Jennifer Robinson

Attention to global and world cities has directed the field of urban studies to the significance of international and transnational processes in shaping city economies. This article evaluates these approaches, from a position off their maps. I argue that the circulation of these approaches in academic and policy realms adversely impacts on cities which do not fall into these categories by setting up the idea of the global city as a ‘regulating fiction’, a standard towards which they aspire. It establishes a small sector of the global economy as most desirable in planning the future of cities. By contrast, mega–cities function as the dramatic ‘other’ of world and global cities, and highlight the developmentalist discourse through which most cities in poor countries are assessed as fundamentally lacking in qualities of city–ness. I argue that the long–standing categories of western/third–world cities have been translated into the apparently transnational accounts of global and world cities. Western cities continue to be the primary site of production of apparently unlocated urban theory; so–called third–world cities (and other cities off the map of the world cities cartography) are interpreted through a developmentalist lens and, where they are referred to at all, are framed in terms of ‘difference’ or irrelevance. This article draws attention to the emergence of an alternative set of theoretical approaches, which are more inclusive in their geographical reach and which are concerned with the diverse dynamics of ordinary cities. These approaches have not yet realized that they have the potential to broaden the base for theorizing about cities and, with this in mind, the article explores the potential for a more cosmopolitan urban theory. The policy stakes in this are high, and the article notes that there are important political reasons to promote the analysis of ordinary cities in the face of the persistence of ambitions in many cities to become ‘world cities‘. L’attention accordée aux villes planétaires et mondiales a orienté le champ des études urbaines vers l’importance des processus internationaux et transnationaux dans la configuration économique des villes. Partant d’un point situé hors de leur cartographie, l’article évalue ces approches. La circulation de celles–ci dans les sphères politiques et intellectuelles a une incidence néfaste sur les villes qui n’appartiennent pas à ces catégories, car elle instaure l’idée d’une ville planétaire en tant que ‘fiction régulatrice’, norme à laquelle aspirent les villes. Un secteur restreint de l’économie mondiale est ainsi établi comme le plus recherché dans la planification urbaine. Par contraste, les megacities fonctionnent comme l’impressionnant ‘autre’ des villes mondiales et planétaires, valorisant le discours développementaliste selon lequel l’évaluation des villes des pays pauvres indique le plus souvent des lacunes fondamentales dans les qualités propres à une ville. Les anciennes catégories de villes (Occident/tiers–monde) ont été converties en justifications apparemment transnationales des villes planétaires et mondiales. Les villes occidentales restent le site de production principal d’une théorie urbaine manifestement non–localisée; les villes dites du tiers monde (et autres villes ignorées de la cartographie des villes mondiales) sont interprétées à travers une optique développementaliste et, si on en parle, sont dépeintes en termes de ‘différence‘ ou d’inadéquation. Cet article souligne l’émergence d’un autre ensemble d’approches théoriques, plus inclusives dans leur géographie et soucieuses des diverses dynamiques des villes ordinaires. Sachant que ces démarches ne sont pas encore conscientes de pouvoir étendre la base théorique sur les villes, l’article explore la possibilité d’une théorie urbaine plus cosmopolite. Les enjeux stratégiques sont sérieux et il existe des raisons politiques importantes d’encourager l’analyse des villes ordinaires face aux ambitions persistantes dans de nombreuses villes de devenir les ‘villes mondiales’.

Cities exist in a world of cities and thus routinely invite a comparative gesture in urban theorizing. However, for some decades urban studies have analytically divided the world of cities into, for example, wealthier and poorer, capitalist and socialist, or into different regional groupings of cities, with subsequently very little comparative research across these divides. Interest in drawing comparisons among different cities has escalated in an era of ‘globalization’, as economic and social activities as well as governance structures link cities together through spatially extensive flows of various kinds and intense networks of communication. Nonetheless, scholars of urban studies have been relatively reluctant to pursue the potential for international comparative research that stands at the heart of the field. Where an interest in globalization has drawn authors to explicit exercises in comparison, both the methodological resources and the prevalent intellectual and theoretical landscape have tended to limit and even undermine these initiatives. This article seeks, first, to understand why it is that in an intrinsically comparative field with an urgent contemporary need for thinking across different urban experiences, there has been relatively little comparative research, especially comparisons that stretch across the global North–South divide, or across contexts of wealthier and poorer cities. Secondly, through a review of existing strategies for comparing cities, the article considers the potential for comparative methodologies to overcome their limitations to meet growing demands for international and properly post-colonial urban studies. Finally, it proposes a new phase of comparative urban research that is experimental, but with theoretically rigorous foundations. Résumé Les villes existent dans un monde de villes et invitent donc normalement à un mouvement comparatif au sein de la recherche urbaine. Toutefois, depuis quelques décennies, les démarches analytiques des études urbaines ont scindé le monde des villes en, par exemple, riches et pauvres, capitalistes et socialistes, ou en d’autres regroupements par régions, ce qui s’est traduit par de rares comparaisons entre ces grandes divisions. L’intérêt pour les travaux comparatifs entre villes s’est accentué au fil de la ‘mondialisation’, les activités économiques et sociales ainsi que les structures de gouvernance reliant les villes par des flux de plusieurs types et de grande envergure spatiale, et par d’actifs réseaux de communication. Pourtant, les auteurs d’études urbaines se sont montrés peu enclins à approfondir le potentiel de recherches comparatives internationales qu’offre ce domaine. Lorsqu’un intérêt pour la mondialisation a poussé certains à des exercices comparatifs détaillés, tant les ressources méthodologiques que le contexte théorique et intellectuel dominant ont plutôt limité, voire anéanti, ces initiatives. Dans un premier temps, cet article cherche à comprendre pourquoi, dans un domaine comparatif par nature où un besoin urgent appelle à une réflexion associant différentes expériences urbaines, les études comparatives sont relativement rares, notamment les comparaisons qui dépassent la division entre Nord et Sud, ou entre les villes les plus riches et les plus pauvres. Ensuite, faisant le bilan des stratégies de comparaison existantes, il envisage les méthodologies comparatives qui pourraient repousser leurs limites pour répondre aux demandes croissantes en études urbaines internationales et réellement postcoloniales. Pour finir, l’article propose une nouvelle phase expérimentale d’études urbaines comparatives, également dotée de fondements rigoureux sur le plan théorique.

