Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.philol.msu.ru/~discours/images/stories/city1.pdf Дата изменения: Mon Nov 22 16:34:00 2010 Дата индексирования: Fri Feb 11 14:45:40 2011 Кодировка:

Global Cities, Glocal States: Global City Formation and State Territorial Restructuring in Contemporary Europe Author(s): Neil Brenner Source: Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 1-37 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177255 Accessed: 22/10/2010 16:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of International Political Economy.

http://www.jstor.org


Review International of Political 5:1 Economy Spring1998:1-37

Global cities, glocal states: global city formation and state tertorial restructuringin contemporaryEurope
Neil Brenner
Department of Political Science, University of Chicago

ABSTRACT This article examines the changing relationshipbetween global cities and territorialstates in contemporaryEurope, and outlines some of its implications for the geographyof world capitalismin the late twentiethcentury. Most accounts of global cities are based upon a 'zero-sum'conception of spatial scale that leads to an emphasis on the declining power of the territorial state: as the global scale expands, the state scale is said to contract. By contrast,I view globalizationas a highly contradictory reconfiguration of superimposed spatial scales, including those on which the territorial state is organized. The state scale is not being eroded, but rearticulated and reterritorialized relation to both sub- and supra-statescales. The in resultant,re-scaled configurationof state territorialorganizationis provisionally labeled a 'glocal' state. As nodes of accumulation,global cities are sites of post-Fordistforms of global industrialization; coordinates as of state territorialpower, global cities are local-regional levels within a larger, reterritorialized matrix of increasingly 'glocalized' state institutions. State re-scaling is a major accumulation strategy through which these transformed'glocal' territorialstates attempt to promote the global competitiveadvantageof their majorurbanregions. Global city formation and state re-scaling are thereforedialecticallyintertwined moments of a single dynamic of global capitalist restructuring.These arguments are illustratedthrough a discussion of the interfacebetween global cities and territorial states in contemporary Europe.A concludingsection argues that new theories and representations spatial scale and its social production of are needed to grasp the rapidly changing political geography of late twentieth-centurycapitalism.

KEYWORDS Global cities; glocal states; globalization;spatial scale; reterritorialization; post-Fordism.

? 1998 Routledge 0969-2290


ARTICLES

INTRODUCTION have identifiedvarious 'globalcities' In recentdecades urbanresearchers as key spatial nodes of the world economy, the localized basing points for capital accumulationin an age of intensified globalization.Since the initial formulation of the 'world city hypothesis' in the early 1980s by Cohen (1981) and Friedmann and Wolff (1982), world city theory has been consolidated as a majorframeworkfor criticalresearchon contemporary cities and, more generally, on the changing spatial organization of the world economy (Knox and Taylor, 1995;Hitz et al., 1995).On the one hand, by linking urban studies directly to international political economy (IPE)and world-systems analysis, world city theory has chalscales in which cities lenged urbanresearchers analyze the trans-urban to are embedded. On the other hand, by analyzing the currentconfiguration of the world economy in terms of its predominanturban nodes and inter-urbannetworks,world city theory has also challenged IPEscholars and world-system theorists to analyze the sub- and supra-stategeographies of capitalism that are embodied in urbanization processes. By integratingthe differentialspatial scales upon which each of these fields of research has been premised within a single analytical framework, world city theory has also contributed to the broader project of transcending state-centricapproaches to the social sciences that has been rapidly gaining momentum in recent years (Agnew, 1994;Taylor, 1996; Wallerstein,1996). The sustained attentionto the 'impassabledialecticof local and global' (Lipietz, 1993: 16) among world cities researchers has generated an extraordinaryoutpouring of research on cities throughout the world economy, from Tokyo, New York and London to Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Toronto, Paris, Frankfurt,Amsterdam, Zurich, Hong Kong, Singapore,Mexico City and Sao Paulo. One of the major contributions of world cities research has been to relate the dominant socioeconomic trends within these cities - e.g. deindustrialization,the geography of capital flows, the expansion and spatial concentrationof financial and producer services industries, labor-marketsegmentation, class and ethnic conflict, sociospatial polarization - to the emergent world urban hierarchyand the global economic forces that underlie it (see, e.g., Keil, 1993; Knox and Taylor, 1995; Ross and Trachte, 1990; Sassen, 1993;Feagin and Smith, 1989;Soja, 1989).1 Yet this analytical privileging of the global/local dualism in global cities researchhas also deflected attention away from the crucialrole of the state scale in the currentlyunfolding transformationof world capitalism. Despite their concern to analyze the changing interconnections between urban-scale and world-scale processes, most world cities researchershave neglected the role of state-scaletransformations the in 2


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

current round of globalization, including reconfigurationsof the state itself as an institutional,regulatoryand territorial preconditionfor accelerated world-scale capital accumulation. World cities research has generally presupposed a 'zero-sum' conception of spatial scale which leads to an emphasis on the declining power of the territorialstate in an age of intensified globalization:the state scale is said to contractas the global scale expands. The ways in which the contemporary'globallocal interplay' (Dunford and Kafkalas, 1992) is embedded within, mediated through and actively promoted by reconfigurationsof state territorialorganizationon multiple spatial scales have not been systematically investigated. This article examines the changing historical relationship between urbanization patterns and forms of state territorial organization in contemporaryEuropeand outlines some of its implicationsfor the geography of world capitalism at the end of the twentieth century. My methodologicalstartingpoint is a conceptionof globalizationas a highly contradictory reconfiguration of densely interwoven, superimposed spatial scales, including those on which the territorialstate is organized (see Lefebvre, 1991, 1978, 1977). From this point of view, state territorial power is not being eroded, but rearticulatedand reterritorialized in relation to both sub- and supra-state scales. The resultant, re-scaled configurationof state territorial organizationcan be provisionallylabeled a 'glocal' state (Swyngedouw, 1996). Currentlyunfolding re-scalings of global social space cannot be grasped through unilinearnotions of 'state decline' or through one-sided conceptions of globalization as a placeless dynamic of 'deterritorialization'. Contemporary reconfigurations of both urbanizationpatterns and forms of state territorialorganization are best conceived as contradictory,contested strategies of reterritorialization through which the place-based and territorialpreconditions for acceleratedglobal capital circulationare being constructedon multiple spatial scales (Harvey, 1995, 1989a). I interpret global city formation and state re-scaling as dialectically intertwined processes of reterritorialization that have radically reconfigured the scalar organization of capitalism since the global economic crises of the early 1970s. Global city formation is linked both to the globalization of capital and to the regionalization/localizationof state territorial organization. As nodes of accumulation, global cities are sites of reterritorialization post-Fordist forms of global industrialfor ization. As coordinatesof state territorialorganization,global cities are local-regionallevels of governance situated within larger, reterritorialized matrices of 'glocalized' state institutions. This re-scaling of the state is a key 'accumulationstrategy' (Jessop,1990)through which cities throughout the world economy are being promoted by their host states as locational nodes for transnationalcapital investment. 3


ARTICLES

I begin by reviewing the basic argument of world city theory and critically examining its treatment of the territorial state. Following a discussion of changing forms of state territorial organization under capitalism, I interpret the contemporary round of globalization as a reconfiguration of superimposed spatial scales. Global city formation has entailed a rearticulation of the national scale with sub- and supranational scales and, consequently, a growing 'territorial non-coincidence' (Murray, 1971) between the scales on which capital accumulation and state territorial power are organized. These arguments are illustrated through a discussion of the contradictory interface between various global cities and 'glocalized' territorial states in contemporary Europe. A concluding section argues that new theories and representations of spatial scale and its social production are needed to grasp the rapidly changing political geography of late twentieth-century capitalism. WORLD CITIES GLOBALIZATION/URBANIZATION: AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF CAPITALISM World city theory has been deployed extensively in studies of the role of major cities such as New York, London and Tokyo as global financial centers and headquarters locations for transnational corporations (TNCs). While the theory's usefulness in such research has been convincingly demonstrated (see, e.g., Sassen, 1991; Mollenkopf and Castells, 1991; King, 1990b; Machimura, 1992), I believe that the central agenda of world city theory is best conceived more broadly, as an attempt to analyze the rapidly changing geography of global capitalism in the late twentieth century. From this point of view, the project of world cities research is not merely to classify cities within world-scale central place hierarchies, but as Friedmann (1986: 69) has proposed, to analyze the 'spatial organization of the new international division of labor'. The key feature of this emergent configuration of world capitalism is that cities - or, more precisely, large-scale urbanized regions - rather than the territorial economies of states are its most fundamental geographical units. These urban regions are said to be arranged hierarchically on a global scale according to their differential modes of integration into the world economy (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982: 310-11). Braudel (1983: 27) has famously suggested that the 'world-economy always has an urban center of gravity, a city, as the logistic heart of its activity'. Braudel's analysis of early modern Europe traces the epochal shift from the 'city-centered economies' of Genoa, Venice, Antwerp and Amsterdam to the English 'territorial economy', based upon an integrated national market clustered around London, during the eighteenth century.2 Since this period, cities were integrated ever more tightly into national economic systems and subordinated to the political power of 4


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

states (Tilly, 1990). Though cities continued to operate as central nodes of world trade and imperialist expansion throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Arrighi, 1994; King, 1990a), the geography of interurban networks was largely subsumed within the geography of state territories (Taylor, 1995). Early uses of the term 'world city' by writers such as Patrick Geddes (1915) and Peter Hall (1966) reflected this territorialization of the urbanization process on a national scale: the cosmopolitan character of world cities was interpreted as an expression of their host states' geopolitical power. The central hypothesis of the most recent wave of world cities research, however, is that we are today witnessing another epochal transformation in the spatial organization of capitalism that has enabled cities to regain their primacy as the geoeconomic engines of the world system. As Friedmann (1995: 21-6) argues, contemporary cities operate as the 'organizing nodes' of world capitalism, as 'articulations' of regional, national and global commodity flows, and as 'basing points' in the 'space of global capital accumulation'. Therefore, Friedmann (ibid.: 26) maintains, the consolidation of a world uirban hierarchy since the early 1970s must be understood as a fundamental shift in the geography of world capitalism, 'an historically unprecedented phenomenon' in which cities and inter-urban networks appear to be replacing states as the basic territorial infrastructure of capitalist development. World city theorists have analyzed this shift toward a city-centered configuration of capitalism with reference to two intertwined politicoeconomic transformations of the last three decades: the emergence of a 'new international division of labor' dominated by transnational corporations; and the crisis of the Fordist-Keynesian technologicalinstitutional system that prevailed throughout the postwar period. First, the emergence of a new international division of labor (NIDL) since the late 1960s resulted in large measure from the massive expansion in the role of TNCs in the production and exchange of commodities on a world scale (Frobel et al., 1980; Dicken, 1991). Whereas the old international division of labor was based upon raw materials production in the periphery and industrial manufacturing in the core, the NIDL has entailed the relocation of manufacturing industries to semi-peripheral and peripheral states in search of inexpensive sources of labor power. In addition to the deindustrialization of many core industrial cities, this global market for production sites has also entailed an increasing spatial concentration of business services and other administrative-coordination functions within the predominant urban centers of the core and semiperiphery. These upper-tier cities have become major nodes of decision making, financial planning and control within globally dispersed commodity chains and, therefore, the central basing points for the worldwide activities of TNCs (Cohen, 1981; Feagin and Smith, 1989). This intensified 5


