has been seen as so oppressive, for some urban scholars at least, that they have called for study of diverse but ordinary cities understood in their historically-specic complexity rather than in paradigmatic terms, be they global city-related or otherwise (Robinson, 2003: 260). Whatever the empirical or methodological constraints it imposes, the emphasis on global cities as prosperous locales towards which all cities should be aspiring may explain why most scholars of cities and globalization now as in contrast to the past generally fail to ask what price must be paid to achieve global city status (Kowarick, 1986). The intellectual challenge, of course, is what to make of all this. How much of this shift in emphasis to the 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 global economy itself may have transformed considerably, at least in comparison to the postsecond world war period when cities were rst examined in a global context? How much of our understanding of global cities owes to the fact that globalization wrenches certain cities out of their national contexts in ways that allow a lateral convergence among prosperous cities that itself serves as lubrication for global processes? A second characteristic feature of the new work on global cities is that it appears to be producing a relatively new geographic focus, a shift which itself may shed considerable light on the queries posed above. Over the last four decades most scholars interested 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 center of the conceptual map (Sassen, 1991; Fainstein et al., 1992; Kresl and Geppert, 1995; Clark, 1996; McNeil, 1996; Abu-Lughod, 1999; Graham, 1999; Marcuse and Van Kempen, 2000), with the latter bringing the eld full circle in terms of its country origins. Nowhere has this trend combined with the shift toward the study of afuent cities been more obvious than in Short and Kims recent book on the topic, titled Globalization and the City (1999). Their tabular chronology of the eld presented in the text as a guide to the literature on globalization and urban change includes only three (of more than fty) references to works published before 1989; and two-thirds of the cities they identied 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 and Timberlake, 2000; Tyner, 2000; Wu, 2000; Douglas, 2001; Olds, 2001). But what is noteworthy about this eastward focus is that it comes without equal attention southward. In stark contrast to the earlier generations of scholarship, when Latin American and African cities gathered signicant attention, only a handful of Latin American cities are being studied in global context these days (Kowarick, 1986; Parnreiter, 2000), with even fewer African (Johannesburg is the exception) and South Asian cities thrown into the mix 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 are more likely to sit in a macro-economically prosperous national context that they are more 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 the question that arises is whether there is some implicit or unexplored assumption as to whether global cities can only exist in economically vigorous nations, or in those in transition to such status? If so, what is the tail and what is the dog here? Do global cities generate national prosperity, or does national prosperity generate global cities? Moreover, how would we juxtapose such assumptions with the evidence that seems to
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

101

suggest that, for already poor countries at least, it might be the absence of global linkages that thwarts urban prosperity, or is it some other mediating factor that holds greater explanatory power, independent of the degrees/extent of linkage? And then there are the methodological questions: can we actually do reliable theory building (let alone testing) 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 analytic headway in earlier debates about the urban, national or global context of economic prosperity was made by scholars who sought a deeper understanding of the social, political and spatial factors mediating the relationships between cities and the global context. Thus, it is helpful to see whether a similar approach appears in some of the most recent literature on global cities, and whether it leads to similar conclusions as in the past. One popular approach in the contemporary literature has been to focus directly on transnational networks in which cities are embedded, and then analyze the composition 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 approach that is quite compatible with the growing interest in the changing locations or economic roles cities play in a regional, national or international hierarchy of urban places (see Knox and Taylor, 1995). It is also an approach that was used to study cities embedded 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 practices mediating the relationship between particular cities and the development of the network. A second, equally popular approach shares a concern with global networks, but focuses on territorially-bounded locations in these global networks as much as the networks themselves. To use Manuel Castells terminology, those taking this approach are as concerned with spaces of places as spaces of ows, although they also understand 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, as did Sassen (1991), who argued that the globalization of capital and labor fuels the growth and 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 much as intra-national terms. This seems to be the most novel direction being taken in the study of cities and globalization, at least as compared to the past, when the notion of region 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 more caught up in these dynamics. Many study how globalization has increased transnational economic integration in such a way as to form mega-regions with their own supranational governing institutions (Brenner, 1998; 1999; Wallace, 2000; Le Gals, 2002; Scott, 2002). When locales that are on the receiving end of global investments and labor ows assume greater political and economic signicance as a result, some are questioning how long it will take for globally-integrated cities to bypass the nation-state and negotiate directly with each other in larger regional pacts (Simmonds and Hack, 2001). Both lines of research have direct implications for understanding the dynamics of 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 other subnational or supranational jurisdictions either come under challenge or remain the most politically relevant unit for mediating among cities, addressing intra-national regional disparities, and/or coordinating new practices and institutions. The million dollar question is to what extent and why? But this is exactly where earlier decades of research on cities in a global context may once again become valuable.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

