THENATUREOFCITIES:

TheScopeandLimitsofUrbanTheory

AllenJ.Scott,
DistinguishedResearchProfessor,
UCLA


and


MichaelStorper,
ProfessorofEconomicGeography,LondonSchoolofEconomics;
ProfessorofRegionalandInternationalDevelopment,UCLA;
ProfessorofEconomicSociology,SciencesPo,Paris.

May2013
Forthcoming:InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch

1

Abstract

Therehasbeenagrowingdebateinrecentdecadesabouttherangeand
substanceofurbantheory.Thisdebatehasbeenmarkedbymanydifferent
claimsaboutthenatureofcities,includingdeclarationsthattheurbanisan
incoherentconcept,thaturbansocietyisnothinglessthanmodernsocietyas
awhole,orthaturbantheoryhithertohasbeendeeplyvitiatedbyitsalmost
exclusiveconcentrationonthecitiesoftheGlobalNorth.Thispaperoffers
somepointsofclarificationofthisdebate.Allcitiescanbeunderstoodin
termsofatheoreticalframeworkthatcombinestwomainprocesses,namely,
thedynamicsofagglomeration/polarization,andtheunfoldingofan
associatednexusoflocations,landusesandhumaninteractions.Butthis
sameframeworkcanbeusedtodistinguishmanydifferentvarietiesofcities,
andtodistinguishintrinsicallyurbanphenomenafromtherestofsocial
reality.Thediscussionthusidentifiesthecommondimensionsofallcities
without,ontheonehand,exaggeratingthescopeofurbantheory,oronthe
otherhand,assertingthateveryindividualcityisanirreduciblespecialcase

2


Nepasessayertropvitedetrouverunedfinitiondelaville;cest
beaucouptropgros,onatoutesleschancesdesetromper.
(Dontbetoohastyintryingtodefinethecity;itismuchtoobig,
andthereiseverylikelihoodthatyouwillgetitwrong)
GeorgesPerec(1974,p.119)

1.ADisputedConcept

Thequotationaboveechoesawidespreadview,namely,thatcitiesare

sobig,socomplicated,andsolackingineasilyidentifiableboundariesthat

anyattempttodefinetheiressentialcharacteristicsisdoomedtofailure.The

sameproblemhauntsurbanstudiesgenerally,whereaplethoraofdiverging

claimsaboutthenatureofcitiescompeteforattention.Despitethisconfusion,

mostofushavelittlehesitationindealingwitheverydaypropositionstothe

effect,say,thatcitiesarenowgrowingrapidlyatlocationsallovertheglobe

orthaturbanizationismovingaheadmoreforcefullythanatanyothertimein

humanhistory.Indeed,urbanizationissoprominentafeatureofourworld

thatscholarlyagendasattunedtothisissuecontinuetoproliferate,evenas

disagreementsmultiplyastohowexactlycitiesshouldbeconceptualizedand

studied.Howcanweunderstand,and,wehope,pointthewaytoaresolution

ofthesetensions?Andwhatmightanysuchresolutionmeanforcurrently

prevailingapproachestourbananalysis?Thesearedifficultquestions,and

anyattempttoanswerthemmustentailanumberofcomplextheoreticaland

empirical(historicalandgeographical)maneuvers.Inthesectionthatnow

follows,wesetthesceneforthisattemptbyhighlightinganumberofideas

3
thathavebeenthefocusofdebateatdifferentstagesinthedevelopmentof

urbanstudiesoverthelastseveraldecades

2.TrendsinUrbanTheory

Intheearlyandmiddledecadesofthe20thcentury,asortof

orthodoxy,basedontheworkoftheChicagoSchoolofUrbanSociology,could

besaidtoreigninurbananalysis.ClassicstatementsofscholarslikePark,

BurgessandMcKenzie(1925),Wirth(1938),andZorbaugh(1929)dealtwith

thecityaboveallasacongeriesofsociallydifferentiatedneighborhoods

caughtupinadynamicofecologicaladvanceandsuccessionandformsof

mentallife.Bythelate1960s,however,theideasofthisschoolofthought

werecomingunderincreasingcriticalscrutiny,especiallybyCastells(1968)

whosuggestedthatthereisnothingespeciallyurbanaboutthequestions

studiedunderthebannerofurbansociologybecauseintheendtheyare

simplyquestionsaboutsocietyatlarge.Castells(1972)laterdismissedthe

workoftheChicagoSchooltoutcourtasnothingbutanideologythat

obfuscatesthemorefundamentalnatureofcapitalismasaframeworkof

socialorganization.Bytheearly1970s,then,themaintracesoftheChicago

SchoolwerebeingsweptawaybyapowerfulstreamofMarxistandmarxisant

approachespioneerednotonlybyCastells,butalsobyscholarssuchas

Lefebvre(1970)andHarvey(1973)whoinsistedonaconceptofthecityasa

theaterofclassstruggleandadomainofpoliticalclaimsaboutrightstourban

spaceandresources.Inaddition,anechoofCastellsargumentsaboutthecity

4
asapurelyideologicalconstructcanbefoundintheworkofSaunders(1981)

whogoessofarastosuggestthatthecityisnotitselfameaningfulobjectof

analysis,butonlyanarbitrarygeographiccontainerofdiverseeconomic,

socialandpoliticalphenomena.

The1980sbroughtseveraladditionalconceptualstrandstobearon

cities.Specialimportanceshouldbeaccordedheretothreemainlinesof

investigation.First,feministscholarslikeMassey(1991)andMcDowell

(1983)helpedtoestablishastronganalyticalframeworkfocusedonthe

genderdimensionsofcities,andthisinturnhelpedtorevitalizeanolderset

ofconcernsaboutethnicity,race,andclassincities,especiallyinrelationto

neighborhooddevelopmentanddisplacement(see,forexample,Jackson

(1989),WaldingerandBozorgmehr(1996)).Second,arapidlygrowing

researchthrustdevelopedoutoftheworkofauthorslikeFriedmannand

Wolff(1982)andSassen(1991)abouttheeffectsofglobalizationoncity

formingprocesses.Third,wemustalsoacknowledgethesteadyflowof

researchonurbanpoliticsandgovernancethathasbeenproducedoverthe

lastdecadeortwo,byBrenner(1999),Cochrane(2006),Jessop(1997),and

others.Allofthesedifferentlinesofurbaninvestigationcontinuetodevelop

andgrowatthepresenttime.

Bytheturnofthemillenium,somefurtherimportantshiftsin

theoreticalsensibilitiesaboutcitiescouldbedetectedandsomeoftheseare

currentlyveryinfluential.Oneoftheseshiftsinvolvesastrongpostcolonial

critiqueofurbantheoryandanassociatedpleaforamoreinclusiveurban

5
studiesthatisresoluteabouttakingcitiesoftheGlobalSouthintoaccount.In

particular,Robinson(2006)andRoy(2011a)arguethatmuch20thcentury

urbantheory,withitsrootslyingoverwhelminglyintheGlobalNorth,suffers

fromintellectualparochialism,andhenceitsclaimstouniversalitymustbe

calledintoquestion.Inthisregard,Robinson(2011)providesaspirited

defenseofwhatshecallsthecomparativegestureasabasisfor

constructingknowledgeaboutcitiesandforavoidingthehazardsofapriori

theorization.Thisreferencetothecomparativegesturesitswellwithwhatwe

mightcallanewurbanparticularismthathasenteredintotherecent

literatureandthatcelebratesthickdescriptionandthemultiplecontingent

outcomesofurbanlife.Thelattertrendhasbeendrivenbyaseriesof

intellectualcommitmentsrevolvingaroundtheallegedirreducibilityofthe

substantivediversityofcitiesandemphasizinggroundedcomplexityasan

essentialentrypointintourbaninquiry.Manyscholarsinthisveinhave

invokedmethodologieslikeactornetworkapproachesandassemblagetheory

aswaysofgraspingandtamingtherebarbativecharacterofreality.Assuch,

workbythesescholarstendstoimpartaradicalsenseofthesingularityof

citiesbyprivilegingkaleidoscopiccombinationsofdiscreteeventsatthe

expenseofrecurrentunderlyingstructuresandprocesses(see,forexample,

FarasandBender2010;McFarlane2010,2011;Rankin2011;Robinson

2004).