ARTICLES

urban concentrationof global capital flows has been further enabled through the development of new informationaltechnologies,closely tied to the agglomerationeconomies of cities, that acceleratecommunication and coordination on a global scale (Castells, 1989). If the latest round of capitalist globalization has enhanced capital's ability to coordinate flows of value through global space, it has also been premised upon specific urban places within and through which the territorializedtechnological, institutional and social infrastructure of globalization is secured (Swyngedouw, 1989).Therefore,even as the costs of overcoming the friction of distance in the global transferof informationare pushed ever closer to zero, cities have remained fundamental locational nodes throughwhich global systems of productionand exchangeare organized. Second, contemporaryprocesses of world city formation have also been closely related to the growing obsolescence of the technological, institutional and social foundations of the Fordist regime of accumulation, grounded upon mass production, mass consumption, nationally induced Keynesian demand-management policies and redistributive social welfare policies (Aglietta, 1979;Jessop, 1992; Lipietz, 1987). The crisis of the Fordist-Keynesiantechnological-institutional system in the older industrial cities of North America and western Europe during the early 1970s was paralleled by dynamic growth in various 'new industrial spaces' such as Silicon Valley, Los Angeles/Orange County, and Baden-Wiirttemburg the Third Italy, grounded upon decentralized, vertically disintegrated forms of industrial organization embedded within dense transactional networksof subcontracting arrangements and other non-market forms of inter-firm relations (Storper, 1995; Scott, 1988). According to Storper and Scott (1989: 24-7), the major sectors associated with these emergent flexible production systems are to be classified in three broad categories:(1) revitalized craft production;(2) high-technology industries; and (3) advanced producer and financial services. The locations and spatial structures of these industries vary extensively, but most are agglomerated within major urban manufacturing regions and - in the case of the advanced financialand producer services - within global cities such as London, New York,Tokyo, Paris, Frankfurtand Los Angeles in which large numbers of TNCs are based. Recentcontributorsto the debate on post-Fordistindustrialgeography have advised a more cautious analyticalperspective that acknowledges the dynamism of flexible production systems while situating them within a global context characterizedby continued geoeconomic and geopolitical disorder, pervasive uneven geographical development and neoliberal ideological hegemony (see, e.g., Amin and Thrift, 1992; Martinelliand Schoenberger, 1991;Peck and Tickell,1994).Nevertheless, the rise of global cities in recentdecades as key sites for the coordination of global commodity chains is broadly consistent with the regulationist 6


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

hypothesis that flexible production systems are among the new 'leading edges' of contemporary capitalist development. The propulsive growth industries of global cities are, above all, the producer and financial services sectors that serve the command and control requirements of transnational capital - e.g. banking, accounting, advertising, financial management and consulting, business law, insurance and the like (Sassen, 1991; Thrift, 1987). It is in this sense that capital's attempt to enhance its command and control over space on a global scale hinges upon the place-specific production complexes, technological-institutional systems, agglomeration economies and other externalities that are localized within global cities. These arguments have provided world cities researchers with a methodological basis for analyzing the role of major urban regions in the currently unfolding geographical transformation of world capitalism. World cities are simultaneously: (1) basing points for the global operations of TNCs; (2) production sites and markets for producer and financial services; and (3) articulating nodes within a broader hierarchy of cities stratified according to their differential roles in the world economy. But as Friedmann (1995: 41-3) indicates, this emergent geography of urban nodes and inter-urban networks is only one dimension of capitalism's changing geographical organization. The consolidation of a world urban hierarchy dominated by an archipelago of upper-tier global cities has also produced new geographies of exclusion stretching from the economic 'deadlands' of the older industrial core states into the marginalized zones of the global periphery that contain almost seven-eighths of world population (see also Agnew and Corbridge, 1995: 164-207; Amin, 1997). As world city-regions supersede the territorial economies of states as the basic geographical building blocks of world capitalism, new forms of uneven geographical development are proliferating on global, national and regional scales.

WORLD CITIES AND TERRITORIAL STATES: CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION But how is this emergent global urban hierarchy articulated with the geography of state territories upon which it is superimposed? States do not simply disintegrate in the face of globalization and world cities remain tied to their host state's territory in significant ways. Even if cities are today rapidly gaining ground on states as the optimal spatial scales for capital accumulation, the geography of post-Fordist capitalism cannot be reduced to the global hierarchy of urban nodes, inter-urban networks and marginalized or excluded peripheral zones. Braudel (1983: 39) has vividly described the world economy as a 'jigsaw puzzle' 7


ARTICLES

composed of multifarious forms of territorialorganization (e.g. cities, states, quasi-states,empires, quasi-empires,markets,cores, peripheries), each of which is configured upon differentialspatial scales. Just as the city-centeredeconomies of early modern Europewere embedded within these broader, trans-urban spatial configurations, the geography of contemporarycapitalismcan be viewed as a polymorphic,multi-layered 'jigsaw puzzle' in which multiple forms of territorialorganization including cities, inter-urbannetworks and territorialstates - are being superimposed and intertwined ever more densely. Insofar as world city theory is directly concerned with the 'contradictory relations between production in an era of global management and the political determinationof territorialinterests' (Friedmann,1986: 69), an analysis of changing relations between world cities and state territories is one of its most central theoretical and empirical tasks. However, like many other approachesto the study of globalization(e.g. Appadurai, 1996; Castells, 1989; Scott, 1996; Strange, 1995), much of world cities research has been premised upon the assumption that intensified globalization entails an erosion of state territoriality.This conception of globalization as a process of state decline has led world cities researchersto focus on the global scale, the urban scale and their changing interconnections while neglecting the role of state-level processes in the currentround of capitalist restructuring.To the extent that the territorial state has been thematized at all in global cities research,it has been understood either in terms of its local/municipal institutions or as a static, unchanging backgroundstructure.3 This privileging of the global/local dualism leads to a 'zero-sum' conception of spatial scales in which the global and the state scales are viewed as being mutually exclusive - what one gains, the other loses - ratherthan as intrinsically related, co-evolving layers of territorialorganization. I argue by contrast that the current round of globalization is reconfiguring state territorialityrather than eroding it to create a city-centric capitalism.States are being re-scaledand reterritorialized conjunction in with the process of global city formation,and the resultanttransformed configurationsof state territorialorganizationoperate simultaneouslyas agents and sites of the globalizationprocess.This argumentcan be developed through a critical examination of the accounts of global city-territorialstate relations elaboratedby Friedmannand Wolff (1982) and Sassen (1996, 1991). For Friedmannand Wolff (1982),global city-territorialstate relations are expressed as a geoeconomic battle between globally mobile TNCs and immobile state territories. World cities and territorial states are described as diametrically opposed political-economicentities: to the extent that the territorialstate operates as a structuralimpediment to the dominance of global capital, it is debilitated, above all on its local 8


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

levels. According to Friedmannand Wolff (ibid.: 312; italics removed) there is an 'inherentcontradictionbetween the interests of transnational capital and those of particularnation states that have their own historical trajectory'. This situation produces complex constellations of sociopoliticalstruggle both within and outside global city-regions- e.g. city inhabitants vs. TNCs; city inhabitants vs. national policy makers; national vs. global fractions of the bourgeoisie; capital vs. labor (ibid.: 312-13). These conflicts are exacerbatedby the fragmented administrative organizationof global cities, which generally lack any overarching metropolitan authority. On this basis Friedmannand Wolff argue that world city formationtriggersa fiscal crisis of the local state (ibid.:326-7). Whereas global capital requires the construction and maintenance of infrastructural facilities such as roads, ports, airportsand canals as well as the policing and surveillance of the subaltern classes, the influx of labor power into the city (particularlypoor migrant workers) in turn generates 'massive needs for social reproduction', including housing, health, education, transportation and welfare services (Friedmann,1986: 77). What results is a situation in which the social costs of global city formation far exceed the regulatory capacities of the local state, which subsequently becomes the 'major loser' in a maelstrom of globally induced constraints (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982: 327). Drawing on Castells's notion of the 'space of flows', Friedmann(1995:25) summarizes this state of affairs as follows: The more the economy becomes interdependenton the global scale, the less can regional and local governments, as they exist today, act upon the basic mechanismsthat condition the daily life of their citizens. The traditional structures of social and political control over development, work and distribution have been subverted by the placeless logic of an internationalizedeconomy enacted by means of information flows among powerful actors beyond the sphere of state regulations. While it is evident that the world economic crises of recent decades have substantially undermined the capacity of the territorialstate to regulate the accumulationprocess, particularlyin its Fordist-Keynesian forms (Jessop,1994;Held, 1991),the narrativeof state decline and deterritorializationconflatesthe ongoing reconfiguration the national scale of of state territorialorganizationwith a withering away of state territoriality as such (Brenner, 1997a). Current transformationsmay indeed herald the partial erosion of central state regulatorycontrol over global flows of capital, commodities and labor power, but the state remains a centralinstitutionalmatrix of political power, a significantscale of territorial organization and a crucial territorial infrastructurefor capital accumulation (Panitch, 1994). By conceptualizing state restructuringas 9


ARTICLES

a unilinear process of state demise, Friedmann and Wolff bracket the ways in which territorialstates are being qualitatively transformedin relation to global patternsof urbanizationand capital accumulation.As Anderson (1996:135) notes: The presentationof a simplistic 'choice' [in debates on the future of the state] between just two alternatives- life or death - obscures the possibility that something else is happening: a qualitative reshaping of states and nations, territoriality and sovereignty, which is not captured by notions of death or decline. Moreover, in so far as neoliberal states throughout the world system are today actively restructuringthemselves to promote capital accumulation within their major cities and regions, the hypothesis of an 'inherentcontradiction'between TNCs and the state cannot be empirically sustained. This ongoing reorganizationof the state has signaled not a unilinearweakening of state capacitiesor an erosion of the national scale, but the entrenchment of neoliberal accumulation strategies designed to enhance the global competitive advantage of each state's cities and regions and, thereby,to secure a localized fix for capital accumulation (Peck and Tickell, 1994;Rottger, 1997). Whereas Friedmannand Wolff's account of global city formation is premised upon the notion of state-demise,Sassen's (1991)study of New York, London and Tokyo is surprisingly state centric.Sassen (1991:14) likewise identifies changing city-state relations as one of her central questions: 'What happens to the relationship between state and city under conditions of strong articulationbetween a city and the world economy?' For Sassen (1991: 8-9; italics added), contemporaryglobal city-territorial state relations are captured through the notion of 'systemic discontinuity': l posit the possibility of a systemic discontinuitybetween what used to be thought of as national growth and the forms of growth evident in global cities in the 1980s.These cities constitutea system ratherthan merely competing with one another.What contributes to growth in the network of global cities may well not contributeto growth in nations. Sassen's discussion focuses primarily upon two types of inter-urban linkages:those among global cities themselves;and those between global cities and other cities located within the territoriesof their host states. On this basis Sassen argues that global city formation in New York, London and Tokyo has triggered processes of industrial decline elsewhere within the US, British and Japaneseurban systems: Priorto the currentphase, there was high correspondencebetween majorgrowth sectors [in global cities] and overall national growth.
10