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 later of the third world, the developmental context where regional analysis reigned supreme for 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 nd the nation-state, an actor that had gathered signicant attention in this earlier literature, but that seems to have gone AWOL in the contemporary writings, in no small part owing to the claims of globalization theorists that national governments have little control over ows of capital passing through their borders. The good news is that recent efforts to correct this blind spot are now beginning to appear. Saskia Sassen (1998: 185) has recently acknowledged that the proposition of a declining signicance 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 the context yet perhaps analytically independent of globalization per se)? Are there identiable differences among states or regime-types in these regards, or do global cities in democratic, authoritarian and communist societies develop similarly? What about established democracies versus predatory democracies in the post-authoritarian world (e.g. Russia)? Again, because these questions about states and regime types were once the source of critical debate in the earlier third-world urban literature, it may be time to refer to these writings as we examine the relationship between globalization and urban dynamics in the current period. The same need to look backward might be necessary if we want to understand urban politics and society in the contemporary global city. While culture is a growing source of interest in the current literature (King, 1976; 1990b; Olds, 2001), perhaps even more so 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 the contemporary global city literature, especially that focused on the advanced capitalist context. The latter points of entry are still more likely to be found in the general literature on globalization, in the form of studies of anti-globalization protests for example (Smith 1 et al., 1997; Guidry et al., 2000). With few exceptions (see Evans, 2002), writings that focus on anti-globalization or transnational social movements have not necessarily been situated 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 stabilization measures, they are as frequently theorized as anti-liberalization or anti-globalization movements as much as urban movements per se. What we still need to know, then, is the extent to which globalization-fueled social movements, if they do materialize in cities, emerge in opposition to urban dynamics or, in particular, to something about global citiness, as opposed to globalization itself.

Turning to the cases

It is precisely these questions about states, social movements, urban politics and urban civil society that the two cases studies in this symposium seek to answer. With a focus on Latin America and Turkey, respectively, Brian Roberts and Caglar Keyder push forward our understanding of globalization and how it articulates with social movements, regime-type and the role of the state to affect cities of the developing world. In the rst of the two, titled Globalization and Latin American Cities, Bryan Roberts offers the useful distinction between globalization from above and globalization from below, focusing on the political as much as the economic consequences of globalization. Roberts examines the effect of a greater dependence on global economic forces (measured, for example, by the share of inputs/outputs in GDP, and levels of Foreign Direct Investment attracted by the privatization of state-owned companies) on a number of variables. These include: (1) greater urban specialization in producer
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

103

services of urban centers; (2) economic security; (3) inequality; (4) spatial segregation; and (5) decentralization. Of these ve, perhaps the latter has the most relevance for the north-south comparison. So the question to be pondered is whether the extent or range of urban spatial polarization Roberts sees in Latin America would be different from that in 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 Angeles and So Paolo suggests some shared patterns in terms of spatial polarization, although the same patterns of social and economic polarization may not be so readily replicated in these three cases (Murray, 2003). Still, it is fair to ask how much of the polarization in Latin American cities is related to globalization per se, and how much to neoliberalism (as a policy doctrine which privileges markets over politics and can operate in a local or national context as in a global context),9 or even political transition, as clearly is the case with Johannesburg. And are local, national or international political elites the key players? Moreover, would local (i.e. urban or national) bureaucratic-political elites in the developed world be more likely to pursue policies signicantly different from transnational capitalist elites than they would in the developing world, and if so, does this have to do with the global or the local? Of course, it is possible that in the developing country context it is much more difcult to disarticulate all these actors and levels of determination. Yet it is worth asking whether this has do with what we used to call dependency and what now might be termed the pecking order of relations between international, national and local elites or globalization per se? Roberts gives a preliminary answer to this question when he argues that most urban transformations will not occur from below but from above, that is, through capitalist investment in real estate intensied by globalization, owing to changing social, spatial and 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 economic globalization often intensies citizenship concerns. People in cities experiencing the dislocations associated with privatization and the loss of a social safety net all elements associated with globalization react through mobilization in urban social movements, demands for participation in local governance, and rights advocacy. The process of public mobilization also has motivated elites to employ the discourse of democracy and rights, and sometimes this has been accompanied by the emergence of new forms of public deliberation and negotiation such as local roundtables.10 In his article on Istanbul, Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul, Caglar Keyder furthers our understanding of the from below dimensions of globalization by examining their impact on the socio-spatial dimension of the city, and on social exclusion as a notion distinct from economic exclusion (or polarization). In examining the mechanisms that mediate globalization and the urban experience, he focuses particular attention on the processes of inclusion/exclusion and polarization/integration of social groups (at the political, economic and cultural levels) during several recent decades of the citys growth. With special attention paid to in-migrants who seek to benet from the citys economy, Keyder argues that the process of integration facing migrants during the modernization period of earlier decades has now changed, owing to the advent of what he calls globalization-inuenced 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.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

