Urban Studies http://usj.sagepub.

com/

Global City Theory and the New Urban Politics Twenty Years On : The Case for a Geohistorical Materialist Approach to the (New) Urban Politics of Global Cities
Delphine Ancien Urban Stud 2011 48: 2473 DOI: 10.1177/0042098011411945 The online version of this article can be found at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/48/12/2473

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Urban Studies Journal Limited

Additional services and information for Urban Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/48/12/2473.refs.html

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

48(12) 24732493, September 2011

Global City Theory and the New Urban Politics Twenty Years On: The Case for a Geohistorical Materialist Approach to the (New) Urban Politics of Global Cities
Delphine Ancien
[Paper first received, June 2010; in final form, April 2011]

Abstract In this paper, a framework is developed for analysing the (new) urban politics (NUP) of global cities. The paper is structured around three main sections. First, it briefly reviews the global city literature alongside some of its main criticisms, with a particular emphasis on its political deficit. Secondly, it suggests that this shortcoming can be addressed through the establishment of a conversation with the NUP literature. These scholarships have developed parallel to each other but their relationship has been rather weak. It is argued that such cross-fertilisation presents an opportunity to refashion and bring forward the NUP in the particular context of global cities, but only if it is developed through a historical geographical materialist approach. Finally, the paper draws the contours of a conceptual framework to address the NUP of global cities, drawing mainly from the case of London. The conclusion sets out elements of a future research agenda.

Introduction
While London, New York, Paris or Tokyo are far from being new urban centres, in the past 20 years they have been redefined and understood by a number of scholars as a new type of cities called global cities. According to the vibrant global city literature that has thrived from the mid 1980s onwards, and especially since the early 1990s, these cities owe their global status to their very high concentration of the worlds financial and related industries, the new pillars of a late capitalism characterised by new conditions of rapidly increasing globalisation, financialisation and deregulation of the world economy. Developing parallel to global city theory, another rich

Delphine Ancien is in the National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis (NIRSA), National University of Ireland Maynooth, Iontas Building, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland. E-mail: delphine.ancien@nuim.ie.
0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online 2011 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098011411945
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2474

DELPHINE ANCIEN

set of theoretical contributions, collectively referred to as the new urban politics (NUP hereafter) (Cox, 1993) has considerably added to our understanding of changes in urban development in the past two decades. These contributions include, for instance, theories on urban entrepreneurialism, urban regimes, growth coalitions, urban growth machines and publicprivate partnerships. Both sets of scholarshipthe NUP and global city theoryoffer conceptual frameworks that are highly relevant to understanding contemporary urban economies. However, like many mainstream approaches to urban development, they provide partial understandings of it. They tell interesting stories about cities and urban development, but these tales are incomplete. The question, then, is: how to develop a more inclusive or comprehensive understanding of urban development, in particular with respect to these key sites of late capitalism that global cities are? My suggestion is that the cross-fertilisation of the two literatures, the NUP and the global city literature, offers some potential in that regard. The starting-point of this paper is to explore how insights from the NUP can be used to overcome some of the lacunae inherent in global city theory, starting with its limited understanding of the politics and policies that allow for the production and reproduction of global cities. Using secondary materials from selected academic literature on London as well as material from my own primary research1whilst making occasional reference to other global citiesI draw the contours of what we may call the (new) urban politics of global cities. What I propose is an avenue for refashioning and extending the NUP to the particular context of global cities, including the particular geohistorical contexts in which they have emerged and are being reproduced, alongside the related patterns

of geographically uneven development that they are embedded in, including at the regional and national scales. Accordingly, I argue that this NUP of global cities must be addressed through the lens of historical geographical materialism, an interpretive framework which incorporates a powerful ability to set parts within the context of wholes whilst allowing at the same time for how the parts also construct the wholes. In the case of an exploration of the urban politics of the global city of London, for instance, an historical geographical materialist approach allows for an understanding of the city within the United Kingdom and its historical development, and within the global division of labour, as well as financial capital within capital as a whole; at the same time, it allows for taking into account, for example, the deregulation of financial markets in the UK in 1986 and the role played by Britain, alongside the US, in constructing neo-liberal globalisation through the elimination of capital controlsan example of the parts. In addition, the London example draws attention to the fact that such an approach allows for a multiscalar or scale-sensitive understanding of the NUP of global citiesa more spatial understanding therefore. The paper is divided into three main sections. First, I briefly review the development of world and global city theory, alongside some of the critiques that it has engendered. Amongst these critiques, I put particular emphasis on the lack of a political understanding of the production and reproduction of global cities in mainstream literatures. In the second section, I suggest that this lacuna can be filled in by using insights from the NUP. I contend that such conversation between the two literatures whose relationship has been rather weak, occasional or accidental so farwill help to refashion and bring forward the NUP in the context of global cities. I make a case

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2475

for such understanding of the NUP of global cities to be addressed through a historical geographical materialist approach. In the third section, I outline a framework for analysing the NUP of global cities. Finally, the conclusion gives me the opportunity to set out a future research agenda based on the analytical framework developed in the paper.

Globalisation, Financialisation and the Emergence of World and Global Cities

Although much of the world and global city literaturescollectively referred to here as world/global city theoryis less than two decades old, the historical legacy of these concepts dates back to, amongst others, the early works of Geddes (1924) and Hall (1966) on the world cities and Braudel (1979) on the villes-monde, all of whom refer to world cities that are trans-historical to a degree and are largely thought of as the sites of formal (national) political power. Although this is not a necessary feature of todays world cities, these early works provided, nevertheless, the foundations of a vibrant scholarship. Particularly seminal were the contributions of Friedmann and Wolff (1982; see also Friedmann, 1986). Their definition of world cities is heavily based on an economic interpretation of power. This puts emphasis on the functions of command and control of the global economy located in certain cities. For them, a crucial component of world city-ness is the position of a city in the new international division of labour. This position is determined in particular by the number of (multinational) corporate headquarters located there. The world economy is seen as increasingly global rather than international and articulated through transnational networks of key urban nodes rather than through a

system of national economies as it was under the old less integrated and interconnected order. What makes, say, London a world city today is the embeddedness of global capital thereor, rather, of multinational corporations that have the power to organise global markets. An important limitation of this founding work, however, was that it took the location of headquarters in these particular cities for granted. One was left to wonder exactly what the precise conditions might be. Many scholars operating within the abundant world city literature that has developed since then have worked towards filling this gap. The world city literature now provides a large pool of studies of factors that explain the location of transnational corporate headquarters in particular cities. These include, for instance, airline networks (Derudder et al., 2008), patterns in the professional migration of highly skilled workers (Beaverstock and Smith, 1996) and intercity connectivity (Taylor et al., 2002). Adding to the work of Friedmann and Wolff, many scholars have emphasised the role of advanced producer services and, very importantly, financial services in determining how places rank in the urban hierarchy of world cities. Cohen (1981) argued in particular that, with the development of multinational corporations, services such as corporate law, accountancy and consulting have become crucial to business operations in a globalised environment. Because of the strong clustering tendency that characterises these activities (Thrift, 1987; Daniels, 1991; Moulaert, 1991; Taylor and Walker, 2001), they are now concentrated in a few world cities, putting them at the top of the urban hierarchy (Lyons and Salmon, 1995; Beaverstock et al., 1999). In the early 1990s, Sassen (1991) followed up on Cohens (1981) emphasis on the role of world cities as places where global corporate functions were being performed, and the implications of this in terms of the world