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

Today we see an increased asymmetry:The conditions promoting growth in global cities containas significantcomponentsthe decline of other areas of the United States,the United Kingdom, and Japan and the accumulationof government debt and corporatedebt. (ibid.: 13) Sassen defends her 'systemic discontinuity' thesis by analyzing the changing role of each global city within its nationalurban system (ibid.: 129-67). Sassen indicates that global city-regions contain overwhelming locational concentrationsof producer and financial service industries relative to the national average in their respective host countries (ibid.: 129-39);and she traces various locationaland employment shifts within the US, British and Japanese urban hierarchies that have ensued in conjunction with economic globalization in New York, London and Tokyo (ibid.:139-63).However, insofaras the new internationaldivision of labor has entailed the formationof new urban hierarchieson a global scale, it is questionable whether national city systems remain an appropriatescale of analysis in the contemporaryera. Each of Sassen's global cities can be viewed not only as the apex of a rapidly changing state-scale urban hierarchy,but as the major articulationpoint for one among the three super-regional blocs of the contemporary world economy - North America, the EuropeanUnion and East Asia (Taylor, 1994b). Whether the world urban hierarchy is subdivided into these or other super-regional configurations on its middle and lower tiers is a question that can be pursued only through a rejection of the notion that states are the fundamental scale on which city-systems are organized. Sassen's notion of 'systemic discontinuity'presupposes two processes whose articulationhas become asymmetricalduring the course of historical time. Yet only one of these processes, the formationof global cities, is understood historically;the other, the territorialstate, is treated as a relatively static, unchanging background structure, the container of a national city system whose state-level coherence is not fundamentally altered by the globalization process. In other words, Sassen presupposes that the spatial referent with which global city formation is 'discontinuous'remains the national economy, understood as a territorially self-enclosed system of cities organized hierarchically within the national scale.4 In this sense, Sassen's methodology replicates a state-centricmodel of global capitalism as an aggregation of national space-economies. In this state-bounded universe, global cities can be understood only as exceptional, if significant, spatial forms, 'transnational economicspaces' that are neverthelessembedded within 'national' economies and city-systems (Sassen, 1993:xiii-xiv). Sassen'smore recentwork (1996)has significantlyrevised this conception of city-state relationsto emphasize various ongoing transformations
11


ARTICLES

On of state territoriality. the one hand, Sassen (ibid.: 4, 13) implies that paradoxicallysituated global cities are new sites of 'extraterritoriality', 'beyond' the state's territorialitywhile simultaneously being enclosed is within its borders. However, the metaphor of 'extraterritoriality' derived from medieval European debates on the right of embassy and presupposes a conception of states as static backgroundstructures:just as foreign embassies are self-enclosed sites in which the host state's exclusive sovereignty is locally 'punctured',the economic activities of boundarieswhile global cities are assumed to circumventstate territorial leaving them essentially intact. On the other hand, one of Sassen's most central arguments in her recent work is that 'the state itself has been transformedby its participationin the implementationof globalization and by the pressures of globalization'(ibid.:23). Sassen (1996:28) introduces the notion of 'denationalization' to describe this ongoing transformation. Financial deregulation and the construction of new transnationallegal regimes are interpretedas strategies through which many of the core states are reconfiguring the institutional-regulatory framework of corporate practices and, in so doing, transformingtheir own relationshipto global capital flows in ways that have significantly decentered the national scale of regulation. In my view, this alternativetheorizationof globalizationas a process of denationalization provides a useful methodological starting point for overcoming both state-demise arguments and zero-sum conceptions of spatial scale. Global cities are not to be conceived as uniquely globalized urban nodes within unchanged national systems of cities and state power, but rather as sites of both socioeconomic and institutional restructuringin and through which a broader, multi-scalar transformation in the geography of capitalism is unfolding. The notion of denationalization begins to map this transformationby emphasizing simultaneously the key role of the state in the globalizationprocess and the ways in which this role is triggering a re-scaling of the state itself. Fromthis point of view, the globalizationof urbanizationand the reconfiguration of the territorial state (both as an institutional-regulatory structureand as a city system) are intrinsicallyrelated moments within a single process of global capitalistrestructuring. the following section In I elaboratethis thesis through an analysis of contemporaryprocesses of state re-scaling in the context of changing forms of territorialorganization under capitalism.
TERRITORIALIZING RE-SCALING GLOBALIZATION: THE STATE

Following Mann (1993),I view the essential feature of the modern state as its territoriallycentralized organizationalform, characterizedby the 12


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

exclusive domination of a centralized administrative apparatus over a territorially delimited space.5 Since its consolidation during the seventeenth century, the modern territorial state has assumed a wide range of organizational and sociospatial forms, each of which has been intertwined in highly contradictory ways with historically specific regimes of capital accumulation (Arrighi, 1994; R. Cox, 1987). Whereas much of postwar state theory and international relations theory has conceived the interstate system and the world economy as ontologically distinct or externally related entities, I believe that state territoriality can be viewed as an essential organizational and geographical component of world-scale circuits of capital. As David Harvey (1982) has argued at length, capital's impulsion to accelerate its turnover time and eliminate spatial barriers to its circulation process necessarily entails the production of relatively fixed and immobile spatial configurations. Each phase of capitalist development has been grounded upon distinctive forms of territorial organization a socially produced 'second nature' composed of elaborate transportation, communications and regulatory-institutional infrastructures through which capital can circulate at socially average turnover times. This moment of territorialization - to which Harvey refers as capital's 'spatial fix' - is rooted in long-term investments in immobile cities and territories that are in turn revalorized and reterritorialized during each systemic crisis of capital accumulation. For this reason, changing forms of urbanization and state territorial organization under capitalism are directly ensnared within the spatio-temporal contradictions of the capital relation. Capital's continuous struggle to 'annihilate space with time' (NIarx, 1973: 539) generates a dynamic of creative destruction in which configurations of territorial organization are recurrently constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed as geographical infrastructures for each round of capitalist industrialization. The role of cities as forms of territorialization for capital has been analyzed extensively by economic geographers (see, e.g., Storper and Walker, 1989). In my view, changing forms of state territorial organization since the second industrial revolution of the late nineteenth century can be understood in formally analogous terms, as relatively fixed and immobile spatial infrastructures within and upon which each successive wave of capitalist inidustrialization has been grounded.6 As Henri Lefebvre (1991: 388) suggests, the territorial 'fixity' of state territories provides a stabilized geographical scaffolding for the increasing spatial 'mobility' and 'transience' of labor power, commodities ancd capital on both supra- and sub-state scales. This centralized territorialization of state power has been an essential precondition for the state's ability to regulate the socioeconomic relations of capitalism. As industrial production has expanded in scale, scope and 13


ARTICLES

organizationalcomplexity since the late nineteenth century, territorial states have played increasinglyfundamentalroles in molding circuitsof capital into distinct historical-geographicalconfigurations, composed of temporarilystabilized articulationsof global, national, regional and local relations(Lefebvre, 1978).Thoughthe state'sinternaladministrativeorganizational hierarchies (e.g. central-local relations; financial, jurisdictionaland legal structures;political divisions of labor; and the like) have been periodically reconfiguredand transformed(e.g. during the world economic crises of the 1880s and the 1930s), until relatively recentlystate territoriality operatedas an institutional-organizational has framework and medium for capitalist restructuringrather than as its direct object.Particularly since the consolidationof organized capitalism during the early twentieth century, the role of state territorialityas a containerfor both capital accumulationand urbanizationintensified to such a degree that its historicity as a scale-level was frequently naturalized (Agnew, 1994;Radice, 1984). Since the 1970s, however, this state-centric geography has been profoundly reconfiguredas a direct outgrowth of the global crisis of the Fordist-Keynesiandevelopmental model. The crisis of global Fordism was expressed in a specifically geographical form, above all in the contradiction between the nationalscale of state regulationand the globalizing thrust of postwar capital accumulation(Altvater,1992;Peck and Tickell, 1994). The scales on which the Fordist-Keynesiansociospatial order was organized - national regulation of the wage relation;international regulation of currency and trade - have been radically reconfiguredsince the global economic crises of the early 1970s. While the deregulationof financialmarketsand the global credit system since the collapse of the BrettonWoods system in 1973 has undermined the viability of state-level demand management and monetary policies, the increasing globalization of production, competition and financial flows has diminished the ability of territorialstates to insulate themselves from the world economy as quasi-autarchic national spaces. The intensification of global interspatial competition among cities and regions has also compromised national industrial policies and forced regionaland local states to assume increasinglydirect roles in promoting capital accumulationon sub-nationalscales (Gottdiener,1990). Finally, as Jessop (1994) notes, the national level of state regulation is being 'hollowed out': centralstate powers are being at once displaced upwards towards supra-national regulatory institutions such as the EU and devolved downwards toward sub-nationalscales of governancesuch as regional and local states. The centralgeographicalconsequenceof these deeply intertwined political-economicshifts has been a denationalization of the most elemental territorialbuilding block of the postwar geoeconomic and geopolitical order - the autocentricnational economy. 14


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

The state's retreat from the Fordist-Keynesian regulatory regime has clearly undermined the monolithic unity of the state as a territorially self-enclosed container of socioeconomic activities (Ruggie, 1993; Taylor, 1994a), but it has also intensified the importance of territoriality as a scale-circumscribing strategy of state regulation and governance.7 Though the national scale of state regulation has been considerably decentered since the 1970s, distinctively territorial strategies of regulation continue to contribute crucially to the circulation of capital on both sub- and supra-national scales. Faced with the increasing mobility of capital, commodities and labor power across national borders, contemporary territorial states appear to be orienting themselves primarily toward the provision of immobile factors of production - i.e. those externalities associated with capital's moment of territorialized fixity within spatial infrastructures organized on the sub-national scales of cities and regions. Despite substantial differences in the content and timing of their policy responses, by the mid-1980s most OECD states had substantially re-scaled their internal institutional hierarchies in order to play increasingly entrepreneurial, supply-side roles in financing, constructing and organizing the territorial infrastructures of capital accumulation within their major urban regions (Cerny, 1995: 611). This re-scaling of the state has entailed a profound transformation of the relationship between states, capital and territory. During the Fordist-Keynesian period, most older industrial states deployed indirect forms of territorial intervention oriented toward the reproduction of labor power (e.g. through redistributive social welfare policies), industrial relocation (e.g. through subsidies and tax concessions) and the promotion of collective consumption (e.g. through housing, education, transportation and urban planning policies). Hiowever, contemporary supply-side modes of state intervention have entailed a more direct, unmediated involvement of the state in the promotion of the 'productive force of territorial organization' (Swyngedouw, 1992a). Today the state's role is no longer merely to reproduce territorially based production complexes, but continually to restore, enhance, intensify and restructure their capacities as productive forces. Under these circumstances, as Cerny (1995: 620) notes, 'the state itself becomes an agent for the commnodification of the collective, situated in a wider, market-dominated playing field'. From public-private partnerships, labor retraining programs, science parks, conference centers, waterfront redevelopment schemes, technology transfer projects, military spending, information sharing, venture capital provision and market research to technopoles programs and enterprise zones, these state-organized economic development policies can be construed as concerted strategies for the intensification of the productive capacities of the cities and regions in which they are based through the construction of 'territorially rooted 15