104

Diane E. Davis

cross-sectional comparison of several Latin American locales, Keyder utilizes a more longitudinal methodology and focuses on one city, comparing earlier historical periods with contemporary dynamics. Both techniques lead to similar ndings about the importance of regime-type and the states larger development aims. Specically, Keyder nds that in earlier periods, the modernizing project of the Kemalist State was characterized by active paternalistic policies such as large state subsidies, state control of land and city spaces, state employment and access to housing and land, Fordism (linking production and consumption), population control, and the goal of homogenizing the population (culturally) to the normative model of a modern and secular Turkish citizen/subject. Crucially, however, access to employment, housing and/or land provided a social base for migrants turned urban residents, who organized collectively and used clientelistic networks to pursue their interests, all of which provided a framework for the incorporation of these new migrants into the city. By the 1990s this model no longer held. The nationalist development model collapsed, taking with it the access to employment and urban land and thus the ability to organize into community based-interest groups. In accounting for these changes, Keyder points to three factors, two of which relate to the role of states and regime-types as well as their preferred models of development, both political and economic. Of these two, the rst key determinant of contemporary urban dynamics in Istanbul is the end of the Kemalist developmentalist project of nationbuilding; 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 Istanbuls evolution. Although in Keyders account the dynamic interrelationship between these three 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 to the city with dimmer prospects. Given scarcer resources, already well-organized communities 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 the mix: because newcomers have less access to material resources in the context of a less hegemonic national cultural project, they turn their attention and contestation from material to cultural demands, or to use Nancy Frasers apt formulation, from demands for redistribution to demands for recognition. Moreover, the loss of legitimacy of the notion of the political community being based on a homogenous national subject also means that the problem of new urban migrants in an environment of greater globalization and liberalization is interpreted by dominant middle classes in terms of cultural 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 the corporatist and clientelist politics that mediate urban social claims in earlier times and other places. Indeed, Keyder shows that demands for recognition are less able to be satised through clientistic and patronage politics, thereby undermining the latters usefulness, thus channeling demands more into cultural demands, which in turn free the state to pursue more liberalizing and globalization projects. The urban result is a greater degree of socio-spatial fragmentation as well as exclusion.11 Finally, it may be worth noting that Keyders analysis of local politics in Istanbul as being structured primarily by place of residence rather than place of work echoes an important strand of the urban politics literature developed in North America but that has rarely been applied systematically in the case of third-world cities.12 This nding 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).
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

105

raises the question of where globalization ts into the account, not just in Istanbul, but perhaps in American cities. Specically, when does social (and spatial) exclusion reect the direct consequences of globalization, or even its absence, and when does it trace to local political cultures and/or land use dynamics? Castells, for example, speaks about the black holes of the global information network, i.e. the ghettos that fall outside the ows of resources (1998), while as noted earlier many have argued that polarization is an integral part of the global city (Sassen, 1998). But even so, what could be better specied is the distinction between economic polarization, social polarization or spatial polarization and, specically, whether a certain form/dimension of polarization is more or less likely to occur when processes are shaped locally (both urban and national) as opposed to globally (i.e. with a transnational logic), or under certain conditions (e.g. certain regime-types). And again, what roles do urban governance and local party politics play in these scenarios? It is worth recognizing that Istanbul (as well as other Turkish major cities in the 1980s) was a site for the electoral victory of the then-Islamist Refah party. Thus it is possible that efforts to Islamicize urban space may also 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 Istanbul or elsewhere, this does not necessarily mean that these or other cultural forces cannot inuence urban policy and development in ways that might counter the pressures for globalization. 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 questions when they read the articles that comprise this symposium. We also hope our efforts will produce more such comparative queries, and as applied to a variety of comparative contexts: in the same cities over time, within and across cities in the same regions, and between the afuent north and the not-so-afuent south. In the meantime, we have the ndings from these two rich case-study articles, combined with a sense of how the eld 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 future research on this essential subject of study, then these efforts will not have been in vain.
Diane Davis (dedavis@mit.edu), Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Building 9-637, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