Amongotherthings,thisbriefreviewsuggeststhatendless

fragmentationseemstobeanendemicandeverdeepeningconditioninurban

6
studiessothatthefieldappearsconstantlytobegoinginandoutoffocus.

Thispointisfurtheremphasizedbythenumerousandongoingclaimsand

counterclaimsaboutthenatureofcitiesascapturedinwatchwordssuchas

captivecities,postmoderncities,insurgentcities,citiesasentertainment

machines,thecarceralcity,theneoliberalcity,thefragmentedcity,thedual

city,thecreativecity,andtheordinarycityofvarietyandspecificityas

describedbyAminandGraham(1997).Equally,thestatusoftheunitarycity

isoncemoreinquestion.Thus,AminandThrift(2002)statethatthecityis

notaplaceofmeaningfulproximatelinks(p.27),andtheyassertthatthere

arenospecificeconomicandsocialeffectsthatflowfromagglomeration,

density,proximity(p.53).Morerecently,Brenner(2013)hassuggestedthat

inthecurrentconjuncturecitiesdissolveawayintoasortofplanetary

amalgamthathecallsextendedurbanizationidentifiableintermsofworld

encirclingrelationalwebs.

Wewillreturntosomeoftheseideasatlaterstagesinthispaper.Our

objective,however,isnottoengageindetailedevaluationoftheindividual

contributionsmentionedabove,andcertainlynottodenythatcitiesexhibit

considerableempiricalvariationovertimeandspaceorthatcitiescanbe

profitablystudiedasuniquecases.Rather,weareconcernedherewithan

attempttoclarifysomeoftheevidentconfusionthatexistswithinthefieldvia

anattempttoshowhowthefoundationsofageneralandstableconceptofthe

urbancanbeidentified.Anysuchconceptwillalsohelpwiththeimportant

taskofsharpeninginvestigationofcitiesbyallowingustodemarcatethe

7
innerlogicofurbanizationfromothersocialprocesses.Assuch,our

approachactuallyhelpstoilluminateratherthandistorttheparticularitiesof

individualcitiesandgroupsofcities.Atleastsomeofthecacophonyinthe

urbanstudiesliteraturecaninpartbetracedbacktothefailureofresearchers

tobeclearaboutthesemattersofdefinitionanddemarcation.

3.HistoricalOriginsofCities

Allcitiesconsistofdenseagglomerationsofpeopleandeconomic

activities,eventhoughtherearestrongambiguitiesaboutwhereandhowa

lowersizelimitshouldbedrawn.Thatsaid,recognizingdensityand

agglomerationasgeneralcharacteristicsofcitiestakesusonlysofarin

explainingtheprocessofurbanizationoraddressingthequestionsidentified

above.Anyattempttobuildageneralconceptofthecityisfurthervitiatedby

thefactthatcitiesalsotypicallycontainanenormousdiversityofempirical

phenomena.Urbantheoryishencefacedwiththetaskofhowtotakeinhand

acomplexarrayofsimilaritiesanddifferences.Canwegroupallcities

togetherasacommonclassofphenomena?Ormustwedividetheminto

severaldifferentandincommensurableclasses,and,intheextremecase,into

asmanyclassesasthereareindividualcities?Theinitialstepinresponseto

thesequestionsistoestablishsomefeaturesofurbanizationovertimeand

aroundtheworldthatseemtobeopentopossibilitiesofafirstroundof

generalization.

8
 Earlyhistoricalformsofurbanization.Citiesemergehistoricallyonly

whereafoodsurpluscanbeextracted,thoughrightfromthestart,asJacobs

(1969)hasargued,citiesappeartohavehaddeeplyreflexiveimpactsonthe

developmentofagriculture.Whenthecountrysidegeneratesanexcessof

productionoversubsistenceneeds,acohortofnonagriculturalconsumersof

thesurpluscanbemaintained.Themembersofthiscohort,whofrequently

holdsomecombinationofpolitical,military,religiousandeconomicpower,

willoftencongregatetogetheringeographicspace(Childe,1950;Pirenne

1952;Braudel,1995;Bairoch,1988).Evenintheveryearliestcities,

agglomerationsofactivitiessuchaspoliticaladministration,ceremonialand

religiouspursuits,craftproduction(e.g.forluxurygoodsormilitary

hardware),andmarkettradingalmostalwaysconstitutedthecoreofthe

urbanprocess.Agglomerationoccursbecauseactivitiesliketheseentail

divisionsoflaborgivingrisetotransactionalrelationshipswhosecostsare

distancedependentandbecausetheycanreapfunctionalsynergiesby

clusteringtogetheringeographicspace.Varioustypesofinfrastructurehelp

toconsolidatetheresultingdynamicprocessofagglomeration.Inother

words,oneofthecentralfeaturesofurbanizationhasalwaysbeenits

efficiencygeneratingqualitiesviaagglomeration.

Bysomeaccounts,thefirstdistinctivelyurbancenterwasatalhyk

whichemergedinAnatoliasometimearound7500BC(Taylor2012).Jericho,

withapopulationofsome2,500alsodevelopedataboutthesametimeor

shortlythereafter.Around3500BC,agriculturalsurplusesweregrowing,

9
andmanyothercitiesformedinthegeographicarearangingfrom

MesopotamiatotheMediterraneancoastandEgypt,aswellasinIndia.Childe

(1950)characterizestheseearlycitiesas dense permanentsettlements,

containingnonagriculturalspecialists,involvingwealthaccumulation,

exhibitingmonumentalpublicbuildings,andmarkedbyclassrelationships.

Wavesofurbanizationthatexhibitthesecharacteristicsincludethe

MycenaeanandMinoancitiesofancientGreece,around2000BC,Chinese

citiesalongtheYellowRiverinthe20001500BCperiod,ancientRome

around700BC,andthecitiesofMesoamericaabout200BC.Complementing

thesechangeswereadvancesintransporttechnologiesformovingpeopleand

goods.Indeed,citieshavealwaysfunctionedasnodesinsystemsoflong

distancetrade,asexemplifiedaboveallbyRomeinthetimeofAugustus,with

itspopulationofoveronemillion(WardPerkins,2005).Theseintercity

tradingactivitiesfrequentlyresultedinmarkedeconomicspecializationof

individualurbancenters(McCormick,2001).

Ifurbanizationachievedimpressivegainsinvariousregionsofthe

worldinthefivethousandyearspriorto1500,urbangrowthwasstill

generallysubjecttosevereconstraints.Eveninareaswhereurbanizationwas

relativelyrobust,itdidnotadvanceinacontinuous,linearway,sincemost

citieswerecaughtinaMalthusiantrapstemmingfromuncertainagricultural

surpluses.OvertheEuropeanAgeofExplorationinthe16thand17th

centuries,however,someoftheseconstraintsstartedtoloosen(Mann,2011).