ARTICLES

immobile assets' (Amin and Thrift, 1995: 10). It is above all through their role in the mobilization of urban-regional territorial organization for purposes of accelerated global capital circulation that local and regional states, in particular, are acquiring increasing structural significance within each territorial state's internal administrative-organizational hierarchy. Following directly in the wake of the Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolutions of the 1980s, this dynamic of state re-scaling can be viewed as an accumulation strategy through which contemporary neoliberal states are attempting to promote their cities and regions as favorable territorial locations for transnational capital investment. The form of state territorial organization that has been constructed through these accumulation strategies is at once polymorphic and multitiered, simultaneously turned inside-out and outside-in - inside-out insofar as its primary goal is to enhance and promote the global competitiveness of its cities and regions; and outside-in insofar as supra-national agencies such as the EU, the IMF and the World Bank have come to play direct roles in the regulation and restructuring of each state's internal territorial space.8 In this sense, the spatial form of territorial states in the age of global capitalism is being 'glocalized'. The term 'glocal' - derived from Swyngedouw (1996, 1992b) and Peck and Tickell (1994) among others - is intended to describe this increasingly dense

superimpositionand interpenetration global political-economicforces of and local-regionalresponses within the parametersof a single, re-scaled framework of state territorialorganization.The resultant, 'plurilateral' institutional-organizational configurations (Cerny, 1995; R. Cox, 1993) have entailed a complex reterritorialization the state onto multiple of spatial scales that do not overlap coextensively with one another, converge upon a single, encompassing scale-level or constitute an isomorphic, self-enclosed totality. The denationalizationof the national economy and urban hierarchieshas therefore not caused an erosion of the state's role as a relatively fixed and immobile matrix for the territorializationof capital, but rather a 'glocal' re-scaling of state territorial organization. The concept of the glocal territorial state is intended merely to indicate the general trajectoryof these currentlyunfolding shifts in the institutional structureand scale of state power, and not to demarcatea firmly consolidated or stabilized post-Fordist state form. The hegemony of neoliberal ideologies and policies in these states must be viewed as a symptom of continued crisis and global disorder rather than as a coherentpath toward a new spatial or institutionalfix (Peck and Tickell, 1994). The glocalization of state territorialpower is at once the outcome
of crisis-induced socioeconomic restructuring on urban-regional scales and a medium state-led reindustrialization through a profound redeof finition of each state's relationship to its major cities and regions 16


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

(Swyngedouw, 1996). To grasp this complex, contradictorydialectic of global city formationand state territorialrestructuringthrough a single analyticallens, the currentround of globalizationmust be conceived as a worldwide reconfigurationof multiple, superimposed spatial scales, including those of urbanization,state territorialpower and capital accumulation (Lefebvre,1991, 1978).
RE-SCALING SOCIAL SPACE: GLOBAL GLOCAL STATES CITIES,

Cities are at once basing points for capital accumulation(nodesin global flows) and organizational-administrative levels of territorialstates (coor-. dinatesof state territorialpower). As nodes in global flows, cities operate at once as: loci of industrialproduction;centersof command and control over inter-urban,interstate and global circuits of capital; and sites of exchange within local, regional, national and global markets.This is the dimension of cities that has been analyzed extensively in the vast literature on the political economy and historical geography of capitalist urbanization(see e.g., Harvey, 1989b;Storperand Walker,1989).Second, as coordinatesof state territorial power, cities are regulatory-institutional levels within each state's organizationalhierarchy.The term 'coordinate' is intended to connote not only the embeddedness of cities within the state's territorialmatrix, but their changing structuralpositions within the multiple, overlapping regulatory networks through which state power is configured on differentialspatial scales. These coordinatescan be interlinkedthrough various means, from legal-constitutionalregulations, financialinterdependencies,administrativedivisions of labor and hierarchies of command to informal regulatory and coordination arrangements.This dimension of cities has been analyzed most prominently in studies of the local state (see e.g., Duncan and Goodwin, 1988; Kratkeand Schmoll, 1987). During the Fordist-Keynesian period, these two dimensions of. urbanization were spatially coextensive within the boundaries of the national territorialstate. As nodes of accumulation,cities were framed within the same territorial grids that underpinnedthe nationaleconomy. The cities of the older industrialized world served as the engines of Fordist mass production, the urban infrastructureof a global system compartmentalizedinto distinct state-level territorialmatrices. Though transnational inter-urban linkages remained crucial to the North AtlanticFordistspace-economy,a tight fit was presumed between urban dynamism and the growth of the national economy as a whole. Regions and cities were viewed as mere sub-units of national economic space. It was widely assumed that the industrializationof urban cores would generate a propulsive dynamic of growth that would eventually lead to 17


ARTICLES

the industrialization of the state's internal peripheries, and thereby counteract the problem of uneven geographical development. Likewise, as coordinates of state territorial power, Fordist-Keynesian regional and local regulatory institutions functioned primarily as transmission belts of central state socioeconomic policies. Their goal was above all to promote growth and redistribute its effects on a national scale. To this end, redistributive regional policies were widely introduced to promote industrialization in each state's internal peripheries. It was this situation that led postwar regional development theorists such as Myrdal (1957) and Hirschman (1958) to view the territorial state as the basic container of spatial polarization between core urban growth centers and internal peripheral zones; which led urban geographers such as Berry (1961) and Pred (1977), among others, to view the territorial state as the primary scale on which rank-size hierarchies within city systems were organized; and which led state theorists such as Offe (1975) to describe municipal politics as a mere 'buffer zone' constructed by the central state to insulate itself from social conflict and legitimation crises. Since the 1970s, however, this nationally scaled constellation of city-state-capital interconnections has been substantially rearticulated and rehierarchized toward the global, super-regional, regional and local scales. Aside from the increasing globalization of capital and the 'glocal' institutional-regulatory shifts outlined previously, the scales of urbanization have also been reterritorialized. Figure 1 illustrates the ways in which the European urban hierarchy has been reconfigured since the crisis of the Fordist-Keynesian sociospatial regime in the early 1970s. This schematic representation of the contemporary European city system (derived from Kritke, 1995: 140-1, 1993: 184-7) focuses on the first dimension of urbanization, the role of cities as nodes of capital accumulation. Kratke's model describes the ongoing transformation of the European urban hierarchy through two structural criteria, the industrial structure of the city's productive base (Fordist vs. post-Fordist) and the spatial scale of its command and control functions (global, European, national, regional, non-existent). The arrows in the figure indicate various possible changes in position among cities within the European urban hierarchy; and various cities have been listed to exemplify each of these levels (for a more detailed discussion see Kratke, 1993). Global city formation signifies the emergence of an urban hierarchy on both global and super-regional scales, defined through the scale of urban command and control functions, the scale of inter-urban exchange relations, and the scale on which inter-urban competition occurs. As nodes of accumulation, therefore, cities are no longer enclosed within relatively autocentric national economies, but embedded ever more directly within trans-state urban hierarchies and inter-urban networks. Though the cities currently positioned at the apex of the global, European, North 18


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES
STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION Flexible production Fordist mass production PeripheraDzed

Global

GLOBAL CITIES (e.g. London, Paris,Frankfurt)
l

/

a

1 lb

\

European SPATIAL

URBAN REGIONS Zurich, EUROPEAN (e.g. Amsterdam, Brussels,Hamburg, Milan) 2a 2b

CAPACITY

SCALE. OF NationalCONTROL regional

NATIONAL URBAN CENTERS Barcelona, Rome,Dortmund, (e.g. Lyon,Madrid, Birmingham) Dusseldorf, Oslo, Copenhagen,

,

3a

3b

,,
,

,

Lack of control capacity

FORDIST MARGINALIZED CITIES CITIES CITIES (citiesspecializedin I (citiesspecializedin Fordist i(citieslacking any post-Fordist mass production systems, ' competitive infraindustrial production systems, e.g. Manchester, Turin, I e.g. Stuttgart, ' Duisburg, Liverpool) structure, e.g. Toulouse, Prato) Naples,Palermo) 6 5 4< <

I POST-FORDIST

1 urbanhierarchy: of Figure The European spatialscalesand structures production. Note:Arrows indicatepossible changes in position among cities in the European urbanhierarchy; diagrambased on Kratke(1995:140-1). American and East Asian urban hierarchies present the most dramatic evidence of this transformation, their positions are indicative of a more general reterritorialization of the global urbanization process on both sub- and supra-state scales. This wave of spatial restructuring has also had major implications for the role of cities as coordinates of state territorial power. It is in this context that the rise of the glocal territorial state must be understood. As indicated, the glocalization of state territorial organization enhances the role of urban-regional scales in promoting capital accumulation. This re-scaling of state territorial power toward the regional and local levels can be viewed as a state-directed attempt to propel cities and regions upwards in the urban hierarchy depicted in Figure 1. This form of 'urban entrepreneurialism' (Harvey, 1989c) is evident with reference to both dimensions depicted, the industrial structure of the city's productive base and the spatial scale of its command and control functions. Throughout Europe, local and regional governments are engaged in a frenzied attempt at once to revalorize decaying industrial sites, to promote industrial growth in globally competitive sectors and to acquire 19