References
Abu-Lughod, J. (1999) New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: 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 world city: a theory of urban involution. Civilisations 18, 35378. Baum, S. (1998) Sydney, Australia: a global city? Testing the social polarization thesis. Sage Urban Studies Abstracts 34.11, 1181 1901. Berry, B.J.L. (1961) City distribution and economic development. Economic Development and Cultural Change 9, 5738. (1973) The human consequences of urbanization. St Martins Press, New York. Borja, J. and M. Castells (1997) Local and global: the management of cities
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

in the Information Age. Earthscan, London. Boulding, K. (1978) The city as an element in the international system. In L.S. Bourned and W. Simmons (eds.), Systems of cities, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Breese, G. (1966) Urbanization in developing countries. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs. Brenner, N. (1998) Global cities, glocal states: global city formation and state territorial restructuring in contemporary Europe. Review of International Political Economy 5.1, 137. (1999) Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union. Urban Studies 36.3, 43151. Bromley, R. and C. Gerry (1979) Casual work and poverty in third world cities. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

106
Browning, H. (1958) Recent trends in Latin American urbanization. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 316, 11120. Castells, M. (1983) The city and the grassroots. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. (1996) The rise of the network society. Volume I: the information age. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. (2001) The information galaxy: reections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford University Press, Oxford. and P. Vlez (eds.) (1971) Imperialismo y urbanizacin en Amrica Latina. Gustavo Gili, Barcelona. Chase-Dunn, C. (1976) Toward a formal comparative study of the world system. SUNY Press, Binghamton. (1985) The system of world cities AD 8001975. 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 American populism in comparative perspective. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Cornelius, W. (1973) Political learning among the migrant poor. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Davis, D. (1981) Rank-size distribution, migration, and economic development: the case of Mexico. Studies in Comparative International Development 16.6, 84107. (1991) Urban scal crisis and political change in Mexico: from global origins to local effects. Journal of Urban Affairs 13.1, 17599. (1994) Urban leviathan: Mexico City in the twentieth century. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Davis, K. (1969) World urbanization, 1950 1970. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Douglas, M. (2001) Mega-urban regions and world city formation: globalisation in the economic crisis and urban policy issues in Pacic Asia. Urban Studies 37.2, 231535. Drakakis-Smith, D. (1980) Urbanisation, housing, and the development process. St Martins Press, New York.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Diane E. Davis
(1987) The third world city. Methuen Press, London. Durkheim, E. (1933) The division of labor in society. 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 development of Uganda. Oxford University Press, Oxford. El-Shakhs, S. (1972) Development, primary, and system of cities. Journal of Developing Areas 7, 1135. Evans, P. (1979) Dependent development: the alliance of multinational, state, and local capital in Brazil. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. (ed.) (2002) Livable cities: urban struggles for livelihood and sustainability. University of California Press, Berkeley and London. Fainstein, S., I. Gordon and M. Harloe (1992) Divided cities: New York and London in the contemporary world. Blackwell, Oxford. Field, A. (ed.) (1970) City and countryside in the third world: issues in the modernization of Latin America. Schenkman Press, Cambridge. Friedmann, J. (1967) A general theory of polarized development. Ford Foundation, Santiago. (1973) Urbanization, planning, and national development. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. (1975) The urban transition: comparative studies of newly industrializing countries. Working paper, UCLA School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Los Angeles. (1978) The role of cities in national development. In L.S. Bourne and J.W. Simmons (eds.), Systems of cities: readings on structure, growth, and policy, Oxford University Press, New York. (1986) The world city hypothesis. Development and Change 17, 6983. and W. Alonso (eds.) (1964) Regional development and planning: a reader. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. and F. Sullivan (1972) The absorption of labor in the urban economy: the case of developing countries. UCLA School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Los Angeles. and G. Wolff (1982) World city formation: an agenda for research and
Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6, 30944. Garza, G. (1980) Industrializacin de las principales ciudades de Mxico, 1821 1970. El Colegio de Mxico, Mexico City. (1983) Desarollo econmico, urbanizacin, y polticas urbano-regionales en Mxico. Demografa y Economa 18, 15788. Geertz, C. (1963) Peddlars and princes: social development and economic change in Indonesian towns. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Germani, G. (1967) The city as an integrating mechanism: the concept of social integration. In G.H. Beyer (ed.), The urban explosion in Latin America, Cornell University Press, Ithaca. (1973) Modernization, urbanization, and the urban crisis. Little, Brown & Company, Boston. (1978) Authoritarianism, fascism, and national populism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey. (1980) Marginality. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Gilbert, A. (1975) Urban and regional development programs in Colombia since 1951. Latin American Urban Research 5, 24176. (1994) The Latin American city. LAB, London/Monthly Review Press, New York. (ed.) (1996) The mega-city in Latin America. United Nations university, Tokyo. and P. Ward (1985) Housing, the state and the poor: policy and practice in three Latin American cities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Graham, S. (1999) Global grids of glass: on global cities telecommunications, and planetary urban networks. Urban Studies 36.5/6, 92949. Gugler, J. (ed.) (1988) The urbanization of the third world. Oxford University Press, New York. Guidry, J., M. Kennedy and M. Zald (2000) Globalization and social movements: culture, power, and the transnational public sphere. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Gutkind, P. (1967) The energy of despair: social organization of the unemployed in two African cities. Civilisations 17, 186 211. Habitat (2001) Cities in a globalizing world. Stylus Publishing, Sterling VA.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

