A global city (also called world city or sometimes alpha city or world center) is a city generally considered to be an important node in the global economic system. The concept comes from geography and urban studies and rests on the idea that globalization can be understood as largely created, facilitated and enacted in strategic geographic locales according to a hierarchy of importance to the operation of the global system of finance and trade.
The most complex of these entities is the "global city", whereby the linkages binding a city have a direct and tangible effect on global affairs through socio-economic means.[1] The terminology of "global city", as opposed to megacity, was popularized by the sociologist Saskia Sassen in reference to her 1991 work, "The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo"[2] though the term "world city" to describe cities which control a disproportionate amount of global business dates to at least May 1886, to a description of Liverpool by the Illustrated London News.[3] Patrick Geddes also used the term "world city" later in 1915.[4] Cities can fall from such categorization, as in the case of cities that have become less cosmopolitan and less internationally renowned in the current era, e.g., Kaliningrad, Russia; Thessaloniki, Greece; and Alexandria, Egypt.
Contents |
Global City or world city status is seen as beneficial, and because of this many groups have tried to classify and rank which cities are seen as 'world cities' or 'non-world cities'.[4] Although there is a consensus upon leading world cities,[5] the criteria upon which a classification is made can affect which other cities are included.[4] The criteria for identification tend either to be based on a "yardstick value" ("e.g., if the producer-service sector is the largest sector, then city X is a world city")[4] or on an "imminent determination" ("if the producer-service sector of city X is greater than the producer-service sector of N other cities, then city X is a world city").[4]
The first attempt to define, categorize, and rank global cities using 'relational data' was made in 1998 by Jon Beaverstock, Richard G Smith and Peter Taylor, who all worked at that time at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom. Together they established the Globalization and World Cities Research Network. A roster of world cities was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5 and ranked cities based on their connectivity through four "advanced producer services": accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law.[5] The GaWC inventory identifies three levels of global cities and several sub-ranks. This roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational corporations providing financial and consulting services rather than denoting other cultural, political, and economic centres.
The 2004 rankings acknowledged several new indicators while continuing to rank city economics more heavily than political or cultural factors. The 2008 roster, similar to the 1998 version, is sorted into categories of "Alpha" world cities (with four sub-categories), "Beta" world cities (three sub-categories), "Gamma" world cities (three sub-categories), and additional cities with "High sufficiency" or "Sufficiency" world city presence.
The 2010 roster of leading Alpha, Beta and Gamma world cities is as follows: [29]
In 2008, the American journal Foreign Policy, in conjunction with consulting firm A.T. Kearney and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, published a ranking of global cities, based on consultation with Saskia Sassen, Witold Rybczynski, and others. Foreign Policy noted that "the world’s biggest, most interconnected cities help set global agendas, weather transnational dangers, and serve as the hubs of global integration. They are the engines of growth for their countries and the gateways to the resources of their regions."[30]
In 2010 the index was updated, and the top thirty ranked were:[31][32]
Rank | City | Score |
---|---|---|
1 | New York City | 6.22 |
2 | London | 5.86 |
3 | Tokyo | 5.42 |
4 | Paris | 5.35 |
5 | Hong Kong | 4.14 |
6 | Chicago | 3.94 |
7 | Los Angeles | 3.90 |
8 | Singapore | 3.45 |
9 | Sydney | 3.44 |
10 | Seoul | 3.40 |
11 | Brussels | 3.29 |
12 | San Francisco | 3.26 |
13 | Washington, D.C. | 3.25 |
14 | Toronto | 3.13 |
15 | Beijing | 3.12 |
16 | Berlin | 3.03 |
17 | Madrid | 3.02 |
18 | Vienna | 2.96 |
19 | Boston | 2.78 |
20 | Frankfurt | 2.78 |
20 | Shanghai | 2.78 |
22 | Buenos Aires | 2.73 |
23 | Stockholm | 2.71 |
24 | Zurich | 2.68 |
25 | Moscow | 2.61 |
26 | Barcelona | 2.57 |
27 | Dubai | 2.56 |
28 | Rome | 2.56 |
29 | Amsterdam | 2.54 |
30 | Mexico City | 2.41 |
The Institute for Urban Strategies at The Mori Memorial Foundation in Tokyo, Japan issued a comprehensive study of global cities in 2010. The ranking is based on six overall categories, "Economy", "Research & Development", "Cultural Interaction", "Livability", "Ecology & Natural Environment", and "Accessibility", with 69 individual indicators among them.[33] This Japanese ranking also breaks down top ten world cities ranked in subjective categories such as "manager, researcher, artist, visitor and resident."
Rank | City | Score | Best category (position) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | New York City | 322.6 | Economy (1.) Research & Development (1.) |
2 | London | 313.6 | Cultural Interaction (1.) |
3 | Paris | 303.1 | Accessibility (1.) |
4 | Tokyo | 300.3 | Economy (2.) Research & Development (2.) |
5 | Singapore | 244.2 | Accessibility (4.) |
6 | Berlin | 232.9 | Ecology & Natural Environment (3.) |
7 | Amsterdam | 230.8 | Accessibility (5.) |
8 | Seoul | 228.5 | Research & Development (5.) |
9 | Hong Kong | 223.8 | Economy (5.) |
10 | Sydney | 219.0 | Ecology & Natural Environment (11.) |
11 | Vienna | 217.4 | Ecology & Natural Environment (7.) |
12 | Zurich | 215.0 | Ecology & Natural Environment (1.) |
13 | Frankfurt | 212.3 | Accessibility (7.) |
14 | Los Angeles | 210.7 | Research & Development (7.) |
15 | Madrid | 208.8 | Ecology & Natural Environment (10.) |
16 | Vancouver | 208.4 | Livability (1.) |
17 | Copenhagen | 206.3 | Livability (9.) |
18 | Osaka | 205.6 | Livability (3.) |
19 | Geneva | 205.4 | Ecology & Natural Environment (2.) |
20 | Boston | 203.3 | Research & Development(4.) |
In 2010 the London based estate agent Knight Frank LLP together with the Citibank published a survey of world cities.[34] The Wealth Report 2010, which includes the World City Survey, assesses four parameters — economic activity, political power, knowledge and influence, and quality of life. The list aimed to rank the world's 40 most influential cities. New York tops the list in Economic activity, political power and knowledge and Paris tops it in quality of life. London and Paris get the same aggregate ranking of 149, making them de facto world's 2nd and 3rd most prominent cities.[35] In 2011, the list was updated, and the top 20 cities ranked are:[36]
Rank | City | Best category |
---|---|---|
1 | New York City | Economic activity |
2 | London | Economic activity |
3 | Paris | Quality of life |
4 | Tokyo | Economic activity |
5 | Brussels | Political power |
6 | Los Angeles | Knowledge and influence |
7 | Singapore | Economic activity |
8 | Beijing | Political power |
9 | Toronto | Quality of life |
10 | Berlin | Quality of life |
11 | Chicago | Knowledge and influence |
12 | Washington, D.C. | Political power |
13 | Seoul | Economic activity |
14 | Frankfurt | Quality of life |
15 | Sydney | Knowledge and influence |
16 | San Francisco | Knowledge and influence |
17 | Hong Kong | Economic activity |
18 | Shanghai | Economic activity |
19 | Mexico City | Political power |
20 | Bangkok | Political power |