ARTICLES

command and control functions in the world economy by providing various territorial preconditions for transnational capital, including transportation and communications links, office space, labor power and other place-speciflc externalities (Mayer, 1994, 1992). The immutable link between processes of urban-regional restructuring and state re-scaling is institutionally embodied in the growing role of various newly created para-state agencies, quangos and public-private partnerships in planning and coordinating investment within these local mega-projects (e.g. the London Docklands Development Corporation, the London Pride Partnership, London First, Frankfurt's Economic Development Corporation, the Schiphol Airport business park and the IJ-Banks waterfront development agency in Amsterdam).9 The mobilization of municipal governance around the political economy of place therefore entails a double-edged struggle to reconfigure the territorial organization of urban space: it is both socioeconomic, oriented toward the construction of 'new industrial spaces' (Scott, 1988) for post-Fordist forms of capital accumulation; and institutional, oriented toward the construction of what might be termed 'new state spaces' that enhance the local state's capacity to mobilize and coordinate transnational capital investment within selected urban locational nodes. Figure 2 summarizes the ways in which the relations between urbanization patterns and forms of state territorial organization have been reconfigured since the Fordist-Keynesian period, highlighting at once the globalization of the world economy, the glocalization of state territorial power, and the ramifications of these shifts for both dimensions of urbanization. As nodes of accumulation, global cities are embedded within flows of capital that no longer overlap coextensively with national economic space. As coordinates of state territorial power, global cities occupy a highly contradictory, multi-scalar geographical terrain. On the one hand, they are situated within the framework of state territoriality defined by a bounded geopolitical space in the interstate system. On the other hand, as the glocal territorial state transfers and devolves many of its regulatory tasks toward supra-national, regional and local scales, an increasing 'territorial non-coincidence' (Murray, 1971) emerges betwveen the scales of state territorial organization and those of capital accumulation. This situation presents one of the major scalar dilemmas that must be confronted by the glocal territorial state. The scales of capital accumulation have never coincided exactly with those of state territorial organization, but the most recent round of globalization has intensified this scalar disjuncture to an historically unprecedented degree. However, because the glocal state remains a territorially bounded and immobilized spatial configuration, it cannot recreate the type of scalar symmetry between state structures and circuits of capital that obtained during the 20


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES
TERRITORIAL STATEFORM NATIONAL TERRITORIAL STATE CITYAS COORDINATEOF STATE POWER ' National-developmentalism: belt l cityas a transmission fornational economicpolicy; Keynesian'managerial' city X 'GLOCAL' TERRITORIAL STATE 'Glocalization' state power: of citypoliticsorientedtoward the promotion endogenous of accumulation strategies; re-scalingof state power towardsupra-national and institutions local-regional

(1 950s-1 970s)

URBANIZATION

(post-1 970s)

CITYAS NODE OF ACCUMULATION

I Cityas engine of national economicgrowth: i Fordist industrial city; cityas a 'growth machine' '

l

Globalcityformation: of uncoupling urbangrowth fromthe growthof national economies;intensified interspatial competition amongcities and regions on a worldscale

INTERNATIONAL
ECONOMY
I

GLOBAL
ECONOMY

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION THEWORLD OF ECONOMY

Figure2 Urbanization,state forms and the world economy: Fordist and postFordist configurations postwar period. The state's efforts to restructure itself by devolving tasks and responsibilities downwards to its regional and local levels have actually magnified the territorial non-coincidence between the scales of state territorial organization and those of capital accumulation. The promotion of supra-national institutions such as the EU can be interpreted in part as a contravening effort to reduce this territorial non-coincidence by creating supra-national scales of state regulation (Leyshon and Thrift, 1995; Tommel, 1996). Under these circumstances, the scales of state territorial organization have become central mediators of capital's attempt to maximize its command and control over space, territory and scale. As Swyngedouw (1992b: 61) notes: The geographical scale of the codification and implementation of institutional-regulatory systems ... simultaneously defines and circumscribes the power of capital to command space.... A reduction in the scale of regulatory-institutional organisation increases the power of capital over space and constrains the command of 21


ARTICLES

territorially-organised interests to control territorialorganisation. Scale reduction, therefore, reconfigures the boundaries of territorial organisation and intensifies inter-territorialstruggle. The struggle over scale and its substantive definition works itself out as a struggle over the command over space and territory. As the state comes to operate as an active moment in the configuration of each territory'sfixed and immobile productive capacities, its scalar organizationassumes a centralrole in circumscribing capital'slocational dynamics and productive capacities. In the late twentieth century, the state's own configurations of territorial organization have become essential components of the circuit of capital, and therefore,important locationalweapons in the interspatialcompetitionbetween cities, regions and states in the world economy. Thus emerges a 'politics of scale' (Snmith, 1995, 1992) in which the territorialorganization of social relatioinsbecomes a direct object of sociopolitical contestation. If, as Friedmannand Wolff (1982:312) have proposed, 'world cities lie at the junctionbetween the global economy and the territorial nationstate', then it is appropriateto view the political-regulatory institutions of world city-regions as highly contested sites in which the politics of scale are fought out with particularintensity. Contemporaryprocesses of state re-scaling are reconfiguring the relationship between capital, state institutions and territorially circumscribed sociopolitical forces within major urban regions, producing new constellationsof territorial politics on both urban, regional and national scales. Some of the contradictory interconnectionsbetween global cities and their host states in contemporaryEurope can now be examined more concretely.
GLOBAL CITY FORMATION AND TERRITORIAL POLITICS

Though the dynamics of local growth coalitions have been investigated extensively by urban regime theorists (see, e.g., Logan and Molotch, 1987;Mollenkopf, 1983),less attention has been devoted to the ways in which the localized politics of world cities are articulatedwith broader regional and national political-territorial constellations.This articulation can become highly antagonistic when territoriallydependent interests located elsewhere within the global city's host state clash with the goals of the local growth machine. As Friedmannand Wolff (1982:312) point out, 'being essential to both transnationalcapital and national political interests, world cities may become bargaining counters in the ensuing struggles'. Taylor (1995:59) likewise asks: 'Whatwould a strong protectionist policy resulting from a popular revolt by industrial America do for New York'srole as a world city? Would capitalmove to a still "free" 22


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

Tokyo market?' The crucial question, therefore, is how the economic disjuncture between the world city and the territorial economy of its host state is managed politically, through the construction of accumulation strategies and hegemonic projects (Jessop, 1990) within and across each scale-level of the territorial state. The case of London and the southeast of England is the most dramatic European instance of this disjuncture and an associated, highly polarized territorial politics. The dynamism of England's southeast as a global city-region has been based predominantly on an offshore economy derived from the City's role as a global financial center, delinked almost entirely from the declining cities and regions located elsewhere within the national territory of the UK (King, 1990b): 'The City is now a global stage located in Britain rather than a British stage in the global arena' (Toulouse, 1991: 62). Particularly following the abolition of exchange controls in 1979 and the deregulatory Big Bang of October 1986, the City's role as a global banking and financial center has been further consolidated. The 'two-nations' accumulation strategy of the Thatcher era has exacerbated spatial polarization between the Greater London metropolitan area and the rest of the UK (Dunford, 1995). In this context, the state's efforts to promote the southeast as a global city-region have generated conflicts with those sectors of the population that are dependent upon the territorialized productive base of the UK, including major sectors of industrial capital and its labor force. Global city formation in the national capital has today become one of the primary politicaleconomic priorities of the central state, at the expense of investment in declining cities and regions located elsewhere within its territory (LPAC, 1991; King, 1990b: 71-155). Consequently, the rise of Thatcherism can be interpreted as a 'declaration of independence by the south of England, the community dependent on London as a world city' (Taylor, 1995: 59; 1997, 1993). Two lines of conflict that have dominated British national politics throughout the 1980s can be deciphered on this basis: that between financial and industrial capital; and that between central and local authorities (Coakley and Harris, 1983; Duncan and Goodwin, 1988; Longstreth, 1979). The rise of Thatcherism signaled the alignment of a neoliberal central state with globally oriented finance capital (as well as with London-based producer and financial services industries) against the territorialized demands of industrial capital and its labor force in the declining manufacturing cities and regions of the north and Scotland. This contradictory configuration of alliances (i.e. finance capital/central state vs. industrial capital/local councils/labour) also led to a series of bitter political conflicts within London following the consolidation of Thatcherism in 1979. Whereas the Labour-dominated GLC (Greater London Council) aspired to restructure London's industrial base through 23


ARTICLES

various reindustrializationand manufacturing job-creation programs (Eisenschitzand North, 1986),the centralstate was concernedprimarily to promote London'scompetitivenessas a world financialcenterthrough urban revitalization projects, enterprise zones and urban development corporationssuch as King's Cross, the Isle of Dogs EnterpriseZone, the Canary Wharf office development scheme in the Docklands and the Thames Gateway project (Fainstein,1994;Simmie, 1994). The reconfigurationof central-local government relations during the mid-1980scan likewise be viewed as a crucial component of the central state's neo-authoritarianaccumulation strategy to propel London and the southeast of England to global city status while suppressing local and regional territorialopposition, including that within London itself. The 1986abolitionof regional governmentin the UK - both in the MCCs (MetropolitanCounty Councils) and in the GLC - can be understood as an initiativeby the centralstate to createits own non-electedregional and local states to circumvent the territorialized opposition of both industrial capital and manufacturingworkers (Duncan and Goodwin, 1988). This 'regional state solution' has entailed 'the removal of subnational state functions to non-electorallocal states, while electorallocal governments are left formally in position but with much reduced powers' (Duncan and Goodwin, 1988: 249; Colenutt and Ellis, 1993). These centrally controlled regional states represent a particularBritish variant of the glocal territorialstate that was described above: in the UK the regionalizationof state territorialpower has been directed above all by the central state. These trends also indicate that the intensified importance of sub-national regulatory scales in the current configuration of world capitalism does not necessarily entail greater autonomy for regional and local institutions.In the London region, the Thatcherite wave of state re-scalinghas entailed the creation of a new ensemble of unelected regulatoryagencies and quangos that are local or regional in scale while being administered from above (the London Docklands Development Corporation, London Pride and the Thames Gateway scheme are among the most prominent examples). I'his situation of a state-levelterritorial politics over global city formation has not been replicated in countries such as Germany or the Netherlandsdue to their very differentstructuresof state territorial organization and urbanizationpatterns. In the FRG, with its decentralized state system and its multiple urban regions, it is not politically viable for the central state to align its socioeconomicpolicies one-sidedly with any single urban-regional growth pole, especially when many of its cities are already engaged in concerted interspatial competition with one another. Frankfurtpresents a partial exception to this situation because it is the site of both the Bundesbank and (in the near future) the European Central Bank, but even here urban development is largely 24


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

planned and organized by an ensemble of local and regional institutions that must compete with other Lander centralstate resources.In for contrast to the UK, even the most globalized cities of the FRGoperate as major articulation points for nationally and regionally dependent industries, and thus remain tightly interwoven into the industrialfabric of Germany's territorialeconomy. During the 1980s, under the Kohl regime, state territorialorganization in the FRG was substantially decentralized and regionalized (Herrigel,1996:275-86). This devolution of state power has enabled 'all
Land governments ... [to] behave like the management of a business,

attempting to direct their entire policy at the needs and requirements of the Land as an industrial location in postfordist world capitalism' (Esser and Hirsch, 1989: 430). As a result, the main form of interterritorialpolitical conflict that has emerged in global city-regions such as Frankfurt/Rhein-Main intra-regional: is global city formation in the city core has generateda spiral of conflictsover living conditions,administrative organization, taxes, ecology, planning, transportation and growth with the cities and towns of the surrounding region (Keil and Lieser, 1992; Rautenstrauch, 1990; Ronneberger and Keil, 1995). However, on a national scale these political conflicts are overshadowed by intense spatial polarization between the 'old states' of Western Germanyand the 'new states' of the post-unificationEast. The existence of multiple urbanregions within the FRGhas led to a situationin which, despite continued north-south and east-west spatial polarization, the globalized dynamism of the major cities underlies the accumulation strategy of the entire territorial state. As the central state devolves substantial tasks toward these sub-national scales, inter-territorial conflicts over global city formation appear to be organized primarily within and not between major urban regions. the The Randstad-Netherlands case presents an intermediary situation between the London and Frankfurtconstellations of territorialpolitics, for here the urban-regionaland the national scales are almost entirely spatially coextensive. The Randstad- the polycentric agglomerationin the western Netherlands composed of Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Utrecht and the Hague - contains almost half the country's population and employment, produces 46 percent of the total gross value added of the Dutch economy, and occupies roughly one-quarter of its physicalgeographic space (Musterdand de Pater, 1991;Dieleman and Musterd, 1992). In an already highly internationalizedand export-orientedterritorial economy, the Randstadis the majorgrowth pole. In this situation, the state's relatively small size enables it to operate increasingly like a city-state,despite its centralizedterritorial form. Though core-periphery polarization, inter-urbancompetition and central-local conflict persist in the Netherlands, global city formation in the Randstad has now 25