With the urbanization of the world's population proceeding apace and the equally rapid urbanization of poverty, urban theory has an urgent challenge to meet if it is to remain relevant to the majority of cities and their populations, many of which are outside the West.
\n
\nThis groundbreaking book establishes a new framework for urban development. It makes the argument that all cities are best understood as ‘ordinary’, and crosses the longstanding divide in urban scholarship and urban policy between Western and other cities (especially those labelled ‘Third World’). It considers the two framing axes of urban modernity and development, and argues that if cities are to be imagined in equitable and creative ways, urban theory must overcome these axes with their Western bias, and that resources must become at least as cosmopolitan as cities themselves. 
\n
\nTracking paths across previously separate literatures and debates, this innovative book, a postcolonial critique of urban studies, traces the outlines of a cosmopolitan approach to cities, drawing on evidence from Rio, Johannesburg, Lusaka and Kuala Lumpur. Key urban scholars and debates, from Simmel, Benjamin and the Chicago School to Global and World Cities theories are explored, together with anthropological and developmentalist accounts of poorer cities. Offering an alternative approach, Ordinary Cities skilfully brings together theories of urban development for students and researchers of urban studies, geography and development.

Abstract The demographic transition of the late 20th and early 21st centuries has shifted the locus of urbanizing populations from the global North to the global South. As the theoretical epicenter of urban scholars and policymakers adjusts to accommodate this transition, some realignment in how ideas are weighted and applied is inevitable. This recalibration, while not necessarily comfortable for those in established positions of intellectual power, is desirable and maybe even overdue. The overarching argument presented here is that recent work on neoliberalism, despite its quality and relevance for many places, will need to be "provincialized" in order to create intellectual space for alternative ideas that may be more relevant to cities where the majority of the world's urban population now resides. To this end, we explore the limits to the critique of neoliberalism—a perspective that has assumed hegemonic dimensions in the progressive geographical literature. In seeking post-neoliberal insights, we highlight two bodies of work that also address issues of urban injustice. The first is the largely practice-generated literature on poverty and its amalgamation into a resurgent literature focused on the right to the city. The second theoretical framework we explore as a counterpoint to the neoliberal crtitique is the nascent debate about the size and shape of the subnational state, arguing that it is time to bring to the fore the difficult question concerning the most appropriate form of urban government. Finally, we suggest that if the state is to be an important component in the urban developmental landscape, all sorts of initiatives in research and capacity-building will be needed, giving substantially greater attention to documenting urban change on hitherto under-researched cities, and learning from practice how to transform the theoretical canon to ensure 21st-century relevance. Keywords: right to the cityurban povertypost-neoliberalismstate/civil society interfacedevelopmental stateglobal Southgood citySouth African city

Inspired by postcolonial critiques, urban studies today is characterized by conceptual and methodological experimentation in pursuit of a more global approach to understanding cities. The challenge is to develop methods and theoretical practices which allow conceptual innovation to emerge from any urban situation or urbanization process, sustaining wider conversations while insisting that concepts are open to revision. This maps well on to the core methodological problematic of comparison. Mindful of the strong limits to comparison presented by conventional quasi-scientific methods, this paper sets out the basis for a reformatted comparative method. A new grounding for comparison is proposed, specific to the field of the urban, and a new typology of tactics for undertaking urban comparative research is suggested. The paper weaves together classic approaches and more recent innovations in comparison from within urban studies with a wider philosophical analysis of the issues at stake in reframing the architecture of comparison. The paper stands as an invitation to practise global urban studies differently – comparatively – but also to practise comparison differently, in a way that opens urban studies to a more global repertoire of potential insights. The paper develops this invitation and methodological quest through Marxist political-economy; through actually-existing vernacular comparative practices of urban studies; and through insights gleaned from Gilles Deleuze’s philosophical project. The last section of the paper explains how this new vocabulary of comparative method can be put to work through a review of some recent experiments in the field of global urban studies.