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2476

DELPHINE ANCIEN

city as a command centre in an increasingly global economy. She argued that, in a world where economic activities and markets are of global reach, there was an increasing need for centralising corporate control and coordination functionscommercial and financialin a few nerve centres, in a few global cities. Although Sassens global city resembles the world city discussed earlier, her understanding of the power embedded in these cities is different: what puts a global city at the top of the urban hierarchy is not the location of the headquarters of the multinational firms that control the global economy; rather, it is its capacity to produce commercial and financial services. These, she claims, are the new drivers of the global economy. The 1980s are a milestone in Sassens analysis because that was when the financialisation of the world economy, long in gestation, really developed, in particular through neo-liberal deregulation policies such as the famous Big Bang of 1986the deregulation of financial marketsin the UK. So, in Sassens work, the emergence of these global cities is situated in time and is conditioned by a particular geohistorical material context: that of a financialisation of the world economy, made possible through the development of information and communication technologies in particular. London, New York and Tokyo are, for Sassen, the most representative global cities (see also Fainstein and Harloe, 2000, on the development of London and New York since the 1980s as the command centres of a new, post-industrial, global economy driven by financial capital). Although the contribution of the global city literature to our understanding of urban development under late capitalism is widely acknowledged, it has also been the object of important criticisms. From an ontological standpoint, the question of whether or not global city theory was a theory of the urban was raised. Arguably,

Sassen (1991; 2006) was interested in the organisation of globalisation rather than in cities per se. A second and related critique has to do with the very definition of what makes a city global and which cities therefore qualify as global cities. On the one hand, the focus on specific global functions and connections, economic and financial in particular, means that most cities, especially in the global South are left out of the analysis and of the global map of urban studies (Amin and Thrift, 2002; Robinson, 2002). Even in the case of cities that are traditionally classified as global, there are many other global connections beyond the range of economic and financial processes discussed in the mainstream literature that could and should be taken into account in our understanding of global-ness. In her discussion of geographies of responsibilities, Massey (2007) highlights the importance of the connections between London and the global places of origin of many workers who are key to the reproduction of the citys economy whilst being a loss to the development of their home-countries, often located in the global South. Her concern echoes Smiths (2001) call for a more fluid, less structured, bottomup, transnational approach to an understanding of the multiple processes that constitute a global city. On the other hand, many have argued since Sassens original triptych that more cities are, somehow, global too, or are in the process of becoming global cities, at least in certain aspects. Accordingly, Marcuse and van Kempen (2000) have preferred the term globalising cities, whilst Taylor (2004) has talked about cities in globalisation. In the same vein, one could add that some cities do perform global city functions but only with respect to certain parts of the world: Miami, for instance, can be seen as a global city for Latin America.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2477

Another feature of the mainstream global city literature that has raised criticism is its very limited attention to the relationship between these cities, their national space economies and their central states. The assumption often is that they operate in a deterritorialised global economy organised through a network of key cities, rather than within particular national space economies regulated by particular state apparatus. A few scholars such as Brenner (1998) have started to incorporate state theory and global city analysis to understand global city formation as an element of the spatial rescaling of the state. However, it is still rare that issues of state regulation and institutional contextsmostly at the national but also at the regional and local scalesare addressed in the global city literature. Issues of politics are seldom addressed in the global city literature. This political deficit, I argue, is a major shortcoming of global city theory, because it produces a very limited understanding of the processes and conditions that underlie, enable and constrain the production and reproduction of global cities. In the following section, I suggest that the NUP, as an understanding of the effects of changing wider circuits of capital on urban policies and their underlying politics, can be used to overcome this lacuna.

Refashioning the NUP in the Context of Global Cities: The Case for a Historical Geographical Materialist Approach
The term NUP encompasses a set of literatures, which have developed since the late 1980s, on growth coalitions (for example, Cox and Mair, 1988) and urban growth machines (for example, Logan and Molotch, 1987); urban regimes (for example, Stone,

1989), publicprivate partnerships (for example, Barnekov et al., 1989) and urban governance (for example, Goodwin and Painter, 1996); urban entrepreneurialism (for example, Harvey, 1989; Hall and Hubbard, 1996, 1997) and revanchism (Smith, 1996; MacLeod, 2002; Uitermark and Duyvendak, 2008). In this sense, it is a sort of conceptual umbrella rather than a theory of the city per se. What brings together these contributions is the premise that, under late capitalism, capital has become footloose and disembedded from particular places and business interests have taken pre-eminence in the shaping of urban policy. In addition, representatives of these interests have become increasingly prominent in the governance of urban development. This contrasts with an old urban politics that was more concerned with redistribution and service provision: a more managerial type (Harvey, 1989). In other words, the main drivers of urban policy have become local economic development and competitiveness. The need to be able to compete with other localities to attract and retain inward investment is now the primary leitmotiv of urban policies and urban politics. Overall, the objective of the NUP is to unpack the politics underlying urban development under conditions of heightened territorial competition for attracting and retaining a contemporary form of capital that is assumed to be increasingly mobile. Whilst the NUP and global city theory have developed concomitantly, they have had little interaction with each other. There have been some noteworthy exceptions, such as Brenner (1998) and Hill and Kim (2000)s endeavours to connect state theory and global city theory in the empirical contexts of western European cities, alongside New York, Tokyo and Seoul, or Machimuras (1992) thorough consideration of the peculiarity of the institutional and political arrangements that have led to the global city formation of Tokyo. In the

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2478

DELPHINE ANCIEN

case of London, Buck and his colleagues (2002) and Hamnett (2003) have outlined global city theory in their respective discussions on recent political developments and their impact on the form of development in London. However, in general the relationship between the two literatures has been rather occasional or even accidental and, overall, weak. Whilst this lack of dialogue is illustrative of the partiality of most mainstream approaches to urban politics, two specific explanations for the limited reciprocity between the NUP and global city scholarships can be put forward. First, their scalar point of departure is different: whilst the NUP focuses mainly on local reactions and adaptations to new macroeconomic conditions under late capitalism, global city theory is concerned with how the globalisation and financialisation of the world economy have led to the development of a new type of urban economy. The analysis of the former starts with the local, when the latter begins with the global. This is exemplary of the dualist approach to the local and the global and, usually, the explanatory primacy of either scale that characterises many literatures on local economic development, whilst, in fact, local and global forces and processes are mutually constitutive and need to be examined as such. Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, the NUP has had little resonance in the global city literature because global city research has had a limited interest in explaining the politics underlying the processes of urban development and the problems that those cities face as a result of their growth pattern. These include, for example, issues of labour reproduction such as housing shortages. The existence of global cities is understood in the mainstream literature as a function of market forces. States (whether national or local), regulation and policy are not considered as fundamental drivers of change in local

