This is a new column by Jan Nijman, a University of Miami professor who is one of a group of academicians around the world studying the growing stature of "world cities" in the global economy.
A few months ago, at the so-called “transatlantic city talks” in Lyon, some 30 mayors from France, Germany and the United States gathered to share their experiences in dealing with the problems and opportunities stemming from globalization.
One of the driving motives behind the meeting was that “cities are becoming independent actors in the world-economy.”
Former French prime minister (!) and current mayor of Bordeaux, Alain Juppé opined that national governments are “too small to deal with the big problems and too big to deal with the small problems.” Another participant, Denver mayor Wellington Web, asserted that “the 21st century is the century of cities in both America and Europe.”
Local boosterism comes naturally to mayors, but there is no denying that profound changes are taking place in the global role of cities.
For the past two decades, a growing group of academicians has been making similar claims. The idea is that our understanding of the world economy as a system of countries or states has become outdated. Instead, the functioning of the global economy is better understood as an ensemble of some 30 or 40 “world cities.”
The main reasons for this bold new look at the world economy are that globalization slowly erodes political boundaries, that national governments are steadily losing their grip on international commerce and finance, and that the new information economy is highly concentrated in cities.
With central governments subjecting themselves more and more to laissez-faire policies, cities are increasingly in a position to go their own course. Indeed, many countries are increasingly dependent on the economic fortunes of their main cities.
In the process, world cities have, economically speaking, emancipated themselves from their national governments. They have in some ways been elevated above their immediate hinterland.
For example, London is more closely tied to Paris or Singapore than to the English Midlands. And Manhattan’s economic connections with, say, Frankfurt or Tokyo, are more consequential than its relations to any place in upstate New York.
In this sense, world cities stand on their own, with an air of independence. The world is their oyster. This is true, in varying degrees, for all world cities. But it is hard to think of a more extreme example than Miami.
What makes Miami so extraordinary is that it has never had to reorient itself from a national to a global stance. Unlike London or New York or just about any other major world city, Miami has never been a central city in the U.S. economy. Nor has Miami ever been a central part of Florida’s economy.
Unlike other world cities, Miami became a world city before it became (if, indeed, it ever did) a prominent city within the United States.
Miami was not burdened with the economic restructuring that faced older cities and it was not held back by an ‘old boys’ network’ that would keep the city prisoner to local and regional business interests. As a result, Miami since the 1960s was set for an unprecedented speedy rise to world city status.
The opportunities from globalization that are relatively new to the cities represented at the ‘transatlantic city talks’ in Lyon have always been taken for granted in Miami. Perhaps that is why Miami was not represented at the conference.
On the other hand, New Orleans, once a close competitor for the role of U.S. gateway to the Caribbean, was. Miami beat New Orleans, for a reason. Being a global city comes naturally to Miami. It is a world city without baggage, itself a product of globalization.
Jan Nijman is Professor of Geography and Regional Studies in the School of International Studies, University of Miami.