107
Haila, A. (1999) City building in the East and West: United States, Europe, Hong Kong, and Singapore compared. Cities 14.4, 259 67. (2000) Real estate in global cities: Singapore and Hong Kong as property states. Urban Studies 37.2, 224156. Hardoy, J. (ed.) (1975) Urbanization in Latin America: approaches and issues. Anchor Books, New York. and G. Geisse (eds.) (1972) Polticas de desarrollo urbano y regional en Amrica Latina. SIAP, Buenos Aires. Hauser, P. (1957) Urbanization in Asia and the Far East. UNESCO Research Centre, Calcutta. and L. Schnore (eds.) (1965) The study of urbanization. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Henderson, J. and M. Castells (1987) Global restructuring and territorial development. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Hill, R.C. (1986) The spiders web: transnational production and world urban development. Working Paper No. 21, University of Hong Kong, Centre for Urban Studies and Urban Planning. Hoyt, H. (1962) World urbanization: expanding population in a shrinking world. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC. Katznelson, I. (1981) City trenches: urban politics and the patterning of class in America. Pantheon Books, New York. King, A. (1976) Colonial urban development: culture, power and environment. Routledge and Paul, Boston. (1990a) Global cities: postimperialism and the internationalization of London. Routledge, London. (1990b) Urbanism, colonialism, and the worldeconomy: cultural and spatial foundations of the world urban system. Routlege, London. Knox, P. and P. Taylor (1995) World cities in a world system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kowarick, L. (1985) The path ways to encounter: reections on the social struggle in So Paolo. In D. Slater (ed.), New social movements and the state in Latin America, Foris, Amsterdam. (1986) So Paolo the price of world city status. Development and Change 17.1, 15974. Kresl, P.K. and G. Geppert (eds.) (1995) North American cities and the global economy:
Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