ARTICLES

become an unchallenged goal for national economic policy, as illustrated in the Fourth National Spatial Planning Report of the mid-1980s and in the Fourth Report Extra of 1990 (known by its acronym VINEX). The Fourth Report and the VINEX have reversed three decades of Dutch regional planning practice that emphasized the balanced geographical distribution of employment and population on a national scale (Faludi and van der Valk, 1994; Tommel, 1992), advocating instead the spatial reconcentration of growth and investment within the central cities of the Randstad as the most effective strategy for national economic development (Kreukels, 1992; Terhorst and van de Ven, 1995). These central state spatial policy initiatives have promoted various forms of intermunicipal cooperation, investment, planning and regulation on the scale of the entire Randstad as being essential to its competitive advantage as a world city-region. In 1989 a national commission advocated the creation of regional authorities in seven urban areas (including the four cities of the Randstad megalopolis) that would appropriate various executive functions from the central state on scales that overlapped with emergent inter-municipal interdependencies (Kreukels and Wilmer, 1990; Van der Wusten and Faludi, 1992). Though the central state's recent efforts to construct 'city-provinces' in the major urban regions have provoked considerable local opposition, the current government remains committed to the project of reconfiguring the institutional structure of metropolitan governance both within and beyond the Randstad region. Drawing on Katzenstein (1985), Dijkink (1995: 330) interprets the current wave of state territorial reorganization in the Netherlands as 'an example of the readiness of small countries to surmount political cleavages in order to react to world market conditions'. Yet current patterns of s,tate restructuring in the Netherlands are quite analogous to those that have been occurring elsewhere within the EU. Like all European states, throughout the 1980s the Netherlands has been forced increasingly to replace traditional Keynesian welfare policies with supply-side, entrepreneurial forms of governance such as public-private partnerships, enterprise zones and urban-regional development corporations to promote, finance and regulate capital accumulation within its major cities and regions (Tommel, 1992; Kreukels and Spit, 1990). In the Randstad-Netherlands case, however, the boundaries between interurban, inter-regional and state-level political conflict have proven to be relatively fluid. The politics of global city formation therefore dominates all levels of social and economic policy debate in the Netherlands, for the state's future trajectory in the world economy is largely contingent upon the dynamism of the Randstad (Terhorst and van de Ven, 1995). The Dutch state is less a host state for the Randstad than its geopolitical embodiment in the interstate system. 26


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

Even among global cities situated at the apex of the Europeanurban hierarchy, political responses to the current round of spatial restructuring remain extraordinarilydiverse, and depend substantiallyon the territorialstructureof state power in their respective host countries.The central point that emerges from this schematic analysis is that global city formation generates intensely contradictory configurations of political-territorial struggle that at once push cities towards global accumulation strategies while simultaneously pulling them back into the vortex of state territorialpower. As Taylor (1994b:70) notes: 'For all their technical prowess in out-flanking the states, global cities remain places within states and this has crucial implications in terms of the politics of representation.'
CONCLUSION: FROM THE 'URBAN QUESTION' TO THE 'SCALE QUESTION'

Global city formation cannot be adequately understood without an examinationof the matrices of state territorialorganizationwithin and through which it occurs. The globalization of urbanization and the glocalization of state territorial power are two deeply intertwined moments of a single process of global restructuringthrough which the scales of capitalistsociospatialorganizationhave been reconfiguredsince the early 1970s. The most recent round of globalization has therefore entailed not only an intensificationof capital's dynamic of time-space compression (Harvey, 1989a),but a glocal reconfigurationof state territorial organization to circumscribe social relations within reterritorialized'power-geometries'(Massey, 1993). From this point of view, globalization must be understood as a re-scaling of global social space, not as a subjectionof localities to the deterritorializing, placeless dynamics of the 'space of flows' (Castells, 1989). Amidst the confusing and contradictory geographies of contemporary globalization, world cities present a particularlycomplex 'superimpositionand interpenetration' (Lefebvre, 1991: 88) of social spaces at the interface between multiple, overlapping spatial scales. Today there is an urgent need for new conceptualizations and representations of spatial scale to grasp these sites of simultaneous globalizationand reterritorialization. Though geographers have frequently invoked the idea that spatial scale is socially produced (Agnew, 1997;Herod, 1991;Jonas,1994;Smith, 1992;Taylor,1981),our understandingof how this takes place in distinct historical-geographical contexts remains underdeveloped. I would suggest, however, that the centralrole of reconfigurations spatialscale of in the currentlyunfolding transformation world capitalismhas generof ated the need for a much more sustained confrontationwith this issue among social scientists,both within and beyond the disciplinarybound27


ARTICLES

aries of geography. Scale, like space itself, is not a neutral or static container within which social relations are situated, but one of their constitutive dimensions. Scale is one of the central expressions of the process of uneven geographical development through which the dynamics of capital accumulationand capitalisturbanizationhistorically unfold (Smith, 1984: 135-51). In this highly contradictoryprocess, one of the crucial roles of the territorialstate has been to organize patterns of capital accumulation into distinct historical-geographical configurations, a spatial fix (Harvey, 1982) composed of provisionally stabilized ensembles of global, national, regional and local relations. Writingin the mid-1970s,Henri Lefebvre(1976:67) argued that 'today the question of scale (la question inserts itself at the outset - at d'efchelle) - of the analysis of texts and the interpretathe foundation, as it were tion of events'. I have suggested that this 'question of scale' has become even more centralto the rapidly changing geography of capitalismthan it appeared to be from Lefebvre's vantage point over twenty years ago. One of the most daunting methodological challenges posed by the preceding analysis is to rethink the role of spatial scale as a boundary, arena and hierarchyof social relations in an age of intensified capitalistglobalization.The currentround of globalizationcalls into question inherited Euclidian, Cartesian and Newtonian conceptions of spatial scales as neutral or static platformsfor social relations,conceived as containers of different geographical sizes (Anderson, 1996; Walker, 1993). In the state-centric configuration of world capitalism that endured until the late 1960s,social relationsappearedto converge within the territorial'containers'of states. In this context, spatial scale could be viewed as a 'timeless space' (Agnew, 1994) situated within an unchanging geopolitical matrix of state territorialities.The national scale appeared to have a pre-given structuredcoherence as the natural geographical-organizationallevel for social relations, whether with reference to state institutions, economic organization, civil societies or politico-culturalidentities. Today these assumptions have become obsolete. The scales of capital accumulation, state territorial power, urbanization,societal networks and politico-culturalidentities are being continually transformed, disarticulated and recombined in ways that severely undermine this pervasive naturalizationof the national scale of social relations (Taylor,1996). Insofaras each round of capital accumulationnecessarilypresupposes a moment of territorializedfixity, spatial scales continue to frame social relations within relatively stabilized configurationsof territorialorganization. However, by focusing one-sidedly on this provisionally fixed aspect of territorialorganization,traditionalconceptions of scale as an unchanging, self-enclosed platform cannot grasp the ways in which spatial scales actively structure social relations under capitalism, and 28


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

analogously, the ways in which the social relations of capitalismin turn continuallytransformconfigurationsof territorial organizationon differential spatial scales. From this point of view, like space itself, the scales of territorialorganization are at once a presupposition, a medium and a product of capital's developmental dynamic.'0 Scales are not only socially produced, but operate as a 'geographicalorganizerand expression of collective action' (Smith,1995:61) in the context of capital'sdrive toward the continual de- and reterritorialization social relations. of In the early 1970s, Manuel Castells (1972) and David Harvey (1973) radicalized urban studies by presenting the 'urban question' as a key analytical window for the critical investigation of capitalism's spatiotemporal dynamics and contradictions.Recent researchon world cities provides ample evidence that the urban question has remained an important window into the geography of global capitalism. However, this discussion of state re-scaling indicates various ways in which the urban question in its contemporaryform is mediated through politicaleconomic transformations on multiple trans-urban scales, including those on which territorialstates are organized. In this sense, the most recent round of capitalist globalizationpresents a majormethodological challenge to urban studies: to integrateanalyses of contemporaryurban dynamics with an account of the rapidly changing scalar organization of capital accumulation, state territorial power and the urbanization process. In the late twentieth century, any confrontationwith the urban question leads directly into this broader critical interrogationof what Lefebvre (1976:68) aptly labeled 'the scale question'.
NOTES I am gratefulto Nick Entrikin,JohnFriedmann,Manu Goswami,MargitMayer, Allen Scott and Edward Soja for incisive comments and discussions at various stages of this project. An earlier version of this article was presented at the HistoricalSociology and ComparativePoliticsWorkshop,Universityof Chicago, October 1996. My thanks to the workshop participantsas well as to Giovanni Arrighi, Jeremy Bendik-Keymer, JuirgenEssletzbichler,Gary Herrigel, Sandra Moog, Bill Sewell and three anonymous referees from RIPEfor their helpful suggestions and criticisms.The usual disclaimersapply. Partsof the articlewere drafted while I was a Chancellor'sFellow in the Departmentof Geography at the University of California,Los Angeles. The financial assistance of UCLA is gratefully acknowledged. 1 Throughoutthis article, I use the terms 'world city' and 'global city' interchangeably. 2 Braudel (1983: 294) attributes this distinction between city-centered economies (Stadtwirtschaft) 'territorial and economies' (Territorialwirtschaft) to KarlBucher's1911work, Die Entstehung Volkswirtschaft. coupling these der By terms to his own notion of the world-economy(also derived from a German term, Weltwirtschaft), Braudelis able to map the longuedure'e historicalgeog29


ARTICLES raphy of capitalism in terms of various forms of interpenetration among cities, state territories and world-scale divisions of labor. A major exception to this statement is the work of Taylor (1995, 1994b) on changing city-state relations during the longue dure'eof capitalist development. Another important exception is Hamnett's (1996, 1994) work on the impact of welfare state structures on global cities. Sassen's own conclusion regarding the functional and spatial links between manufacturing and service industries indicates the limitations of such a focus: 'Yes, manufacturing matters, but from the perspective of finance and producer services, it does not have to be national' (1991: 328). This form of state territorial power was first institutionalized in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which explicitly recognized the existence of an interstate system composed of contiguous, bounded territories ruled by sovereign states committed to the principle of noninterference in each other's 'internal' affairs (Ruggie, 1993; Taylor, 1994a). This argument is elaborated at greater length in Brenner (1997b, 1997c). One obvious problem with this highly abbreviated discussion of the state as a form of territorialization for capital is that it does not take into account the highly contradictory character of state-capital relations (see Arrighi, 1994; K. Cox, 1990; Jessop, 1990; Offe, 1984). Each spatial fix must be viewed as a 'precarious equilibrium' (Lefebvre, 1976: 56) constructed through the intensely conflictual relations between various fractions of capital, state institutions, class fractions and social movements as they are articulated at different geographical scales. The notion of territoriality as a 'strategy' based on the enclosure of space is derived from Sack (1986). Soja (1992a: 95, 1992b) has defined post-Fordist urban form in closely analogous terms, as an 'exopolis' in which the city is turned "'inside out" and "outside-in" at the same time'. For an overview of recent research on these transformations of urban governance and its geography see Hall and Hubbard (1996). Thus formulated, spatial scales are analogous to 'structures' in the work of Giddens (1984) and Sewell (1992). See also Lefebvre (1991: 65, 73, 85-8).