Longdistancetradecostsbegantodeclinesharply,andthisallowedfor

10
tighterinterconnectionsbetweenfarflungandoftenhighlyspecializedurban

centers.Despitethesedevelopments,itwasnotuntilafterthelate18th

century,principallyinWesternEurope,thattheMalthusiantrapwas

decisivelyovercome.Thekeytothisdevelopmentwastheunprecented

increaseinlevelsofeconomicproductivityunleashedbytheIndustrial

Revolution(Maddison,2001,BourguignonandMorrison,2002).Thisnot

onlymadeitpossibletoproducemanufacturedgoodsinhithertounheardof

quantitiesandvariety,butalsobymeansofmechanizationtosurmount

thelimitationsandvagariesofagriculture.TheIndustrialRevolutionushersin

themodernerawhenurbanizationbeginsinearnest.Thisisanerawherethe

fundamentalrelationshipbetweeneconomicdevelopmentandurbanization

becomesespeciallyclear.

Industrializationanditsaftermath.Astheindustrialrevolution

gatheredpaceinthemoreadvancedcapitalistcountriesinthe19thcentury,it

wasaccompaniedbyroundsofurbangrowth,culminatinginthelarge

industrialcitiesoftheAmericanandWesternEuropeanManufacturingBelts.

The19thcenturyalsosawthegrowthofentrept,resourceprocessing,

administrative,andtradingcentersinAsia,LatinAmericaandpartsofAfrica,

oftenundertheswayofcolonialrulers.Later,especiallyafterthemid20th

century,selectedcitiesinthedevelopingworldexpandedundertheauspices

ofgovernmentsponsoredindustrializationprograms.Citiescontinuedto

growinthemaincapitalistcountriesoverthe20thcenturyonthebasisof

manufacturing,but,startinginthe1970s,manyofthemwentthrougha

11
periodofdeindustrializationasjobsdispersedtolowwageregionsand

countries,leadinginmanycasestoseverecrisisconditionsinthecore.Aftera

transitionalperiodofslowgrowthinthe1970sandearly1980s,largecitiesin

thecoreagainexperiencedastrongresurgenceasthe1980sworeon.Cities

nowfoundthemselvesatthefocalpointofanewpostfordisteconomy,

characterizedbyadecisiveshiftawayfrommaterialsintensive

manufacturingtovariouskindsofhightechnology,management,logistical,

service,designandculturalsectors.Intensifyingglobalizationandthe

emergenceofanewinternationaldivisionoflaborsincethelate1970salso

promotedamajorwaveofurbanizationinthedevelopingcountries,where

manycitiesstartedtofunctionassignificantproducersofmanufactured

exports(McKinsey,2010).Morerecently,anumberofcitiesinformerThird

Worldcountries(especiallyverylargecitiessuchasHongKong,Seoul,

Shanghai,Singapore,MexicoCity,andSoPaulo)arenowalsobeginningto

shedmanufacturingjobsandtoparticipateactivelyintheneweconomy

(Scott,2011).

Inthelasttwohundredyears,worldpopulationandworld

urbanizationhavegrowncontinuously,andatahigherratethanatanytime

inthepast.Inthecontemporaryera,urbanizationhasattainednewheightsof

development,bothinthemoreeconomicallyadvancedpartsoftheworldand

inmanylessadvancedpartstoo,andmoreofhumanityiscurrentlyurbanized

thaneverbefore.Thecriticalpointforpresentpurposes,however,isthat

throughoutthecourseofhistory,urbanizationhasbeenfundamentally

12
engenderedbyacomplexinteractionbetweeneconomicdevelopment,

divisionsoflabor,agglomeration,specialization,andexternalcommerce.

Accordingly,wecansaythatthemostbasicraisondtreforcities,certainlyin

themodernera,residesintheirroleascentersofeconomicproductionand

exchangewithinwidersystemsofregional,national,andinternationaltrade.

Citiesarealwaysmorethanthis,ofcourse,for,asweshallsee,theyarealso

markedbyadditionalsocial,politicalandculturalcharacteristics,manyof

whichhavedeepeffectsontheshapeofproductionandexchange.However,

itisonlybymeansofananalysisthatbeginswiththecomplexspatial

dynamicsofeconomicactivitythatwecanarriveatanaccountofthecommon

agglomerationdynamicsthatlieattheheartofurbanizationprocessesacross

theworldslandscapes.

4.Agglomeration:Production,Trade,andUrbanization

Asnoted,risinglevelsofeconomicdevelopmentinanycountryhave

strongcausalimpactsonurbangrowthviaagglomerationandspecialization

processes.Thisrelationshipismanifestinaconsistentlypositiveempirical

relationshipbetweennationalratesofurbanization(i.e.citydwellersasa

percentoftotalpopulation)andGDPpercapita(cf.Renaud1979).However,a

twowayrelationshipisalsoatworkhere,namely,oneinwhichcities

constitutethecriticalfoundationsforcontinuedeconomicgrowthand

development(WorldBank,2009;Henderson,2010).Economicexpansionand

urbanizationshouldthereforeproperlybeunderstoodasbeingintertwinedin

13
arecursivepathdependentrelationshipovertimewithitscriticalhingepoint

focusedonprocessesofagglomeration.

Thereisnowanenormousliteratureonthetechnicalitiesof

agglomeration,assuch,andhencelittleornorehearsalofthisthemeiscalled

forhere,exceptperhapstonotethatinthetermsexpressedbyDurantonand

Puga(2004)agglomerationcanbegenerallyunderstoodasamechanismof

sharing,matchingandlearning.Sharingreferstodenselocallinkageswithin

productionsystemsaswellastoindivisibilitiesthatmakeitnecessaryto

supplysomekindsofurbanservicesaspublicgoods.Matchingreferstothe

processofpairingpeopleandjobs,whichisgreatlyfacilitatedwherelarge

localpoolsoffirmsandworkersexist.Learningreferstothedenseformaland

informalinformationflows(withtheirstimulustoinnovation)thataremade

possiblebyagglomeration.Takentogether,thesepropertiesofagglomeration

giverisetopowerfulandmeasurableeconomicsynergies(seealso,Fujitaand

Thisse2002;Scott1988;Storper1997).

TheaboveremarksalonecastdoubtontheclaimbyAminandThrift

(2002)totheeffectthatagglomeration,density,andproximityarewithout

significance.Thesedimensionsofurbanrealityarefundamentalanddefining

featuresofcitieseverywhere,eveninaworldwherecitiesareincreasingly

interconnected.But,inaddition,agglomerationasbothprocessandoutcome

goesfarbeyondthenarrowquestionofthetechnicalfoundationsofeconomic

geography;itisaquasiuniversalfeatureofhumanexistence.Agglomeration

touchesmanysocial,culturalandpolitical/administrative,dimensionsof

14
humanlife;andasaresult,ithaspowerfulfeedbackeffectsnotonlyon

economicdevelopment,butalsoonsocietyasawhole.Atnotimehasthis

beenmorethecasethantoday.Agglomerationisthebasicgluethatholdsthe

citytogetherasacomplexcongeriesofhumanactivities,andthatgenerates,

inrelationtoitsendemiccommonpoolresourcesandsocialconflicts,ahighly

distinctiveformofurbanpolitics(seebelow).Inaddition,wemustonce

morepayattentiontothefactthattheeconomicfunctionsofcitiesaredeeply

moldedbyexternaltrade.Citiesdonotdevelopandgrowjustonthebasisof

theirinternalrelationships;theyarealsoshapedbylocationalsortingacross

geographicspace.Tradeenablescitiestospecializeandselltheiroutputsin

exchangeforthespecializedoutputsofotherplaces.Theeconomicviabilityof

citiesandthegrowthoflongdistancetradearethereforecomplementaryand

mutuallyreinforcingphenomena.Incapitalism,inparticular,thebasic

dynamicofagglomerationofcapitalandlaborcombinedwithinterregional

sortingleadtosystemsofinterlinkedbutspecializedcities,atvariousscales

ofresolution,fromthenationaltotheglobal(HendersonandVenables,2009;

BlackandHenderson,2003).

