THENATUREOFCITIES:

TheScopeandLimitsofUrbanTheory

AllenJ.Scott,
DistinguishedResearchProfessor,
UCLA

and

MichaelStorper,
ProfessorofEconomicGeography,LondonSchoolofEconomics;
ProfessorofRegionalandInternationalDevelopment,UCLA;
ProfessorofEconomicSociology,SciencesPo,Paris.
May2013
Forthcoming:InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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,

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