economic development. With rare exceptions, ideas of governance, growth coalitions or urban regimes, which are central to an understanding of contemporary local economic development from a NUP perspective, have not affected global city research much and have often only been occasionally, contingently or accidentally considered.2 These observations lead me to the threefold argument that will underpin the remainder of this paper. First, I suggest that this political deficit in the literature on global cities development must be addressed if we are to understand the particular politics of local development that underlie, condition, enable or constrain the reproduction of these cities as constitutive elements of particular geographies of uneven development. Secondly, I contend that this weakness can be overcome through a more systematic cross-fertilisation of the two scholarships. Whilst other scholars have paved the way in that direction by marrying state theory and global city theory (for example, Brenner, 1998; Hill and Kim, 2000) or by using global city theory in their understanding of changes in the form of urban development in particular cities (for example, in the case of London, Buck et al., 2002; Buck et al., 2005; Hamnett, 2003; Massey, 2007), what I am more interested in are the political mechanisms, governance arrangements and configurations of powergrowth coalitions, publicprivate partnerships and other regimes as per the NUP literaturethat make the reproduction of such so-called global city economies possible (or not) in particular places. What I propose, therefore, is to refashion and to extend the NUP approach to the particular context of global cities, including the particular geohistorical contexts in which they have emerged and are being reproduced, alongside the related patterns of geographically uneven development that they are

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2479

embedded in, including at the regional and national scales. Finally, I argue that the NUP of global cities must be addressed through the lens of historical geographical materialism. The power of such an interpretive framework lies in particular in its ability to set parts within the context of wholes, whilst at the same time allowing for an understanding of how the parts also construct the wholes. Accordingly, such an approach contributes to our understanding of contemporary urban politics, both epistemologically and ontologically, in three main ways. First, it allows for overcoming issues of partiality of most mainstream approaches to urban politics and limited reciprocity in theories of urban developmentincluding the NUP. Secondly, it encompasses a multiscalar or scale-sensitive understanding of the NUP of global cities, therefore offering a more comprehensive spatial understanding. Thirdly, it brings together different conceptualisations of capital and emphasises the significance of capital understood as a production relation, in addition to the analysis of exchange relations that typically characterises both the NUP and the global city literature. Whilst the former focuses on the increased ability of capital to move from one place to another under late capitalism as the chief driver of changes in urban development leading to a need for cities to be more entrepreneurial, to plan economic development strategically, to become more businessfriendlythe latter puts a strong emphasis on the links that cities have with the global arena, with other major urban nodes, through various kinds of networks and flows. Both sets of scholarship are primarily concerned with the sphere of exchange and circulation, and patterns of power or, rather, of corporate command. Although we surely need to hang on to the useful link to wider circuits of capital, analysing capital simply and solely in terms of an exchange

relation, resulting in an overemphasis on flows of money and investment understood as embodiments of capitals increasing mobility, particularly in global or globalis ing cities (Gonzalez, 2009), is problematic for understanding the nature of contemporary capitalism and its implications for cities (Cox, 1993). Such an approach fails to acknowledge the centrality of the accumulation process and all it implies, beyond territorial competition and exploitation, in understanding the production and the reproduction of cities, including global cities and their particular economies. Accumulation is not to be addressed merely in terms of the production and associated processes such as exploitation and competition as it typically is in mainstream global city literatures, but, rather, it must be conceived as a more complex and multifaceted social process. This includes a concern for the logics of capital, regulation and the role of the state, labour and social reproduction; all that in the context of the particular histories and geographies of specific global cities, characterised by particular spatialities of power and their legacies, beyond and within the city (Allen, 1999, 2010). In the next section, I incorporate these various elements to outline an historical geographical materialist conceptual framing for making sense of the NUP of global cities.

Drawing the Contours of a (New) Urban Politics of Global Cities

A historical geographical materialist understanding of cities under late capitalism implies that great attention be paid to particular ensembles of relations, conditions and constraints, how they unfold over time and how they are both produced through particular spatial configurations and, in turn, produce certain geographies of capitalist development (Harvey, 1984). Therefore,

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2480

DELPHINE ANCIEN

situating urban development and its politics within broader spatial and scalar frameworks as well as particular historical geographiesincluding particular political and institutional contextsshould be a priority for any urban scholarship, including research on global cities and their NUP. In this section, I discuss how some key conceptualisations and understandings of the NUP literature so far can be reassessed and/or rethought and the whole approach refashioned in the context of global cities, with a view to develop an analysis that is particularly sensitive to space, scale and time. I conclude with an illustration of how the proposed conceptual framework can help us make sense of the NUP of global cities by using the case of Londons housing problem.
Situating the NUP of Global Cities in Broader Historical Geographies of Capitalist Development

The NUP literature is very much sensitive to the history of capitalist development and related patterns of geographically uneven development. Its situating of an analysis of urban politics within a broader context of the historical development of late capitalism as increasingly globalised, financialised, deregulated and, arguably, footloose, is absolutely crucial to an understanding of the emergence and development of the socalled global cities. Yet an understanding of the NUP of global cities must also be very sensitive to particular geographical contexts. Whilst the NUP scholarship has grown more aware of the impact of variegated geographical contexts on changes in local politicsfirst by moving from a US-centred analysis to a study of other Western cities (for example, Harding, 1997, on British and European cities; MacLeod, 2002, on Glasgow; Uitermark and Duyvendak, 2008, on Rotterdam) and then to non-Western contexts (for example, Crossa, 2009, on

Mexico City; Swanson, 2007, on Ecuador; Jessop and Sum, 2000, on Hong Kong)it is still rare that questions of national and regional contexts are centrally investigated. Acknowledging a few important exceptions (for example, Machimura, 1992, on Tokyo; Abu-Lughod, 1999, on global cities in the US; Massey, 2007, on London), the literature on global cities tends to assume that global cities are to a great extent disconnected from the historical development paths of their national and regional space economies. The development of London, for example, is significantly enmeshed with the historical growth trajectories of the UK as a whole. Its development as aif not theworld financial centre cannot be understood outside the backdrop of the historical increasing dominance of financial capital over industrial capital in the UK (Ingham, 1984; Leys, 1986; Anderson, 1987; Cain and Hopkins, 1993; Rubinstein, 1993). A key element here is the international bias of financial capital City-style and its neglect of domestic industries, which is to be understood against the background of the industrialisation of other countries in the 19th century, in particular through the overseas investments that the City mediated. These largely took the form of purchases of the bond issues of foreign governments that went into physical infrastructures like railroads in, for example, Canada, Argentina, Australia and the US mostly (former) British colonies, although not exclusively. Britains imperial history and its legacy are also critical to understand the social reproduction of labour in the global city. Crucially, this includes the armies of low-income workers in, for example, the catering, hotel and contract office-cleaning industries that support the financial and related sectors. Many of them are immigrants (May et al., 2007; Wills et al., 2010), mostly from former British territories, single or with family in their