Thisemphasisonagglomerationpointsdirectlytoarelatedquestion

thathaslongbeenthesubjectofconsiderabledebate,forifthenotionof

agglomerationhasanymeaning,shouldwenotalsobeabletocircumscribe

individualagglomerationsingeographicspace,andcertainly,inthelimit,to

distinguishoneagglomerationfromanother?Thisquestionhastakenon

renewedimportanceinviewoftheforcefulclaimsbyBrenner(2013)tothe

15
effectthatmoderncitieshaveeffectivelylosttheiridentityasmeaningful

spatialunits.Infact,wehavealreadynotedthatallcities,fromancienttimes

onward,havefunctionedassystemsofdenselocalinteractionsimbricatedin

complexlongdistanceinteractionsofpeople,goods,andinformation.Inview

ofthisobservation,weconcedeatoncethattherecanbenorigidandabsolute

boundarybetweenthecityandtherestofgeographicspace.Atthesame

time,thecityexistsconcretelyasalocalizedorscalararticulationwithinthe

spaceeconomyasawhole,identifiablebyreasonofitspolarization,its

specializedlanduses,itsrelativelydensenetworksofinteraction(including

itsdailyandweeklyrhythmsoflife),andthewaysinwhichitshapes

socializationprocessesandcultures.Wemightsaythatthecityistothe

spaceeconomyasamountainistothewidertopographyinwhichitis

contained.Inneitherthecaseofthecitynorthemountaincanadefiniteline

bedrawnthatseparatesitfromitswidercontext,butinbothinstances,

certaindifferencesofintensityandformmakeitreasonableandpragmatically

meaningfultotreateachofthemasseparableentities.Moreover,the

specificityoftheurbandependsnotsomuchonthecruderatioofitsinternal

toexternaltransactions,butonthecontrastingqualitiesofthesetwosetsof

transactionsandtheirlocationaleffects.Infact,intraurbantransactionsare

usuallyquitedifferentfromlongdistancetransactionsinthattheyare

markedbyhighcostsperunitofdistanceanddenseinformationcontent

(whencethefrequentneedforfacetofacecontact),andthesekindsof

16
interpersonaltransactionsareoneofthemainstaysofurbanagglomeration

(StorperandVenables,2004;seealsoScott2001).

Inanycase,evenasglobalizationintensifies,thereismuchempirical

evidencetosuggestthattheurbanscaleofinteractionremainsextremely

vibrant,indeed,increasinglyso(DurantonandStorper,2008).Inhis

examinationofAmericanurbanizationPred(1973)pointedoutthatalready

inthe18thcenturytherewasatendencyforlocaltransactionstoexpandalong

withthegrowthoflongdistancetrade.Hummels(2008)hasindicatedthat

thevastmajorityoftradeatthepresenttimeoccurswithinapurelylocal

ambit,andotheranalystssuchasCharlotandDuranton(2006),Reades

(2010),andStorperandVenables(2004),showthatbothlocalfacetoface

interactionandlongdistancebusinesstravelgrowascomplementstoone

another.Similarly,localizedscientificinteractionsincreaseintandemwith

longdistancescientificandknowledgeexchanges(ZuckerandDarby,2006;

SonnandStorper,2008).Moretothepoint,theriseofaglobalizingworld

systemhas,thusfaratleast,beenassociated,notwiththedemiseofthecity,

butratherwithintensifyingagglomeration/urbanizationprocessesacrossall

fivecontinents.

5.TheUrbanLandNexus

Thediscussionthusfaridentifiesamajoraspectoftheurbanization

processasbeingrootedinthespatialconcentrationofproductionanda

multifaceted,circular,cumulativedynamicofclusteringandsorting.Wenow

17
buildonthisfoundationtoidentifyarelatedfeaturethatisequallycriticalto

anyaccountofthenatureofthecity.Werefertothisfeatureastheurban

landnexus,meaninganinteractingsetoflandusesexpressingthewaysin

whichthesocialandeconomicactivitiesofthecitycondenseoutintoa

differentiated,polarized,locationalmosaic(RoweisandScott1978;Scott

1980).Theurbanlandnexus,inotherwords,correspondstotheessential

fabricofintraurbanspace.Thisphenomenonemergesastheextensive

expressionofagglomeration,andismoldedtosignificantdegreebythe

behavioroffirmsseekinglocationsforproductionandhouseholdsseeking

livingspace.Theseformsofbehaviortodayaretypicallystructuredby

marketmechanismsgeneratinglandpricesthatarbitrateusesandthat

sustaindistinctivepatternsofspatialallocation.Inaddition,ownersand

usersofland(bothfirmsandhouseholds)demandselectedkindsofproximity

tooneanotherwhilesimultaneouslyseekingtoavoidlocationswherethey

mightexperiencenegativespilloversandotherdamagingeffectsontheir

activities.However,theoutcomesofthisactivityareinherentlyproblematic.

Thisisbecausethesupplyofspaceatanygivenlocationisalwaysstrongly

inelasticsothatpreferencesinregardtoproximityandavoidance(or,

alternatively,accessandseparation)canalmostneverbeadequatelysatisfied,

apredicamentthatismagnifiedbydifferencesinabilitytopayandthe

rigiditiesbuiltintotheurbanlandnexus.

Firmsandhouseholdsrepresentthefoundationalelementsoftwo

broaddivisionsoftheurbanlandnexus,respectivelyidentifiableasthe

18
productionspaceofthecitywhereworkandemploymentareconcentrated,

andthesocialspaceofthecityasmanifestinresidentialneighborhoods,

typicallydifferentiatedbyvariablessuchasincome,race,andclass.In

addition,athirdspacecanbedetected,namely,thecirculationspaceofthe

cityasrepresentedbytheinfrastructuresandarterialconnectionsthat

facilitateintraurbanflowsofgoods,people,andinformation.Thesethree

majorcomponentsoftheurbanlandnexusaremarkedbyendlessempirical

diversityandinterpenetration,givingrise,inturntothehighlevelsof

idiosyncrasythatcharacterizeindividualcities.Nonetheless,theycanalsobe

describedintheoreticaltermsbyreasonoftheirrootsingeneralizable

processesofagglomeration/polarizationandtheirspatialintegrationwithin

thecityasawhole.Furthermore,andeventhoughmuchoftheinternalspace

ofthecityisdividedintounitsoflandthatcanbeindividuallyownedand

exchanged,theurbanlandnexusisverymuchmorethanasimpleaggregation

ofindependentprivatelocations.Unitsofurbanlandinthesenseof

individuallocationsinintraurbanspace,aswellasentireneighborhoodsor

districts,servicedbyinfrastructure,andwithfeaturesshapedbyproximityto

andseparationfromotherlandusesreflectthemanyindividual,communal

andpoliticalactionsthatinvariablyimpingeuponthem.Thisremarkincludes,

butgoesbeyond,thestandardnotionthatprivatelandusegenerates

externalityeffectsorthatitsproductionistheresultofpublicinterventionsin

thefaceofmarketfailures.Theessentialnatureofurbanlandisthatitis

simultaneouslyprivateandpublic,individualandcollective,andthatitsshape

19
andformexpresstheintertwineddynamicsoftheindividualactionsoffirms

andhouseholdsandcollectiveactiononthepartofinstitutionsofgovernance.