3

4

5

6

7 8 9 10

REFERENCES
Aglietta, Michel (1979) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation, New York: Verso. Agnew, John (1994) 'The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory', Review of InternationalPolitical Economy1(1): 53-80. (1997) 'The dramaturgy of horizons: geographical scale in the "reconstruction of Italy" by the new Italian political parties, 1992-1995', Political Geography16(2): 99-121. Agnew, John and Corbridge, Stuart (1995) Mastering Space:Hegemony, Territory

and International PoliticalEconomy, New York:Routledge.
Altvater, Elmar (1992) 'Fordist and post-Fordist international division of labor and monetary regimes', in Michael Storper and Allen J. Scott (eds) Pathways

to Industrialization Regional and Development, York:Routledge,pp. 21-45. New
Amin, Ash and Thrift, Nigel (1992) 'Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks',

International Journal Urbanand Regional of Research 16(4) (1992):571-87.
(1995) 'Territoriality in the global political economy', Nordisk

20: Samheallgeografisk Tidskrift 3-16.
Amin, Samir (1997) Capitalism in the Age of Globalization,London: Zed. 30


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES Anderson, James (1996) 'The shifting stage of politics: new medieval and post-

Environment PlanningD: Societyand Space14: and modern territorialities?',
133-53. Anderson, James and Goodman, James (1995) 'Regions, states and the European Union: modernist reaction or postmodern adaptation?', Review of International Political Economy 2(4): 600-31.

at Cultural Dimensions Globalization, Appadurai,Arjun (1996)Modernity Large: of
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Arrighi, Giovanni (1994) The Long Twentieth Century, London: Verso. (1995) 'The rise of East Asia and the withering away of the interstate system', Session on Global Praxis and the Future of the World System, Meeting of the American Sociological Association, 19-23 August. Berry, Brian J. (1961) 'City size distributions and economic development',

Economic and 9: Development CulturalChange 573-87.
Braudel, Fernand (1983) The Perspective of the World, New York: Collins. Brenner, Neil (1997a) 'State territorial restructuring and the production of spatial scale: urban and regional planning in the FRG, 1960-1990', Political Geography 16(4): 273-306. (1997b) 'Global, fragmented, hierarchical: Henri Lefebvre's geographies of globalization', Public Culture 10(1): 137-69. (1997c) 'Between fixity and motion: space, territory and place in the social production of spatial scale', Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, manuscript. (1997d) 'Unthinking state-centrism: territoriality and spatial scale in globalization studies', Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, manuscript. Castells, Manuel (1972) The Urban Question, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (1989) The InformationalCity, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Cerny, Philip (1995) 'Globalization and the changing logic of collective action',

International Organization 49(4):595-625.
Coakley, Jerry and Harris, Laurence (1983) The City of Capital. London's Role as a Financial Center, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Cohen, R. B. (1981) 'The new international division of labor, multinational corporations, and urban hierarchy', in Michael Dear and Allen J. Scott (eds)

and Urbanization Urban Planningin Capitalist Society, London and New York:
Methuen, pp. 287-315. Colenutt, Bob and Ellis, Geraint (1993) 'The next quangos in London', New & Statesman Society,26 March, pp. 20-1. Cox, Kevin (1990) 'Territorial structures of the state: some conceptual issues',

voor Tijdschrift Economische SocialeGeografie en 81(4):251-66. Cox, Robert(1987)Production, Powerand World Order. SocialForces theMaking in
of History, New York: Columbia University Press. (1993) 'Structural issues of global governance: implications for Europe', in

Stephen Gill (ed.) Gramsci, Historical Materialism International and Relations,
New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259-89.

Dicken,Peter (1991)Global Shift.TheInternationalizationEconomic of Activity,New
York: Guilford. Dieleman, Frans and Musterd, Sako (eds) (1992) The Randstad:A Researchand Policy Laboratory,Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dijkink, Gertjan (1995) 'Metropolitan government as political pet? Realism and tradition in administrative reform in the Netherlands', Political Geography 14(4): 329-41. 31


ARTICLES

Duncan, Simon and Goodwin, Mark (1988) The Local State and Uneven London:Polity Press. Development, Dunford, Mick (1995) 'Metropolitanpolarization, the north-south divide and socio-spatialinequality in Britain:a long-termperspective',European Urban and Regional Studies2(2): 145-70. Dunford, Mick and Kafkalas,Grigoris(1992) 'The global-local interplay,corporate geographies and spatial development strategies in Europe', in Mick Dunford and Grigoris Kafkalas(eds) Citiesand Regionsin the New Europe, London:Belhaven Press, pp. 3-38. Eisenschitz, Aram and North, David (1986) 'The London industrial strategy: socialist transformation modernising capitalism?',International or Journal of Urbanand Regional Research 10(3). Esser, Josef and Hirsch, Joachim (1989) 'The crisis of fordism and the dimensions of a "postfordist" regional and urban structure',International Journal of Urbanand Regional Research 13(3):417-37. Fainstein,Susan (1994)TheCity Builders: PoliticsandPlanningin London Property, and New York,Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell. Faludi,Andreas and van der Valk, Arnold (1994)Ruleand Order: DutchPlanning Doctrinein the Twentieth Dordrecht:Kluwer. Century,
Feagin, Joe and Smith, Michael Peter (1989) 'Cities and the new international

divison of labor:an overview', in Michael Peter Smith and Joe Feagin (eds) TheCapitalist City, Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell. Friedmann,John (1986) 'The world city hypothesis', Development Change and 17:
69-83.
-

(1995) 'Where we stand: a decade of world city research',in Paul Knox and PeterTaylor(eds) World Citiesin a World-System, York:Cambridge New University Press, pp. 21-47. research and action', International Journal Urbanand Regional of Research 6:
309-44.

Friedmann, John and Wolff, Goetz (1982) 'World city formation: an agenda for

Frobel, Folker, Heinrichs,Jurgen and Kreye, Otto (1980) TheNew International Divisionof Labor, New York:CambridgeUniversity Press. Geddes, Patrick(1915) Citiesin Evolution, London. Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution Society.Outline of the Theoryof of Structuration, Berkeleyand Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress.
Gottdiener, Mark (1990) 'Crisis theory and state-financed capital: the new

conjuncturein the USA', International Journal Urbanand Regional of Research
14(3): 383-403.

Hall, Peter (1966) The World Cities,London:Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Hall, Tim and Hubbard, Phil (1996) 'The entrepreneurial city: new politics, new

urban geographies',Progress HumanGeography in 20(2), 153-74. Hamnett,Chris (1994) 'Socialpolarisationin global cities: theory and evidence', UrbanStudies31: 401-24. (1996) 'Social polarisation, economic restructuring and welfare state regimes', UrbanStudies33(8): 1407-30. Harvey, David (1973) SocialJusticeand the City, Baltimore,Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. (1982) TheLimitsto Capital, Chicago:University of Chicago Press. (1989a)TheCondition Postmodernity, of Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell.
(1989b) The UrbanExperience, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

(1989c) 'Frommanagerialismto entrepreneurialism: transformation the in
urban governance in late capitalism', Geografiska Annaler B, 71(1) (1989): 3-18. 32


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES

(1995) 'Globalizationin question', Rethinking Marxism8(4): 1-17. Held, David (1991)'Democracy,the nation-stateand the global system', in David Held (ed.) PoliticalTheory Today, Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversity Press, pp. 197-235. Herod, Andrew (1991) 'The production of scale in United States labour relations', Area23(1):82-8. Herrigel, Gary (1996) IndustrialConstructions: Sourcesof German The Industrial Power,New York:CambridgeUniversity Press. Hirschman, Albert (1958) The Strategyof Economic New Haven, Development, Conn.:Yale University Press. Hitz, Hansruedi,Lehrer,Ute, Ronneberger, Klaus,Schmid,Christianand Wolff, Richard (eds) (1995) CapitalesFatales: Urbanisierung und Politik in den und Finanzmetropolen Frankfurt Zurich,Zurich:Rotpunktverlag. Jessop, Bob (1990) StateTheory: Statesin theirPlace,University PuttingCapitalist Park, Penn.: PennsylvaniaState University Press. (1992) 'Fordism and post-Fordism:a critical reformulation',in Michael Storper and Allen J. Scott (eds) Pathwaysto Industrialization Regional and Development, New York:Routledge, pp. 46-69. (1994) 'Post-Fordismand the state', in Ash Amin (ed.) Post-Fordism: A Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell,pp. 251-79. Reader, Jonas,Andrew (1994) 'The scale politics of spatiality',Environment Planning and D: Societyand Space12(3):257-64. Katzenstein,Peter (1985)SmallStatesin World Markets: Industrial Policyin Europe. Ithaca,NY, and London:Corneli University Press. Keil, Roger (1993) Weltstadt Stadtder Welt.Internationalisierung lokale und Politik in LosAngeles,Miinster:WestfalischesDampfboot. Keil, Roger and Lieser, Peter (1992) 'Frankfurt: global city - local politics', in Michael Peter Smith (ed.) After Modernism: GlobalRestructuring and the Boundaries CityLife,New Brunswick,NJ:Transaction Changing of Publishers,
pp. 39-69.