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2481

home country. This significantly decreases the cost of their reproduction as workers in London. They have therefore become a key element of the NUP of global cities and both skilled (Sassen, 1999; Findlay et al., 1995; Beaverstock, 2005) and unskilled migration (Samers, 2002; Massey, 2007; McDowell et al., 2009; Wills et al., 2010) feature as central themes of the global city scholarship. A key underlying assumption of the NUP is the tremendously increasing footloose-ness of capital under late capitalism. This hypermobility of capital thesis has been the object of significant scepticism. One of the earliest critiques was formulated by Cox (1993) whose own research has shed light on the continuous importance of local dependencies under late capitalism (Cox and Mair, 1988; Cox, 1998). The importance of agglomeration economies in the global city context (for a review, see Phelps and Ozawa, 2003; see also Scott, 1988; Storper, 1997) further problematises the hypermobility argument. The concept of economies of agglomeration provides insights that are essential to an understanding of historical geographies of accumulation, how they emerge, develop and change over time, and generate new forms of urbanisation. Some features of global cities that have been created over time act as spatial fixes that anchor capital there (Harvey, 2000), in particular financial capital. It is unlikely that the City of London, for instance, will lose its position in the international division of labour as a world financial centre any time soon. This is because of the strongly immobilising effects, creating strong local dependencies (Cox and Mair, 1988; Cox, 1998), of agglomeration economies for most service industries (Scott, 1988) and even more so for advanced producer services (Moulaert, 1991), including finance-related activities. They are difficult

to reconstitute elsewhere. A financial firms relocation involves it finding a place with an adequate pool of labourhighly concentrated in a few cities around the worldbut also investing a lot of time, money and energy in (re)building the social and personal relations, knowledge and trust, which allow it to take advantage of its proximity to other firms in this new place. This helps us understand capitals strong tendencies to fixity in addition to, and in contradiction with, its fundamental tendency to mobility (Harvey, 1982, 1985). Thus, maintaining the agglomeration effect becomes a political question, involving a wide range of stakeholders. The idea of agglomeration also provides us with insights on the ability of places to reinvent themselves. Large metropolitan areas, in particular, are often, although not always, characterised by highly developed divisions of labour. These facilitate innovation (Veltz, 2005; Florida, 2008) through co-operation and the exchange and crossfertilisation of a variety of experience, expertise and ideas. These also facilitate quick reaction to market changes by allowing firms to draw on a deep pool of highly developed expertise (Veltz, 2005). For example, the accumulation over time of diverse technical capacities and understandings in trade, insurance and financerelated businesses has allowed the City of London to remain a major innovator in financial services. Amongst other things, City firms have been able to react quickly to the need for new financial products and services adapted to changing regional and global conditions, exploring new and profitable niches in financial services, providing London with additional advantages in the global financial market and triggering further agglomeration effects. This was the case when the Eurodollar and Eurobond markets developed in the 1960s, as a result of the heavy constraints imposed by the US

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2482

DELPHINE ANCIEN

federal government to US firms on overseas investment.3 Finally, agglomeration means tendencies towards increasing returns to scale, and economies of agglomeration allow for the elimination of competing centres. Following the development of the Eurodollar and Eurobond markets, London became Europes uncontested principal financial centre, repelling potentially serious competition from, say, Frankfurt and Paris. On the other hand, there is always the danger that continuing agglomeration will result in diseconomies of scale. To some degree, firms can handle this challenge themselvesfor example, as they seek to relocate more routinised parts of their operations to cheaper locations (Scott, 1986). Accordingly, Londons City firms have relocated parts of their back-office functions from the increasingly expensive centre to relatively cheaper parts of London such as Croydon and Canary Wharf, or to other locations within the South East, such as Reading. Of course, this can only take them so far in dealing with diseconomies of agglomeration and this is why the state has become so important recently in the reproduction of London.
Understanding the Role(s) of the State in Shaping the NUP of Global Cities

The role of the state in the new configurations of power and governance under late capitalism is at the heart of the NUP. The NUP is about the changing role of the state, not about its hollowing-out. It explores new modes of intervention and engagements with other agents of the politics of urban development under new macroeconomic conditions. However, the NUPs conceptualisations of the state are often limited to the local state and the analyses often focus on city governments. Addressing urban politics in the context of global cities presents an opportunity to resituate a reflection on the

role of the state in the NUP of global cities against a broader changing scalar division of the state as unpacked through the transformationalist perspective of a rich body of work on the contemporary reorganisation of the state in relation to its changing role in an era of increasing neo-liberalisation. This includes, for instance, insights on the qualitative (rather than quantitative) changes in the role of the statethe qualitative state (Block, 1994; ONeill, 1997)in regulating markets under neo-liberal capitalism; the rolling-back of an old form of statecraft and the rolling-out of new forms of regulation, including changing scales of regulation (Peck, 2001, 2003; Peck and Tickell, 2002); variegated processes of creative destruction in institutional and regulatory apparatuses (Brenner and Theodore, 2002); and the related emergence of new spatial selectivities of the state (Jones, 1997) as well as new state spaces (Brenner et al., 2003; Brenner, 2004) and spatialities (MacLeavy and Harrison, 2010). First, we need to (re)introduce national states and national governments in the analysis. Global cities are seen as key drivers of national economies by central governments, treated as such, and significant pieces of national legislation are enacted with a view to protect the growth of the financial and related industries. Monetary policy in the UK is a case in point: the British governments reluctance to devaluate the pound in order to stimulate the export performances of its industries, which were starting to struggle in the 1960s, was motivated by the importance of maintaining the value of the pound sterling as an international reserve currency, maintaining therefore the Citys status as a dealer in pound-sterlingdenominated securities and as an international banker. Secondly, we need to take into consideration the development of new forms of government, in particular metropolitan and/or regional governments, to

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2483

regulate the reproduction of global cities, and the politics underpinning the development of such strategic new government agencies. Examples include the establishment of the Greater London Authority (GLA) in 2000 and the projected launch of a metropolitan-wide governing authority of the Grand Paris by the French government. The latter initiative, strongly supported by President Nicolas Sarkozy, has been highly controversial, not the least because of its undemocratic character, and has been challenged by another project of metropolitan governance, Paris Metropole, proposed by the Mayor of Paris and Sarkozys political opponent, Bertrand Delanoe. Thirdly, we need to pay more attention to the local state at sub-urban scalesi.e. within the city. For instance, both London and Paris encompass smaller-area territorial jurisdictionsLondons 32 boroughs and Paris 20 arrondissementswhich are administered by elected local governments exercising a wide range of public policy powers through which they shape and influence urban politics. All these different scales of the state play key roles in shaping production and (social) reproduction in global cities and, consequently, in the production and reproduction of these cities. As far as production is concerned, examples include: monetary policy as per the earlier example; the deregulation of capital controls and the liberalisation of financial markets in the US and in the UK in the mid 1980s; the deregulation of offices and firms localisation policy in the case of London and Paris; and the (re)zoning of large portions of land for office development, like Canary Wharf in London. In terms of social reproduction, one can think of the following: planning and housing policies at various urban and sub-urban scales, but also at the metropolitan scale (for example, in the case of the GLA in London) and at the national scale; transport policies and

public transport projects such as Londons Crossrail or Grand Paris Express, involving different scales of government; or wage policy and labour-related benefits such as the provision of a London allowance to public sector workers. The state does not only play a key role in the material production and reproduction of global cities. It also plays a crucial role in the discursive production and reproduction of these cities. The role of entrepreneurial and civic boosterism discourses developed by local growth coalitionsincluding local governmentsin promoting, supporting and cementing the NUP (Harvey, 1989) has been discussed in the literature through a variety of empirical studies, including in the global city literature. In the case of London, whilst Gordon (2004) sheds light on how a global city rhetoric underpins the provisions of Mayor Livingstones London Plan (Mayor of London, 2002), Massey (2007) situates such a discourse in a broader economic geographical imaginary that portrays London as the golden goose that lays eggs for the rest of the country. This imaginary has been discursively reproduced by successive central governments that have used it to rationalise, justify and enable the implementation of policies designed to sustain the continuous growth of London around financial and related activities, even if in effect these industries contribution to the national economy may be more limited than the hegemonic global city discourse leads us to believe. For example, for the 2006/07 fiscal yeari.e. before the global financial crisis of 2008the estimated total tax receipts for the financial-services sector as a whole in the UK was 67.8 billion, representing 13.9 per cent of total government tax receipts (PWC, 2008). This fell to 53.4 billion or 11.2 per cent for 2009/10 (PWC, 2010). Given the power of the state to construct particular hegemonic scalar nar ratives (Gonzalez, 2006) that provide the