Asacorollary,theurbanlandnexusisthesiteofextensivecommon

poolassetsandliabilities,apointthatsignifies,intheabsenceofeffective

institutionsofcollectivecoordination,thatitissubjecttonumerouskindsof

dysfunctionalitiesrangingfrominfrastructurebreakdownstolanduse

conflicts,andfromdeterioratingneighborhoodstoenvironmentalpollution.

Withoutinstitutionsabletoimplementrelevantplanningandpolicy

measures,thesedysfunctionalitieswouldunquestionablyunderminethe

viabilityandefficiencyofurbanexistence,formarketlogicaloneis

congenitallyincapableofregulatingtheurbancommonsintheinterestsof

economicefficiencyandsocialwellbeing.Thus,nonmarketagenciesof

collectiveactiontypicallyemergeinordertokeeptheurbanlandnexusin

somesortoffunctionalworkableorder.Sometimestheseagenciesarepurely

localincharacter,andsometimestheyexistathigherlevelsintheoverall

hierarchyofgovernance.Landuseregulation,forexample,ismostly(butnot

necessarilyexclusively)initiatedbylocalinstitutions,includingbothformal

governmentalagenciesandvariouskindsofcivilassociations.Financial

supportfortransportconstructionprojects,bycontrast,isfrequently

providedbyhigherlevelagencies.Atthesametime,agenciesofcollective

action,bothurbanandsupraurban,areoftenengagedinformsof

interventionthataredirectedtoissuesthatexistwithinthecitybutthathave

atbestonlyindirectconnectiontotheurbanlandnexus,assuch.Examplesof

20
thiskindofinterventionmightincludetheregulationofhospital

administrativeactivitiesortheformulationofairportsafetyrules.Inthis

latterregard,moreover,localcollectivitiesfrequentlyactasagenciesfor

relayinghigherlevelmandatesdowntourbanconstituencies.Asa

consequenceofthesedifferentcrosscurrentsdetectableinurban

governmentalinsitutionsthereisarealsenseinwhichwecansaythatthey

playahybridrole,onethatisbothpurelylocal(andanintrinsicelementof

thedynamicsoftheurbanlandnexus)andonethatisdrivenbyverymuch

widersocioeconomicpressures.Itmaywellbethatatleastsomeofthe

widespreadperplexityconcerningthepurposeandfunctionsofurban

government(asexpressed,forexample,byCochrane,2006)isduetoafailure

torecognizethisessentialinterpenetrationofscalesandfunctionsinthe

sphereofgovernance.

6.TheScopeandLimitsoftheUrban

Thismassofurbanrelatamustnowbesetinthewidercontextof

societyasawhole,without,however,conflatingthetwosothatthe

distinctivenessofthecityislost.Atthepresentmomentinhistory,

urbanizationprocessesareprofoundlyshapedbythesocialrelationsof

capitalism,butcannotbereducedtothoserelations.Equally,citiestoday

provideessentialbasesforcapitalismtofunction,butdonotautomatically

fulfillthisroleinanyoptimalway.Tothecontrary,citiesoftengenerate

21
conditionsthathavenegativeimpactsontheviabilityofwidereconomic,

politicalorsocialarrangements.

Onepointofdeparturefordealingwiththesemattersistopickupon

argumentsmadeintheprevioussectionandtoinsistonthedistinction

betweenissuesthataretobefoundincitiesbutthatarenotintrinsically

urbanincharacter,andquestionsthatdealwithissuesofcitiesinthestrict

senseasidentifiedhere,,i.e.thatrevolvearoundprocessesofagglomeration

cumpolarizationandassociatedinteractionswithintheurbanlandnexus.

Forexample,thereareusuallymanypoorpeopleincities,butitdoesnot

necessarilyfollowthatallaspectsofpovertyareinherentlyurbanincharacter

orthatpovertyiscausedprincipallybyurbanization(Slater2013).Povertyis

primarilyengenderedwithinasetofmacrosocialprocessesrelatedtothe

levelofeconomicdevelopment,thestructureofoverallemployment

opportunities,andtheavailabilityofeducationandtraining.Thatbeingsaid,

certainurbanconditionscanunquestionablyaggravateoramelioratelevelsof

poverty,asforexample,whereconcentratedneighborhoodproblems,suchas

aprevalentgangculture,influencelevelsofeducationalperformanceby

children(Sampson,2012).Policyattentiontothesespecificallyurbanissues

mayproduceadjustmentsinoveralllevelsofpoverty,buttheywillnot

eliminatepovertyonceandforall.ThehousingboomandbustintheUnited

Statesoverthefirstdecadeofthe21stcenturyprovidesanotherexampleof

theanalyticaldifferencebetweenproblemsincitiesandproblemsofcities.

Thesubprimerealestateboomwasnotprincipallycausedbyurbanization

22
butratherbyanumberofinnovationsinthefinanceindustryrelatedtothe

extensionofmortgagecredittoriskyhouseholds.Theconcomitantexcess

capitalsupplygeneratedanassetpricebubbleintherealestatesector,and

whenthereturnsoninvestmentsinthissectorcollapsed,theresultwasa

spiraloffallingrealestatevaluesandhousingabandonment.Asa

consequence,acrisisthatwasnotattheoutsetfundamentallyurban,was

subsequentlytranslatedintospecificallyurbantermsasmanifestin

deterioratingneighborhoodsandrelatedchainsofnegativeexternalities.

Theseremarkshelpustopinpointtheurbanasadomainofanalysisand

especiallytosalvageatleastsomeitsessentialfeaturesfromtheeclecticism

(andconcomitantfailuresofpolicytargeting)thatcurrentlyhauntsthefieldof

urbanstudies.

7.GeneralityandDifferenceinUrbanAnalysis

Citiesarealwaysembeddedinwidersystemsofsocialandpolitical

relationshipsatmanydifferentscales.Thesecontextualcircumstancesstamp

individualurbancenterswithdiversedistinguishingfeatures,andgiveriseto

numerousvariationsintheirformandfunctionacrosstimeandspace.Hence,

somecitieshaveenteredintoapostindustrialphase,othersaredominated

bymanufacturingemployment;somearelocatedinrelativelyprosperous

countries,othersareincountrieswhererampantpovertyprevails;someare

embeddedinsocietiesthatarerelativelyhomogeneousintermsoftheirracial

23
andethnicmakeup,othersinsocietiesthatarecharacterizedbyenormous

diversityintheserespects;someareoverlainbyauthoritariansocialand

politicalframeworks,othersbymoreopenanddemocratickindsof

relationships;someareintheGlobalNorth,othersareintheGlobalSouth;

andsoon,virtuallyadinfinitum.Wemayask,dotheadmittedlyenormous

variationsintheempiricalmakeupofcitiesthatresultfromthesediffering

contextualcircumstanceswarrantapluralityofdifferentconceptsofthe

urban?OrcanwecutthroughthisGordianknottorevealacoherentconcept

ofthecityasanobjectoftheoreticalinquiry?