King, Anthony (1990a) Urbanism, and Colonialism the World Economy: Spatialand Cultural Foundations the World-System, of New York:Routledge. (199Gb) GlobalCities:Post-Imperialism the Internationalization London, and of New York:Routledge. Knox, Paul and Taylor, Peter (eds) (1995) WorldCitiesin a World-System, New York:CambridgeUniversity Press. Kratke,Stefan (1991) Strukturwandel Stddte, der Frankfurt: Campus. (1993) 'Stadtsystemim internationalenKontext und Vergleich',in Roland Roth and Hellmut Wollmann(eds) Kommunalpolitik, Opladen:Leske Verlag, pp. 176-93. (1995) Stadt,Raum,Okonomie, Basel:BirkhauserVerlag. Kritke, Stefanand Schmoll,Fritz(1987)'Der lokale Staat- "Ausfiihrungsorgan" oder "Gegenmacht"?', Prokla68: 30-72. Kreukels,A. (1992)'Therestructuring and growth of the Randstadcities:current policy issues', in Frans Dieleman and Sako Musterd (eds) TheRandstad: A Research PolicyLaboratory, and Dordrecht:Kluwer, pp. 237-62. Kreukels,A. and Spit, T. (1990) 'Public-privatepartnershipin the Netherlands', voor Tijdschrift Economische SocialeGeografie en 81(5):388-92. Kreukels, A. and Wilmer, H. (1990) 'Metropolitan government in the voor Netherlands',Tijdschrift Economische SocialeGeografie en 81(4):299-306. Lefebvre,Henri (1976)De l'tat: De Hegela Marxpar Staline,Vol. 2, Paris:Union Generaled'Editions. 33


ARTICLES (1977) De l'etat: Le mode de production&tatique, Vol. 3, Paris: Union Generale d'Editions.

(1978) De l'etat: Les contradictions l'etat moderne, de Vol. 4, Paris: Union
Generale d'Editions. (1991)[1974] The Production of Space, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Leyshon, Andrew and Thrift, Nigel (1995) 'European financial integration: the search for "an island of monetary stability" in the seas of global financial turbulence', in Sally Hardy (ed.) An EnlargedEurope.Regions in Competition?, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 109-44. Lipietz, Alain (1987) Mirages and Miracles, London: Verso. (1993) 'The local and the global: regional individuality or interregionalism?',

Transactions the Instituteof BritishGeographers 8-18. of 18:
Logan, John and Molotch, Harvey (1987) Urban Fortunes. The Political Economy of Place, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Longstreth, Frank (1979) 'The City, industry and the state', in Colin Crouch (ed.)

Stateand Economy Contemporary in New York:St Martin'sPress, Capitalism,
pp. 157-90. LPAC (London Planning Advisory Committee) (1991) London. WorldCity Moving

into the 21st Century, London:HMSO.
Machimura, Takashi (1992) 'The urban restructuring process in Tokyo in the 1980s: transforming Tokyo into a world city', InternationalJournal of Urban

and Regional Research 16(1):114-28. Mann, Michael (1993) TheSources SocialPower,Vol. 2: TheRise of Classesand of
Nation-States, New York: Cambridge University Press. Martinelli, Flavia and Schoenberger, Erica (1991) 'Oligopoly is alive and well: notes for a broader discussion of flexible accumulation', in Georges Benko

and Mick Dunford (eds) IndustrialChangeand RegionalDevelopment: The
Transformation New Industrial Spaces,New York: Belhaven Press, pp. 117-33. of

Marx,Karl(1973)[18571 Grundrisse. Foundations theCritique Political of of Economy,
trans. Martin Nicolaus, New York: Penguin. Massey, Doreen (1993) 'Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place', in

Jon Bird (ed.) Mappingthe Futures:LocalCultures,GlobalChange,London:
Routledge, pp. 59-70. Mayer, Margit (1992) 'The shifting local political system in European cities', in Mick Dunford and Grigoris Kafkalas (eds) Cities and Regions in the New

the Europe: Global-local and SpatialDevelopment Interplay Strategies, London:
Belhaven Press, pp. 255-76. (1994) 'Post-Fordist city politics', in Ash Amin (ed.) Post-Fordism:A Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 316-37. Mollenkopf, John (1983) The Contested City, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mollenkopf, John and Castells, Manuel (eds) (1991) Dual City: RestructuringNew York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Murray, Robin (1971) 'The internationalization of capital and the nation-state', New Left Review 67: 84-108. Musterd, Sako and de Pater, Ben (1992) RandstadHolland. Internationaal,regionaal, lokaal, Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum.

Myrdal, Gunnar (1957) Economic and Under-Developed Theory Regions,London:
Gerald Duckworth. Offe, Claus (1975) 'Zur Frage der "Identitat der kommunalen Ebene"', in RolfRichard Grauhan (ed.) LokalePolitikforschung,Vol. 2, New York: Campus, pp. 303-9. 34


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES (1984) Contradictionsof the WelfareState, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Panitch, Leo (1994) 'Globalization and the state', in Ralph Miliband and Leo Panitch (eds) Socialist Register 1994, London: Merlin Press, pp. 60-93. Peck, Jamie and Tickell, Adam (1994) 'Searching for a new institutional fix: the after-Fordist crisis and the global-local disorder', in Ash Amin (ed.) PostFordism:A Reader,Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 280-315. (1995) 'The social regulation of uneven development: "regulatory deficit", England's south east and the collapse of Thatcherism', Environment and Planning A 27: 15-40. Pred, Allan (1977) City-Systems in Advanced Economies,London: Hutchinson. Radice, Hugo (1984) 'The national economy: a Keynesian myth?', Capital and Class 22: 111-40. Rautenstrauch, Lorenz (1990) 'Frankfurt und sein Umland: Planung, Politik, Perspektiven im Bereich des Umlandverbandes Frankfurt', in Manfred Streit and Hans-Arthur Haasis (eds) Verdichtungsregionenim Umbruch, BadenBaden: Nomos, pp. 233-98. Ronneberger, Klaus and Keil, Roger (1995) 'Ausser Atem - Frankfurt nach der Postmoderne', in Hansruedi Hitz et al. (eds) CapitalesFatales: Urbanisierung und Politik in den Finanzmetropolen Frankfurt und Zurich, Zurich: Rotpunktverlag, pp. 208-84. Ross, Robert and Trachte, Kent (1990) Global Capitalism: the New Leviathan, Albany: State University of New York Press. Rottger, Bernd (1997) Neoliberale Globalisierungund eurokapitalistische Regulation, Miinster: Westfalisches Dampfboot. Ruggie, John Gerard (1993) 'Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations', International Organization 47(1): 139-74. Sack, Robert (1986) Human Territoriality. Its Theory and History, New York: Cambridge University Press. Sassen, Saskia (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (1993) Cities in the World Economy, London: Sage. (1996) Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization, New York: Columbia University Press. Scott, Allen J. (1988) New Industrial Spaces, London: Pion. (1996) 'Regional motors of the world economy', Futures 28(5): 391-411. Sewell, William (1992) 'A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation', American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1-29. Simmie, James (1994) Planning London,London: University College London Press. Smith, Neil (1984) Uneven Development.Nature, Capitaland the Productionof Space, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. (1992) 'Geography, difference and the politics of scale', in Joe Doherty, Elspeth Graham and Mo Malek (eds) Postmodernismand the Social Sciences, New York: St Martin's Press, pp. 57-79. (1995) 'Remaking scale: competition and cooperation in prenational and postnational Europe', in Heikki Eskelinen and Folke Snickars (eds) CompetitiveEuropeanPeripheries,Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 59-74. Soja, Edward (1989) 'Economic restructuring and the internationalization of the Los Angeles region', in Michael Peter Smith and Joe Feagin (eds) The Capitalist City, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 178-99. (1992a) 'Inside Exopolis: scenes from Orange County', in Michael Sorkin (ed.) Variations on a ThemePark: The New American City and the End of Public Space, New York: The Noonday Press, pp. 94-122. 35


ARTICLES (1992b) 'The stimulus of a little confusion: a contemporary comparison of Amsterdam and Los Angeles', in Michael Peter Smith (ed.) After Modernism: GlobalRestructuringand the Changing Boundariesof City Life, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 17-38. Storper, Michael (1995) 'The resurgence of regional economies: ten years later. The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies', European Urban and Regional Studies 2(3): 191-221. Storper, Michael and Scott, Allen (1989) 'The geographical foundations and social regulation of flexible production complexes', in Jennifer Wolch and Michael Dear (eds) The Power of Geography,Boston: Unwin Hyman, pp. 19-40. Storper, Michael and Walker, Richard (1989) The Capitalist Imperative:Territory, Technologyand Industrial Growth, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Strange, Susan (1995) 'The defective state', Daedalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 124(2): 55-74. Swyngedouw, Erik (1989) 'The heart of the place: the resurrection of locality in an age of hyperspace', Geografiska Annaler B 71(1): 31-42. (1992a) 'Territorial organization and the space/technology nexus', Transactions,Institute of British Geographers17: 417-33. (1992b) 'The Mammon quest: "glocalisation", interspatial competition and the monetary order: the construction of new scales', in Mick Dunford and Grigoris Kafkalas (eds) Cities and Regions in the New Europe:the Global-Local Interplay and Spatial Development Strategies, London: Belhaven Press, pp. 39-68. (1996) 'Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new authoritarianism: closing the Belgian mines', Urban Studies 33(8): 1499-521. Taylor, Peter J. (1981) 'Geographical scales within the world-economy approach', Review V (1): 3-11. (1993) 'The meaning of the North: England's "foreign country" within?' Political Geography12(2): 136-55. (1994a) 'The state as container: territoriality in the modern world-system', Progress in Human Geography18: 151-62. (1994b) 'Understanding the 1980s, Part la', Review of InternationalPolitical Economy 1(2): 365-73. (1995) 'World cities and territorial states: the rise and fall of their mutuality', in Paul Knox and Peter Taylor (eds) World Cities in a World-System, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48-62. (1996) 'Embedded statism and the social sciences: opening up to new spaces', Environmentand Planning A 28(11): 1917-928. (1997) 'Is the UK big enough for both London and England?', Editorial comment, Environment and Planning A, forthcoming. Terhorst, Pieter and van de Ven, Jacques (1995) 'The national urban growth coalition in The Netherlands', Political Geography14(4): 343-61. Thrift, Nigel (1987) 'The fixers: the urban geography of international commercial capital', in Jeffrey Henderson and Manuel Castells (eds) Global Restructuring and TerritorialDevelopment, London: Sage, pp. 203-33. Tilly, Charles (1990) Coercion, Capital and EuropeanStates, AD 990-1990, Oxford: Blackwell. Tommel, Ingeborg (1992) 'Decentralization of regional development policies in the Netherlands - a new type of state intervention?', West EuropeanPolitics 15(2): 107-25. (1996) 'Internationale Regulation und lokale Modernisierung', Zeitschriftffir Wirtschaftsgeographie 40(1-2): 44-58. 36


GLOBAL CITIES, GLOCAL STATES Toulouse, Chris (1991) 'Thatcherism, class politics and urban development in London', Critical Sociology 81(1): 55-76. Van der Wusten, Herman (1995) 'Governing urban regional networks: an introduction', Political Geography14(4): 323-28. Van der Wusten, Herman and Faludi, Andreas (1992) 'The Randstad: playground of physical planners', in Frans Dieleman and Sako Musterd (eds) The Randstad:A Researchand Policy Laboratory, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 17-38. Walker, R. B. J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel (ed.) (1996) Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

37