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2484

DELPHINE ANCIEN

dominant social imaginary . in which policy issues are framed, political subjectivities mobilized and judged to be legitimate, rational (McGuirk, 2004, p. 1024), exploring the range of ways in which global city discourses promoted at various scales of the state play a role in producing and reproducing the NUP of global citiesand particular geographies of uneven development appears as a fundamental element of further research.
Positioning the NUP of Global Cities at the Nexus of Multiple Scales

due to an acceleration of urbanisation in an era of rapid globalisation. Nevertheless, whilst the regional scale has been introduced to the global city literature through the promising development of a global city-regions literature, the national scale still rarely appears as a fundamental dimension of global city analysis. National space economies are often part of the background of the global city narrative, when they should be brought to the fore, as Massey emphasises when she claims that
there is no question but that the reinvention of London as a global city has been set within a national geography that is markedly, and increasingly, unequal (Massey, 2007, p.98).

Scale and its politics are crucial elements of an understanding of the processes that condition the emergence and development of global cities because these processes unfold beyond the scale of the global and the scale of the city. However, with some notable exceptions, both the NUP and the global city literatures have largely yet to engage with a truly multiscalar analysis, including, but not limited to, an analysis of the role of the state at multiple scales. This is not to ignore that scale is present in some global city literature. In fact, an interesting development in the scholarship on the global city in the past decade has been its rescaling through the development of a literature on the concept of global city-regions (Scott et al., 2001; Harrison, 2011) which focuses much more on cities internal and external linkages, as opposed to the sole emphasis on external linkages in the global city literature. In other words, whilst global cities are analysed almost solely in terms of their external linkages and viewed as territorial platforms for multinational firms, global city-regions are understood both in terms of their external linkages and in terms of their internal linkages to other towns in their surrounding area which have become extremely functionally connected to the global city

The production and reproduction of global cities are indeed embedded in particular national and regional (uneven) geographies of development that cannot be ignored and must be central to our understanding of the NUP of global cities. Positioning an understanding of these politics at the nexus of multiple scales presents us yet with another avenue for refashioning the NUP in the particular context of global cities. Whilst the NUP has mainly focused on the relationships between global processes and the development of NUP, as noted earlier, there have been some exceptions. For example, the works of McGuirk (2003) on Sydney or Oosterlynck (2010) on Belgium tend to suggest that thinking in terms of a new politics of regions might be more pertinent in some instances. Such an approach can help shed light on the highly multiscalar embeddedness of global cities, in particular through an unpacking of the tensions generated within and amongst scales by the reproduction of these cities. The case of London and its surrounding region, the South East, is quite enlightening in that respect. A major problem for London in dealing with its housing problem has been its limited ability

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2485

to rely on near-by localities to provide affordable housing for Londons workers. This is because the South East has its own housing shortage problems, which are the outcome of its own growth since the 1980sbased on high-tech industries and other growth industries like pharmaceutical and health industries and aircraft and aerospace industriesi.e. parallel to, but to a great extent disconnected from, the growth of financial services in Londonand of its own politics of the living place and of social reproduction that favours low-density housing and the preservation of a semi-rural and small-town landscape. This situation illustrates how comprehending the NUP of global cities entails an examination of what is global and what is local/urban, but also regional, national, neighbourhood-based, metropolitan, etc. in global city politics. Here, both the concepts of scale and of the politics of scale (Swyngedouw, 1997; Delaney and Leitner, 1997; Cox, 1998) are very useful in understanding how global cities are always embedded in wider sets of sociospatial relations that need to be managed if they are to be reproduced, as a more detailed discussion of Londons housing question will illustrate.
The NUP of Global Cities Illustrated: The Politics of Scale in Solving Londons Housing Question

Londons housing problem and the ways it has been dealt with provide an opportunity to bring together various elements of this discussion and to illustrate what the NUP of global cities looks like in London. It sheds light, in particular, on the significance of the governance arrangements and political mechanisms that unfold across multiple scales, allowing for the reproduction of London as a global city. In the past couple of decades, London has experienced an escalation of its housing

prices parallel to no other British city, aggravated by its global city status. The influx of new high-income urban elites (Sassen, 1995, p. 66) or high-income managers and professionals as well as wealthy overseas buyers (Hamnett, 2009, p. 302) has driven London housing prices upwards (see also Hamnett, 2003), making housing in the city less affordable for those with lower earnings.4 Besides, the increase in single-person households since the 1980s has put additional pressure on housing demand in London (Hall and Ogden, 2003; Ermisch and Murphy, 2006). In 2009, the average cost of a house in London was 338 120.5 It was 34 640 in 1983.6 The inflation of house prices in London was the steepest between 1995 and 2007, with an average increase of 233 per cent over the 12-year period, albeit with substantial differences across the city (Hamnett, 2009).7 As a result, London has experienced difficulty accommodating more people and ensuring the social reproduction of its labour force and this may threaten future growth. Accordingly, solutions to the housing problem have been sought. The degrees of freedom within which potential solutions to Londons housing crisis have to be sought are conditioned by a particular juxtaposition of conditions and forces. The first two intertwined conditions to consider here are: first, a politics of scale involving various private and public stakeholders with diverse and sometimes divergent interests; and, secondly, Londons existing governance structures, including its jurisdictional fragmentation and the limited fiscal autonomy of the 32 boroughs that form London. This has a great impact on the particular politics of scale that has emerged around the necessity to solve the housing problem, one of both co-operation and conflict. The GLALondons metropolitan governmenthas been frustrated by the exclusionism of the boroughs and