Wehavearguedforapositiveanswertothelatterquestionbyinsisting

thattheessenceoftheurbanizationprocessresidesinthetwofoldstatusof

citiesasclustersofproductiveactivityandhumanlifethatthenunfoldinto

dense,internallyvariegatedwebsofinteractinglanduses,locations,and

alliedinstitutional/politicalarrangements.Evenso,itwouldbeamajorerror

todiscounttheempiricalvariationthatexistsfromcitytocityortooverlook

thecontextualvariablesthatmoldtheindividualityofparticularcities.Five

suchvariableswouldappeartobeofspecialsignificance,without,however,

negatingthegeneralnatureofurbanizationasamodeofspatialintegration

andinteraction.Theycanbesummarizedasfollows:

1. Overalllevelsofeconomicdevelopmentvaryenormouslyacrosstime

andspace.Asaconsequence,citiesincontrastingdevelopmental

contextsdisplaywidelycontrastingprofilesinsuchmattersastheir

24
 economicbases,theirinfrastructuralendowments,theircomplements

ofrichandpoorpeople,andsoon.

2. Therulesthatgovernresourceallocationhavemajorimpactsonurban

development.Asocietythatallocatesresourcesthroughmarketswill

generallydosodifferentlyfromonethatdealswithresourceallocation

throughnonmarketrulesorthroughsomehybridarrangementsuch

asamarketsystemcombinedwithrobusturbanplanningregulations.

3. Wemustalsotakeintoaccountprevailingstructuresofsocial

stratification,includingracialandethnicvariations,whichhavea

particularlypowerfulrelationshiptoneighborhoodformation.

4. Anadditionalimportantsourceofdifferencestemsfromwhatwewill

call,withsomereservation,culturalnormsandtraditions.Theseaffect

amultitudeofpracticesandwaysoflifethataffecttheurbanlandscape

includingtheformation,evolutionandpersistenceofneighborhoods.

5. Theoverarchingconditionsofpoliticalauthorityandpowerleavedeep

tracesonurbandevelopmentinanygivensociety.Theseconditions

typicallydefinethescopeoflocalgovernmentandurbanplanning

authority,andhenceinfluencethedetailedspatialfunctioningofthe

urbanlandnexus,justastheyalmostalwayshavestrongimplications

forthedynamicsoflocalpoliticalcontestation.

Inrelationtothislastpoint,thewiderconditionsofpoliticalauthorityand

powerfrequentlyshowupinmediatedformintheskylineofindividualcities,

asinthecaseoftheimperialmonumentalitythatcanbeobservedinLondon

25
andParis,theSovietgigantismthatcontinuestoloomoverMoscow,the

feudalrelicsthataboundinAsiancitiesfromBangkoktoBeijing,andthe

colonialvestigesthatcharacterizemanyLatinAmericancities.

Giventhepeculiaritiesoftheempiricalphenomenathatoccurincities

andthewaysinwhichthecontextualvariablesenumeratedabovecompound

thesenseofdiversity,citiesinvariablypresentonfirstviewabewildering

degreeofindividuality.Theconfusionstemmingfromthisstateofaffairsis

intensifiedbythefactthattheurbanquestion,quaacircleofscientific

investigationslinkedtospecificallypoliticalgoalsseemstochangeitsspots

witheverynewgenerationofurbanscholars.Smallwonder,then,thatso

manyanalystsaretemptedtotreateverycityasaspecialcaseandtoinsiston

thefutilityanddangersofconceptualabstraction.Thiswarinessis

compoundedbyanumberofcurrentlyfashionableconceitslikeassemblage

theory,actornetworktheory,anddescriptivecomparativism,whichprivilege

empiricalcomplexityovertheoreticalgeneralizationinurbananalysis

(Wachsmuth,Madden,andBrenner2011).Ourclaimhereisnotthat

empiricalidiosyncrasiesareinherentlyuninterestingorvalueless,farfromit.

Notice,however,thattheseidiosyncrasiesonlybecomemeaningfullyurban

throughtheirincorporationintothedense,interactingandpolarizedspaces

thatconstitutetheurbanlandnexus.Inthiscontext,weoffertheobviousand

timewornpointthatinanyscientificendeavor,conceptualabstraction

actuallyhelpstheresearchertorevealdiversityanddifferenceinbasic

observationaldata,justasitisanessentialprerequisitefortheconstructionof

26
usefulempiricaltaxonomies.Atonelevelofanalysis,forexample,thebrown

andblacksuburbsofParisdiffersharplyfromtheraciallyandethnically

distinctivecommunitiesofSouthCentralLosAngelesorfromthebarriosof

Caracas.Similarly,theupperclassneighborhoodsofLondonarevery

differentintexturefromthoseofTokyo,justthesetwocasesarequiteunlike

theprivilegedcommunitiesofGveaorSoConradoinRiodeJaneiro.Yet

oncewelookbelowtheobviousempiricaldifferencesbetweenthese

examples,weencounterwidelyobservablemechanismsofsocialsegregation

resultingfromthewaysinwhichlandandhousingmarketsworkinintra

urbanspace.Inthesamemanner,precisepolicyresponsestoproblemsand

predicamentsinanyindividualinstanceofurbandevelopmentwillalmost

alwaysdiffer,butagain,inwaysthatcanusuallyberelatedtothedynamicsof

theurbanlandnexuswithitsgenericformsofbreakdownandcollective

disorderincludingnegativespillovereffects,jobshousingimbalances,derelict

property,congestion,pollution,deterioratedinfrastructure,conflictsover

accesstourbanspaceandpublicgoods,sociallydisfunctionalneighborhoods,

sprawl,andalltherest.

Thetensionsbetweenthegeneralandthespecificinurbananalysis

haverecentlycometoaheadinthetheburgeoningliteratureonpostcolonial

urbanismwithitsclaimthatcitiesoftheGlobalSouthgainsaymuchofurban

theoryasithashithertobeenformulated.Roy(2009)hasinvokedthisclaim

asthebasisofherstatementthatitistimetoblastopentheoretical

geographies.Suchiconoclasmcannotbejustified,however,simplyonthe

27
groundsthatexistinggeographiesarefoundedonalimitedrepertoireof

citiesthatexcludesthisorthatformofempiricalvariation.Weare,ofcourse,

entirelyopentotheideathatexaminationofthecitiesoftheGlobalSouth

mightnecessitatearadicalreformulationofurbantheory,butthe

reformulationwillcomenotfromthefactthatthesecitiesexhibitempirical

differencesfromthoseoftheGlobalNorth.Rather,itwillcomefromwhatever

newandhithertounsuspectedinsightsthatthestudyofurbanizationinthe

GlobalSouthmayprovideaboutthelogicandinnerworkingsofurban

agglomerationprocessesandassociateddynamicsoftheurbanlandnexusas

wecurrentlyunderstandthesematters.Inasimilarvein,thecallforanew

kindofurbantheorythatiscosmopolitan(Robinson2006)andthat

emphasizestheworldingofcities(Roy2011b)hasanessentiallygestural

qualityinviewofitslackofspecificityabouthowitwillgenerateinsightsinto

thegenesisandbasicworkingsofurbanizationprocesses.Thisabsenceof

specificityisunderlinedbyRobinsons(2011,p.13)remarkthatthecitycan

beseenasasiteofassemblage,multiplicity,andconnectivity,adescription

thatexcludesverylittleofhistoricalorgeographicalreality.