108
challenges and opportunities. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Le Gals, P. (2002) European cities: social conicts and governance. Oxford University 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. Temple Smith, London. Lo, F. and Y. Yeung (1998) Globalization and the world of large cities. United Nations University, Tokyo. London, B. (1980) Metropolis and nation Thailand: the political economy of urban development. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Mangin, W. (ed.) (1970) Peasants in cities: readings in the anthropology of urbanization. Houghton Mifin, 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 of Southeast Asia. G. Bell & Sons Ltd, London. (1971) The urbanization process in the third world. G. Bell & Sons, London. (1973) Hawkers in Hong Kong: a study of policy and planning in a third world city. Occasional Paper No. 17, University of Hong Kong, Centre for Asian Studies, Hong Kong. McGreevey, W. P. (1971) A statistical analysis of primary and lognormality in the size distribution of Latin American cities, 1950 1960. In R. Morse (ed.), The urban development of Latin America, Stanford University Press, Stanford. McNeill, D. (1996) Globalization and the European city. Cities 16.3, 1438. Michl, S. (1973) Urban squatter organization as a national government tool: the case of Lima. Latin American Urban Research 4, 15581. Moulart, F., E. Salen and T. Werquine (2001) Euralille: large scale urban development and social polarization. European Union Urban and Regional Studies 8.2, 14560. Murray, M. (2003) The spatial dynamics of postmodern urbanism: exploring evolving patterns of social polarization and fragmentation in So Paolo and Johannesburg. Unpublished manuscript,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Diane E. Davis
Department of Sociology, State University of New York, Binghamton. Myers, D. (1975) The politics of intensifying primacy. Latin American Urban Research 6, 22759. Olds, K. (2001) Globalization and urban change: capital, culture, and Pacic Rim megaprojects. Oxford University Press, Oxford. et al. (eds.) (1999) Globalization and the Asia-Pacic: contested territories. Routledge, London. Parnreiter, C. (2000) Globalization and megacities. Mittelungen Der Ostgerreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 142, 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 of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pirenne, H. (1936) Economic and social history of medieval Europe. Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich, New York. Portes, A. (1989) Latin American urbanization in the years of the crisis. Latin American Research Review 20.3, 749. (1996) Global villagers: the rise of transnational communities. American Prospect (MarchApril), 747. and J. Walton (1981) Labor, class, and the international system. Academic Press, New York. Quijano, A. (1967) La urbanizacin de las sociedad en Latinoamerica. Revista Mexicana de Sociologa 29, 669703. Redeld, R. (1941) The folk culture of the Yucatan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (1953) The primitive world and its transformations. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Roberts, B. (1975) Center and periphery in the development process. Latin American Urban Research 6, 77108. (1978) Cities of peasants: the political economy of urbanization in the third world. Arnold Press, London. Robinson, J. (2003) Johannesburgs futures: beyond developmentalism and global success. In R. Tomlinson, R.A. Beauregard, L. Bremner and X. Mangcu (eds.), Emerging Johannesburg: perspectives on the postapartheid city, Routledge, New York and London. Santos, M. (1971) Les villes du tiers monde. M-T. Gnin, Paris.
Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Cities in global context

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. Pine Forge 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) World cities in Asia: cliques, centrality, and connectedness. Urban Studies 37.12, 2257 85. Short, J. R. and Y. Kim (1999) Globalization and the city. Addison, Wesley and Longman, New York. Simmel, G. (1950) The sociology of Georg Simmel. The Free Press, New York. Simmonds, R. and G. Hack (2001) Global city regions: their emerging forms. Spon, London and New York. Sklair, L. (1991) Sociology and the global system. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Slater, D. (1975) Underdevelopment and spatial inequality. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Smith, D. (1996) Third world cities in global perspective: the political economy of uneven urbanization. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Smith, J., C. Chateld and R. Pagnucco (1997) Transnational social movements and global politics: solidarity beyond the state. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY. Smith, M.P. (2001) Transnational urbanism: locating globalization. Blackwell, Malden MA. Tajbakhsh, K. (2000) The promise of the city: space, identity, and politics in contemporary social thought. University of California Press, Berkeley. Taylor, P. (2000) World-city network: a new meta-geography? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90.1, 12334. Tilly, C. (1975) The formation of national states in Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. (1990) Coercion, capital, and European states: AD 9901992. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA and Oxford.

109
Timberlake, M. (ed.) (1985) Urbanization in the world economy. Academic Press, Orlando. (1987) World system theory and the study of comparative urbanization. In M.P. Smith and J.R. Feagin (eds.), The capitalist city, Blackwell, Oxford. and J. Kentor (1983) Economic dependences, overurbanization, and economic growth: a study of less developed countries. Sociological Quarterly 24.4, 484507. Tyner, J. (2000) Global cities and circuits of global labor: the case of Manila, Philippines. The Professional Geographer 52.1, 6174. Vapnarsky, C. (1966) On rank-size distribution of cities: An ecological approach. Economic Development and Cultural Change 17.4, 58495. Wallace, H. (2000) Europeanization and globalization: complementary or contradictory trends? New Political Economy 5.3, 36982. Wallerstein, I. (1974) The modern world system. Academic Press, New York. Walton, J. (1975) Internal colonialism: problems of denition and measurement. Latin American Urban Research 5, 2952. (1977) Elites and economic development: comparative studies in the political economy of Latin American cities. University of Texas, Austin. (1978) Guadalajara: creating the divided city. Latin American Urban Research 6, 25 51. (ed.) (1985) Capital and labor in the urbanized 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 in comparative perspective: crossnational research and new directions in theory. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Weber, A. (1899) The growth of cities in the nineteenth century. Columbia University Press, New York. Weber, M. (1927) General economic history. Greenburg Press, New York. (1958) The city. The Free Press, New York. Wu, F. (2000) The global and local dimensions of place-making: remaking Shanghai as a world city. Urban Studies 37.2, 135977.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005