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2486

DELPHINE ANCIEN

has turned to the national government for enhanced powers, granted in 2007. The boroughs have been able to indulge their NIMBY-ism because they lack incentives to promote housing development: municipal finance in Britain is ultimately controlled by the central state and any increase in the local tax-base is compensated by a reduction in the central government contribution. However, the fact that the national government also has an interest in resolving Londons housing problemmitigating the housing problem to support the reproduction of Londons global city economy is seen as crucial to the preservation of the countrys alleged golden goosehas meant a favourable reception to GLA pressures. The influences, therefore, move both up the scalar hierarchy of the state, from the boroughs and the GLAalbeit on their own termsand down from the national government and, eventually, from the GLA downwards to the boroughs. The politics of Londons housing question is one in which the standard categories of national, local and regional politics make little sense on their own; such is always the case with the politics of scale. This is not to say that the political geography of the London housing question is exclusively one of pressures moving between the national, the metropolitan and the local. It is clear that there are some differences of interest amongst the boroughs; some simply have more developable land than others and they are not the ones in which the housing question is most urgent. Likewise there are divisions at the national level. This has given added piquancy to the politics of scale. Different factions at a given scale can make common cause with each other, so generating alternative coalitions and therefore alternative politics of scale. A third and fundamental condition that one ought to consider here is the form of the British state beyond issues of jurisdictional

fragmentation and fiscal dependence. One must consider its highly centralised character and the implications of such structures as, for example, national pay scales for public-sector employees as they confront housing costs that vary significantly over space and hence what it means in terms of attracting to, and retaining these workers in, particular places, notably London. Another thing to take into account is the ways in which the central governments land use powers have constrained the expansion of London, both horizontallythrough the historical greenbelt legislationand verticallyby blocking local planning decisions that might challenge Londons historical landscape, preventing the densification of housing through the construction of highrise buildings. The exercise of these powers has put additional pressure on land and property prices and fuelled the very housing crisis it has been intending to solve.

Conclusion
In this paper, I have argued in favour of the opening-up of a dialogue, of a process of cross-fertilisation between the NUP and global city literatures, not only as a way to plug the political hole in the global city literature with insights from the NUP, but, perhaps most interestingly, as a way to extend the NUP scholarship to the particular context of global cities with a view to refashion it. The proposed analytical framework is theoretically informed by historical geographical materialism. Such a lens, I argue, allows for overcoming the partiality of most mainstream approaches to urban development and to urban politics, and for rehabilitating an understanding of capital as a production relation and not solely in terms of an exchange relation. I have established and explored some of the key elements of an analysis of the NUP of global cities and I have drawn the contours of a framework for

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2487

analysis of the urban politics of global cities around three fundamental epistemological axes that underpin the development of an agenda for future research. Amongst the key foci of this research agenda are the state and the nature of capitalism in different geohistorical contexts, including, quite importantly: the relationship between different fractions of capital; the relationship between the state and different fractions of capital financial interests, industries, real estate; and the form of the state, which significantly conditions both the former and the latter. I will conclude with a brief discussion of these three major axes of future research. In addressing the NUP of global cities under contemporary conditions of late capitalism, we need to (re)situate these cities in broader geohistorical contexts and related patterns of geographically uneven development. Crucially in the case of global cities, the most recent round of globalisation, through the implementation of neo-liberal policies starting with the deregulation of financial markets in the UK and the US in particular, has permitted the ascendancy of financial capital over industrial capital; without that pre-eminence, it is unlikely that we would even be talking about global cities. We must also bear in mind that there was nothing inherently inevitable about the growing dominance of financial capital and the relative decline of industrial capital, and how this has translated into the economic fortunes and misfortunes of particular cities: chance events or happenstance juxtapositions (Massey, 2005) are to be taken into account, alongside political decisions such as the elimination of capital controls by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations on their respective sides of the Atlantic. This implies that reproducing the dominance of financial capital is likely to be at the heart of the politics of global cities. However, this will take different forms in different geohistorical contexts and future empirical research must

aim at understanding how and why the politics of maintaining the power of financial capital and its embodimentsi.e. banks and other financial institutionsdiffers from one global city to another. This seems particularly relevant in the wake of the recent global financial crisis, as cities like London and New York and their cohorts of banks have managed to cope with the economic crunch largely thanks to financial-capitalfriendly government policies, the set-up of special state agencies and other bail-outs.8 Interestingly, the French and German governments did not go down that route, and did not have to. Paris and Frankfurt may have felt the impact of the global financial crisis, but not to the extent that London and New York have. Understanding these different politics requires that future research examines the historical development of capitalism in different geographical contexts. In particular, it seems important to address differences and similarities in the nature of capitalism and of particular fractions of capital in particular countries. For example, financial capital in France is different from financial capital London-style, and so is its relationship to industrial capital; it is much closer to what Hilferding (1910/1981) defines as finance capital, characterised by a high level of integration between banks and industries in various and interrelated ways. Future investigation and conceptualisation will also need to pay more attention to the role of the state in shaping the NUP of global cities, both materially and discursively, from the standpoint of both production and social reproduction, and across various scales of the state. The recent global financial crisis and the various interventions of central governments to rescue a series of large financial institutions clearly point out the crucial role of national states in the politics of global cities. More generally, the relationship between the state and different fractions of capital in particular

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2488

DELPHINE ANCIEN

national contexts has a key impact on the spatial selectivities of the state (Jones, 1997) and the (re)production of particular geographies of uneven development. Yet again there are differences here, different degrees and forms of intervention, differences in the evolving political economy of the qualitative state in different national contexts (Block, 1994; ONeill, 1997). This suggests that, in addition to exploring the states role(s) in shaping financial markets and supporting financial interests in global cities, future empirical research must focus on the form of the statefor example, federal versus unitaryand its scalar division in particular geographical contextsfor example, France and the UK are both centralised unitary states, but have different scalar divisions of state labourbecause they condition to a great extent its role in (re)producing particular space economies, including global cities. The form and scalar organisation of the state condition how it is able (or not) and/or compelled (or not) to support or constrain particular types of, or paths to, capitalist development and accumulation strategies that favour (or not) the development of global cities. Moreover, a close and systematic examination of the form and scalar division of the state will help us understand the specific politics of scaleincluding elements of both co-operation and conflictthat develop around the reproduction of the particular economies of global cities. This involves, quite importantly today, a politics of scale of tensions and collaboration around the development of new governance structures at the metropolitan or regional level such as the GLA in London or the Grand Paris project. Moreover, the relationship between the state and capital in different countries and how it has changed over time are also key here. Addressing these will help us understand the variegated ways in which different

central states operate to support (or not?) the (re)production of different world cities. Finally, the avenues for future research outlined earlier are all systematically informed by the third pillar of the analytical framework proposed in this paper: empirical investigations of the NUP of various global cities are to be positioned at the nexus of multiple scales with a view to understanding the politics of scale underlying the production and reproduction of global cities and the particular geographies of uneven development of which they are key elements. Such a research trajectory has, I believe, the potential to advance our understanding of urban politics in an increasingly globalising world, where global cities constitute particular spaces of globalisation whose study offers significant insights on the multiscalar nature of urban politics.