8.ImplicationsforUrbanResearchandPolicy

Wearguedearlierthataviableurbantheoryshouldenableusto

distinguishbetweenthosedynamicsofsociallifethatareintrinsicallyurban

fromthosethataremoreproperlyseenaslyingoutsidethestrictsphereof

theurban,evenwhentheycanbedetectedasamatterofempirical

28
occurrenceinsidecities.Thetaskisnotaneasyone,butintheprevious

discussionwehaveprovidedanumberofcriteriaforanyattempttodealwith

it.

Ourapproachemphasizesthecommonalitiesacrossalltypesofcities

andtheorganizationalprocessesthatshapethem.Thismannerofproceeding

helpstoguardagainstoverhastyimpulsestotakecertaindramaticor

peculiarinstancesofurbandevelopment(e.g.thecrumblinginfrastructure

andviolenceofKinshasa,theextensiveslumsofMumbai,orthecurrent

financialcollapseofSouthernEuropeancities)asprimafacieevidencethata

reformulationoftheoryisrequired(Roy,2011a;comparetoBoo,2011).At

thesametime,andthisissurelyanimportantpartofitspower,ourapproach

undercutsanotherkindofunwarrantedtemptation(prominentlyondisplay

inDickandRimmer1998)totheeffectthatcitiesaroundtheworldareall

convergingtoacommonempiricaltemplate.Noneofthesepropositions,by

theway,isintendedtojustifyorpromoteanyofthetheoriesoftheurbanthat

havecomeandgoneoverthelastcenturyandmore.Manydefectivetheories

havebeenformulatedovertheyearsandwecanidentifymanyinstances

whereideasdevelopedinoneurbancontextareinappropriatelyappliedin

others.Onestrikingexampleofthismisapplication,asRobinson(2006)justly

remarks,canbefoundinmid20thcenturyattemptstointerpreturbanlifein

theZambianCopperbeltthroughthelensofChicagoSchooltheory.1

1WemightaddthatChicagoSchooltheorywasalsoseriouslyflawedevenin

itsapplicationtoChicago.

29
 Theseconcernsspilloverdirectlytoanyconsiderationofthe

relationshipbetweenurbantheoryandpolicyintervention.Theurbanpolicy

literaturehasalreadyopenedupafruitfuldebateonthismatterbymakinga

distinctionbetweenplacepoliciesthattargetparticularcitiesorpartsof

cities,andpeoplepoliciesthattargetparticularsocioeconomiccategories

irrespectiveoflocation(Freedman,2012;GlaeserandGyourko,2005;

Glickman,1981).Urbanpovertyanalysts,inparticular,havevigorously

debatedthisdistinction,andhavemademuchprogressinidentifyingthe

potentialitiesandlimitsofpoliciesfocusedonplace(suchasinterventions

thatseektomoderatethespatialconcentrationorisolationofpoorpeoplein

certainneighborhoods)versusthosefocusedonpeople(suchasinterventions

directedtocorrectingfactorslikefamilybreakdownoreducationalfailure).

Theissuesherearecertainlyfarfrombeingcutanddried,andthedebate

remainsopenasresearchcontinuestodevelopnewresultsaboutboththe

urbanandthesocioeconomicrootsofpovertyandinequality.

Therearealsomanyclearlyexaggeratedclaimsintheliteratureabout

thepowerofcitiestotransformsociallife.Forexample,anabundant

literatureatthepresenttimeseestheurbanasaprincipalfountainheadof

emancipatorypoliticaltrendsandmovements(e.g.Harvey,2012;Soja,2010).

Therecanbelittledoubtabouttheroleofcities,byreasonpreciselyoftheir

sizeanddensity,ascentersofpoliticaldebateandflashpointsofpopular

protestandpoliticalmobilization,andtheseissuesmustfigureprominentlyin

anygeneralurbantheory.Somustspecificallyurbanconflictsoversuch

30
mattersas,forexample,accesstoitemsofcollectiveconsumptioninthecity

orunfairdifferentialsinpublicspendingonneighborhooddevelopment.

However,thebasicetiologyofpoliticalcontestationincontemporarysociety

extendsfarbeyondthedomainofthecityinthestrictsense,foritreaches

downintotheverycoreofsociallifewherethebasicmechanismsofinjustice,

inequality,politicaloppression,andothermajorcausesofinequalityand

unrestreside.Accordingly,wehavenohesitationincharacterizingthose

currentlywidespreadclaimsthattendtoassimilateallformsofsocialand

politicalactionintoanurbantotalityascasesofsevereconceptualoverreach

(cf.Cox2001;Purcell2006).Eveninthe21stcentury,when,forthefirsttime

inhumanhistory,themajorityofsocialexistenceisgeographicallylocatedin

cities,notalloreventhegreaterpartofthisexistencecanbedescribedas

beingintrinsicallyurbaninthesensesthatwehavelaidoutabove.

31
 References

Amin,A.,andN.Thrift.2002.Cities:ReimaginingtheUrban.Cambridge:Polity.
Amin,A.,andS.Graham.1997.Theordinarycity.Transactionsofthe
InstituteofBritishGeographers22:411429.
Bairoch,P.1988.CitiesandEconomicDevelopment.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Black,D.andJ.V.Henderson.2003.UrbanEvolutionintheUSA.Journalof
EconomicGeography3:343372.
Boo,K.2011.BehindtheBeautifulForevers:Life,DeathandHopeinaMumbai
Undercity.NewYork:RandomHouse.
Bourguignon,F.,andC.Morrisson.2002."InequalityAmongWorldCitizens:
18201992."AmericanEconomicReview,92(4):727744.
Braudel,F.(1995,orig.1949).TheMediterraneanandtheMediterranean
WorldintheAgeofPhilipII.BerkeleyandLosAngeles:Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Brenner, N. 1999. Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban
governance in the European Union. Urban Studies, 36: 431 451.
Brenner,N.2013.ThesesonUrbanization.PublicCulture,25:85114.
Castells,M.1968.Yatilunesociologieurbaine?SociologieduTravail1:72
90.
Castells,M.1972.LaQuestionUrbaine.Paris:Maspero.
Charlot,S.,andG.Duranton.2006.CitiesandWorkplaceCommunication:
SomeQuantitativeFrenchEvidence.UrbanStudies43:136594.
Cochrane,A.2006.UnderstandingUrbanPolicy:ACriticalIntroduction,Oxford:
Blackwell.
Cooke,P.,andK.Morgan.1998.Theassociationaleconomy:firms,regions,and
innovation.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Cox,K.R.2001.Territoriality,politicsandtheurban.PoliticalGeography20:
745762.
Dick,H.W.,andP.J.Rimmer.1998.BeyondtheThirdWorldcity:Thenew
urbangeographyofSouthEastAsia.UrbanStudies35(12):23032321.
Duranton,G.andPuga,D.2004.MicroFoundationsofUrbanAgglomeration
Economies.InHandbookofRegionalandUrbanEconomics,ed.J.V.
HendersonandJ.F.Thisse,4:2064117.Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Duranton,G.andM.Storper,2008.RisingTradeCosts?Agglomerationand
tradewithendogenoustransactioncosts.CanadianJournalof
Economics41,1:292319
Faras, I.,andT.Bendereds.2010.UrbanAssemblages:HowActorNetwork
TheoryChangesUrbanStudies.London:Routledge.
Findlay,R.andO'Rourke,K.2007.PowerandPlenty:Trade,Warandthe
WorldEconomyintheSecondMillenium.Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.