Notes
1. The majority of the materials that form the basis for the conclusions presented in a succinct manner in this paper were gathered between September 2006 and September 2007. 2. It is interesting to note, on the other hand, that questions of governance have tended to feature quite significantly in the global cityregion literature (for example, Scott et al., 2001; Harrison, 2011). 3. London quickly became the major place in Europe for trading on these new markets70 per cent of Eurobonds were traded in London by the beginning of the 1970sand this led many US firms in particular to move to the British capital or at least to open branches there, rather than elsewhere in Europe. I must note here that the English language played an important role in American firms decision to relocate to London rather than to other major European financial hubs like Paris or Frankfurt, for example. The end result was an increased concentration of banks and financial services in London.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2489

4. Shortages of affordable housing have affected two groups in particular: first, people who have started a family and, as a result, need more living space; secondly, the armies of low-wage unskilled workers who service the hotel, catering, office cleaning, etc. needs of the financial and related industries (Sassen, 1991, 2006), as well as the employees of public services (Massey, 2007) such as nurses, firefighters, police officers, bus driversi.e. the so-called key workers. 5. Including all types of dwellings, from detached houses to flats. 6. Data from the Regulated Mortgage Survey, Department for Communities and Local Government, UK. 7. Hamnett (2009) notes that prices in some areas had reached the astronomical heights of 600 000 and even 800 000 respectively in the inner boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, with the knock-on effect of pushing prices up in other (less affluent and more affordable) boroughs. 8. A telling example is that of the creation of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) in Ireland in November 2009. The new state agency was set to take e68 billion of problem loans (in addition to e9 billion unpaid rolled-up interests) off the hands of five financial institutions affected by the global credit crunch (Allied Irish Banks, Bank of Ireland, EBS Building Society, Irish Nationwide and Anglo Irish Bank).

earlier versions of this paper and providing critical feedback. The paper also benefited from insightful comments and helpful suggestions from two anonymous referees and the Editors of the Special Issue. Thanks to Cian OCallaghan for his careful reading of the final version. The author remains solely responsible for any remaining errors of fact or reasoning.

References
Abu-Lughod, J. (1999) New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: Americas Global Cities. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press. Allen, J. (1999) Cities of power and influence: settled formations, in: J. Allen, D. B. Massey and M. Pryke (Eds) Unsettling Cities: Movement/Settlement, pp. 181228. New York: Routledge. Allen, J. (2010) The city and finance: changing landscapes of power, in: N. M. Coe and A. Jones (Eds) The Economic Geography of the UK, ch. 4. London: Sage. Amin, A. and Thrift, N. J. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press. Anderson, P. (1987) The figures of descent, New Left Review, 161, pp. 2077. Barnekov, T., Boyle, R. and Rich, D. (1989) Privatism and Urban Policy in Britain and the US. New York: Oxford University Press. Beaverstock, J. V. (2005) Transnational elites in the city: British highly-skilled inter-company transferees in New York citys financial district, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(2), pp. 245268. Beaverstock, J. V. and Smith, J. (1996) Lending jobs to global cities: skilled international labour migration, investment banking and the City of London, Urban Studies, 33(8), pp. 13771394. Beaverstock, J. V., Smith, R. G. and Taylor, P. J. (1999) A roster of world cities, Cities, 16(6), pp. 445458. Block, F. (1994) The role of the state in the economy, in: N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg (Eds) The Handbook of Economic Sociology, pp. 691710. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Braudel, F. (1979) Civilisation materielle, econo` ` ` mie et capitalisme, XVemeXVIIIeme siecle, tome 3. Paris: Armand Colin.

Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or notfor-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Martin Jones and Gordon MacLeod for organising the sessions on The New Urban Politics: Twenty Years On at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers in Las Vegas, where some of the ideas underlying this paper were initially presented. The author is very grateful to Veronica Crossa and Kevin Cox for reading

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2490

DELPHINE ANCIEN

Brenner, N. (1998) Global cities, glocal states: global city formation and state territorial restructuring in contemporary Europe, Review of International Political Economy, 5(1), pp. 137. Brenner, N. (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. New York: Oxford University Press. Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) Cities and the geographies of actually existing neoliberalism, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 349379. Brenner, N., Jessop, B., Jones, M. and MacLeod, G. (Eds) (2003) State/Space: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Buck, N., Gordon, I., Harding, A. and Turok, I. (2005) Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesion, and Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Buck, N., Gordon, I., Hall, P. et al. (2002) Working Capital: Life and Labour in Contemporary London. London: Routledge. Cain, P. J. and Hopkins, A. G. (1993) British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion, 1688 1914. London: Longman. Cohen, R. (1981) The new international division of labour: multinational corporations and the urban hierarchy, in: M. Dear and A. J. Scott (Eds) Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society, pp. 287315. London: Methuen. Cox, K. R. (1993) The local and the global in the new urban politics: a critical view, Environment and Planning D, 11(4), pp. 433448. Cox, K. R. (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics, Political Geography, 17(1), pp. 124. Cox, K. R. and Mair, A. (1988) Locality and community in the politics of local economic development, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(2), pp. 307325. Crossa, V. (2009) Resisting the entrepreneurial city: street vendors struggles in Mexico Citys historic center, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), pp. 4363. Daniels, P. W. (1991) Services and Metropolitan Development: International Perspectives. London: Routledge. Delaney, D. and Leitner, H. (1997) The political construction of scale, Political Geography, 16(2), pp. 9397.

Derudder, B., Witlox, F., Faulconbridge, J. and Beaverstock, J. (2008) Airline data for global city network research: reviewing and refining existing approaches, Geojournal, 71(1), pp. 518. Ermisch, J. and Murphy, M. (2006) Changing household and family structures and complex living arrangements. ESRC Seminar Series Mapping the public policy landscape (http:// www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC_ household_tcm615384.pdf; accessed 17 May 2010). Fainstein, S. and Harloe, M. (2000) Ups and downs in the global city: London and New York at the millennium, in: G. Bridge and S. Watson (Eds) A Companion to the City, pp. 155167. Oxford: Blackwell. Findlay, A. M., Li, F. L. N., Jowett, A. J. and Skeldon, R. (1995) Skilled international migration and the global city: a study of expatriates in Hong Kong, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS, 21, pp. 4961. Florida, R. (2008) The rise of the mega-region, Wall Street Journal, 1213 April, p. A8. Friedmann, J. (1986) The world city hypothesis, Development and Change, 17(1), pp. 6983. Friedmann, J. and Wolff, G. (1982) World city formation: an agenda for research and action, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6(3), pp. 309344. Geddes, P. (1924) A world league of cities, Sociological Review, 26, pp. 166167. Gonzalez, S. (2006) Scalar narratives in Bilbao: a cultural politics of scales approach to the study of urban policy, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(4), pp. 836857. Gonzalez, S. (2009) (Dis)connecting Milan(ese): deterritorialised urbanism and disempowering politics in globalizing cities, Environment and Planning A, 41(1), pp. 3147. Goodwin, M. and Painter, J. (1996) Local governance, the crises of Fordism and the changing geographies of regulation, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21, pp. 635648. Gordon, I. R. (2004) Capital needs, capital growth and global city rhetoric in Mayor Livingstones London Plan. GaWC Research Bulletin No. 145 (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb145. html; accessed 1 February 2011).

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2491

Hall, P. (1966) The World Cities. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Hall, R. and Ogden, P. E. (2003) The rise of living alone in inner London: trends among the population of working age, Environment and Planning A, 35(5), pp. 871888. Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (1996) The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies?, Progress in Human Geography, 20(2), pp. 153174. Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (Eds) (1997) The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hamnett, C. (2003) Unequal City: London in the Global Arena. New York: Routledge. Hamnett, C. (2009) Spatially displaced demand and the changing geography of house prices in London, 19952006, Housing Studies, 24(3), pp. 301320. Harding, A. (1997) Urban regimes in a Europe of the cities?, European Urban and Regional Studies, 4(4), pp. 291314. Harrison, J. (2011) Global city-region governance, ten years on, in: P. J. Taylor, M. Hoyler, B. Derudder and F. Witlox (Eds) International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities. London: Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming). Harvey, D. (1982) The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Blackwell. Harvey, D. (1984) On the history and present condition of geography: an historical materialist manifesto, The Professional Geographer, 36(1), pp. 111. Harvey, D. (1985) The geopolitics of capitalism, in: D. Gregory and J. Urry (Eds) Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp. 128163. London: Macmillan. Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler, Series B, 71(1), pp. 318. Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hilferding, R. (1910/1981) Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hill, R. C. and Kim, J. W. (2000) Global cities and developmental states: New York, Tokyo and Seoul, Urban Studies, 37(12), pp. 2167 2195.

Ingham, G. (1984) Capitalism Divided? The City and Industry in British Social Development. London: Macmillan. Jessop, B. and Sum, N.-L. (2000) An entrepreneurial city in action: Hong Kongs emerging strategies in and for (inter)urban competition, Urban Studies, 37(12), pp. 22872313. Jones, M. R. (1997) Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance, Environment and Planning A, 29(5), pp. 831864. Leys, C. (1986) The formation of British capital, New Left Review, 160, pp. 114120. Logan, J. R. and Molotch, H. L. (1987) The city as growth machine, in: J. R. Logan and H. L. Molotch Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place, pp. 5098. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Lyons, M. and Salmon, S. (1995) World cities, multi-national corporations, and urban hierarchy: the case of the United States, in: P. Knox and P. Taylor (Eds) World Cities in a World System, pp. 98114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Machimura, T. (1992) The urban restructuring process in Tokyo in the 1980s: transforming Tokyo into a world city, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(1), pp. 114128. MacLeavy, J. and Harrison, J. (2010) New state spatialities: perspectives on state, space, and scalar geographies, Antipode, 42(5), pp. 1037 1046. MacLeod, G. (2002) From urban entrepreneurialism to a revanchist city? On the spatial injustices of Glasgows renaissance, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 602624. Marcuse, P. and Kempen, R. van (2000) Globalising Cities. Oxford: Blackwell. Massey, D. B. (2005) For Space. London: Sage. Massey, D. B. (2007) World City. Cambridge: Polity Press. May, J., Wills, J., Datta, K. et al. (2007) Keeping London working: global cities, the British state and Londons new migrant division of labour, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(2), pp. 151167. Mayor of London (2002) The draft London Plan: draft spatial development strategy for London. Greater London Authority. McDowell, L., Batnitzky, A. and Dyer, S. (2009) Precarious work and economic migration:

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

2492

DELPHINE ANCIEN

emerging immigrant divisions of labour in Greater Londons service sector, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), pp. 325. McGuirk, P. M. (2003) Producing the capacity to govern in global Sydney: a multiscaled account, Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(2), pp. 201223. McGuirk, P. M. (2004) State, strategy and scale in the competitive city: a neo-Gramscian analysis of the governance of global Sydney, Environment and Planning A, 36(6), pp. 1019 1043. Moulaert, F. (1991) The Changing Geography of Advanced Producer Services. London: Belhaven Press. ONeill, P. M. (1997) Bringing the qualitative state into economic geography, in: R. Lee and J. Wills (Eds) Geographies of Economies, pp. 290301. London: Arnold. Oosterlynck, S. (2010) Regulating regional uneven development and the politics of reconfiguring Belgian state space, Antipode, 42(5), pp. 11511179. Peck, J. (2001) Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes, Progress in Human Geography, 25(3), pp. 445455. Peck, J. (2003) Geography and public policy: mapping the penal state, Progress in Human Geography, 27(2), pp. 222232. Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalizing space, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 380404. Phelps, N. and Ozawa, T. (2003) Contrasts in agglomeration: proto-industrial, industrial and post-industrial forms compared, Progress in Human Geography, 27(5), pp. 583604. PWC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) (2008) Total tax contribution: PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP study of the UK financial services sector for the City of London Corporation (http://www. cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EA028832F883-4305-9E4C-DB4AE7FC9A6C/0/BC_RS_ TotalTaxContributionfortheCityofLondonCor p11Feb.pdf; accessed 20 January 2011). PWC (2010) Total tax contribution: PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP study of the UK financial services sector for the City of London Corporation (http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/ 68F49A7E-8255-415B-99A8-1A8273D568D9/ 0/TotalTax3_FinalForWeb.pdf; accessed 20 January 2011).

Robinson, J. (2002) Global and world cities: a view from off the map, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), pp. 531554. Rubinstein, W. D. (1993) Capitalism, Culture, and Decline in Britain, 17501990. London: Routledge. Samers, M. (2002) Immigration and the global city hypothesis: towards an alternative research agenda, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(2), pp. 389402. Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, 1st edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sassen, S. (1995) On concentration and centrality in the global city, in: P. L. Knox and P. J. Taylor (Eds) World Cities in a World-system, pp. 6375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sassen, S. (1999) Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money. New York: New Press. Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sassen, S. (2006) Cities in a World Economy, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Scott, A. J. (1986) Industrialization and urbanization: a geographical agenda, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 76(1), pp. 2537. Scott, A. J. (1988) New Industrial Spaces. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Scott, A. J., Agnew, J., Soja, E. W. and Storper, M. (2001) Global city-regions, in: A. J. Scott (Ed.) Global City-regions: Trends, Theory, Policy, pp. 1130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, M. P. (2001) Transnational Urbanism. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York: Routledge. Stone, C. N. (1989) Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 19461988. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: The Guilford Press. Swanson, K. (2007) Revanchist urbanism heads south: the regulation of indigenous beggars

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011

GLOBAL CITY THEORY AND THE NEW URBAN POLITICS

2493

and street vendors in Ecuador, Antipode, 39(4), pp. 708728. Swyngedouw, E. (1997) Neither global nor local: glocalisation and the politics of scale, in: K. R. Cox (Ed.) Space of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local, pp. 137166. New York: The Guilford Press. Taylor, P. J. (2004) World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis. London: Routledge. Taylor, P. J. and Walker, D. R. F. (2001) World cities: a first multivariate analysis of their service complexes, Urban Studies, 38(1), pp. 2348. Taylor, P. J., Catalano, G. and Walker, D. R. F. (2002) Measurement of the world city network, Urban Studies, 39(13), pp. 23672376.

Thrift, N. (1987) The fixers: the urban geography of international commercial capital, in: M. Castells and J. Henderson (Eds) Global Restructuring and Territorial Development, pp. 203233. London: Sage. Uitermark, J. and Duyvendak, J. W. (2008) Civilising the city: populism and revanchist urbanism in Rotterdam, Urban Studies, 45(7), pp. 14851503. Veltz, P. (2005) Mondialisation, villes et territoires, 2nd edn. Paris: QuadrigePresses Universitaires de France. Wills, J., Datta, K., Evans, Y. et al. (2010) Global Cities at Work: New Migrant Divisions of Labour. London: Pluto Press.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Central European University on September 14, 2011