32
Friedmann, J. and Wolff, G. 1982. World City Formation: An Agenda for
Research and Action. InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegional
Research.6: 309 - 344.
Fujita,M.,andJ.F.Thisse.2002.EconomicsofAgglomeration:Cities,Industrial
Location,andRegionalGrowth.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Freedman,M.2012.PlacebasedProgramsandtheGeographicDispersionof
Unemployment.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversity,Departmentof
Economics,WorkingPaper.
Glaeser,E.L.,andJ.Gyourko.2005.UrbanDeclineandDurableHousing.
JournalofPoliticalEconomy113:34576.
Glickman,N.J.1981.EmergingUrbanPoliciesinaSlowGrowthEconomy:
ConservativeInitiativesandProgressiveResponsesintheUS.
InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,5,492528.
Harvey,D.2012.RebelCities:FromtheRighttotheCitytotheUrban
Revolution.London:Verso.
Harvey,D.1973.SocialJusticeandtheCity.London:EdwardArnold.
Henderson,J.V.2010.CitiesandDevelopment.JournalofRegional
Science50:51540.
Henderson,J.V.andA.J.Venables.2009.Dynamicsofcityformation.Review
ofEconomicDynamics2,233254.
Henderson,J.V.andH.G.Wang.2007.UrbanizationandCityGrowth:theRole
ofInstitutions.RegionalScienceandUrbanEconomics37,283313.
Hummels,D.2008.TransportationCostsandInternationalTradeinthe
SecondEraofGlobalization,JournalofEconomicPerspectives21,131
154.
Jacobs,J.1969.TheEconomyofCities,NewYork:Vintage.
Jackson,P.1989.Geography,RaceandRacism.Pp.176195inR.PeetandN.
Thrift(eds.)NewModelsinGeography,Volume2.London:Unwin
Hymen.
Jessop,B.1997.Theentrepreneurialcity:reimaginglocalities,redesigning
economicgovernance,orrestructuringcapital?pp.2538inN.Jewson
andS.MacGregor(eds.)TransformingCities:ContestedGovernanceand
NewSpatialDivisions,London:Routledge.
Lefebvre,H.1970.LaRvolutionUrbaine.Paris:Gallimard.
Maddison,A.2001.TheWorldEconomy:AMillenialPerspective.Paris:OECD
DevelopmentCenter.
Mann,C.C.2011.1493:UncoveringtheNewWorldColumbusCreated.New
York:Vintage.
Massey, D. 1991. Flexible Sexism. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 9: 31 57
McCormick,M.2001.OriginsoftheEuropeanEconomy:Communicationand
CommerceAD300900.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
McDowell,L.1983.TowardsanUnderstandingoftheGenderDivisionof
UrbanSpace.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 1: 59-72

33
McFarlane,C.2010.TheComparativeCity:Knowledge,Learning,Urbanism.
InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch34,725742.
McFarlane,C.2011.AssemblageandCriticalurbanPraxis.City15,204224.
McKinseyCorporation.2010.UrbanWorld.www.mckinsey.com/urbanworld
Michaels,G;F.Rauch;andS.J.Redding.2012.UrbanizationandStructural
Transformation.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics127,2:535586.
Park,R.E.,E.W.Burgess,andR.D.McKenzie.1925.TheCity.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress.
Perec,G.1974.EspcesdEspaces.Paris:Galile.
Pirenne,H.1952(originallypublished1925).MedievalCities:TheOrigins
andRevivalofTrade.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Pred, A. R. 1973. Urban Growth and the Circulation of information: The US
Urban System, 17901840. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Purcell,M.2006.Urbandemocracyandthelocaltrap,UrbanStudies,43,
19211941.
Rankin,K.N.2011.Assemblageandthepoliticsofthickdescription.City
15:563569.
Reades,J.2010.ThePlaceofTelecommunications:SpatialDecisionMakingby
FirmsintheAgeofGlobalCommunication.UnpublishedPhDthesis,
BartlettSchool,DepartmentofTownandCountryPlanning,University
College,London.
Renaud,B.1979.NationalUrbanizationPoliciesinDevelopingCountries.
Washington,D.C.:WorldBank.
Robinson,J.2004.Inthetracksofcomparativeurbanism:Difference,urban
modernityandtheprimitive.UrbanGeography25:709723.
Robinson,J.2006.TheOrdinaryCity:BetweenModernityandDevelopment.
London:Routledge.
Robinson,J.2011.CitiesinaWorldofCities:TheComparativeGesture.
InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch.35:123.
Roweis,S.T.andScott,A.J.1978.Theurbanlandquestion,pp.3873inK.Cox
(ed.),UrbanizationandConflictinMarketSocieties,Chicago:
Maaroufa.
Roy,A.2009.The21stcenturymetropolis:newgeographiesoftheory.
RegionalStudies43(6):819830.
Roy,A.2011a.Slumdogcities:rethinkingsubalternurbanism.International
JournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch35:223238.
Roy,A.2011b.Urbanisms,worldingpracticesandthetheoryofplanning.
PlanningTheory10:615.
Sampson,R.2012.TheGreatAmericanCityandtheEnduringNeighborhood
Effect.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Sassen, S. 1991. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Saunders,P.1981.SocialTheoryandtheUrbanQuestion.London:Hutchinson.
Scott,A.J.1980.TheUrbanLandNexusandtheState.London:Pion.
Scott,A.J.1988.Metropolis:FromtheDivisionofLabortoUrbanForm.
Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

34
Scott,A.J.2001.Globalizationandtheriseofcityregions.European
PlanningStudies9:813826.
Scott, A. J. 2011. Emerging cities of the third wave. City, 15, 289-381.
Slater,T.2013.Yourlifechancesaffectwhereyoulive:acritiqueofthe
cottageindustryofneighbourhoodeffectsresearch,International
JournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,37,forthcoming.
Smith,A(1776).AnInquiryintheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations.
London:Methuen.
Soja,E.2010.SeekingSpatialJustice.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota
Press.
Sonn,J.W.,andM.Storper.2008.TheIncreasingImportanceofGeographical
ProximityinTechnologicalInnovation:AnAnalysisofU.S.Patent
Citations,19751997.EnvironmentandPlanningA40:10201039.
Storper,M.1997.Theregionalworld:territorialdevelopmentinaglobal
economy.NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Storper,M.,andA.J.Venables.2004.Buzz:FacetoFaceContactandthe
UrbanEconomy.JournalofEconomicGeography4:35170.
Taylor,P.J.2012.ExtraordinaryCities:EarlyCitynessandtheOriginsof
AgricultureandStates.InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegional
Research,36:415447.
Wachsmuth,D.,D.J.Madden,andN.Brenner.2011.Betweenabstractionand
complexity:metatheoreticalobservationsontheassemblagedebate.
City15:740750.
Waldinger,R.,andM.Bozorgmehr(eds.)1996.EthnicLosAngeles.NewYork:
RussellSageFoundation.
WardPerkins,B.2005.TheFallofRomeandtheEndofCivilisation.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Wirth,L.1938.Urbanismasawayoflife.AmericanJournalofSociology44:1
24.
WorldBank.2009.WorldDevelopmentReport:ReshapingEconomic
Geography.Washington,DC:TheWorldBank.
Zorbaugh,H.W.1929.TheGoldCoastandtheSlum:ASociologicalStudyof
Chicago'sNearNorthSide.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.
Zucker,L.G.,andM.R.Darby.2006.MovementofStarScientistsand
EngineersandHighTechFirmEntry.Workingpaper12172,National
BureauofEconomicResearch,Cambridge,MA.
www.nber.org/papers/wp12172

35