Urban Hierarchy

Globalisation is dramatically changing the context of urban communities and the premises for urban development policy. In the context of global intercity competition, cities' major goal is to increase their competitiveness, in which the positioning and attractiveness of a city have a critical function. Attraction-oriented development strategies aim at effective absorption of external resources from the global space of flows. At the core of attraction strategy are business promotion activities with appealing incentives, but it is assumed that such a competition is risky and may lead to a race to the bottom. Therefore the emphasis is increasingly on less costly and more synergistic city marketing, which utilises city branding and “city profiling” that aim at attract high value-adding services or high-tech firms. This paper proposes a city attraction hypothesis that states that global intercity competition is essentially about a city's ability to attract the highest possible value from global flows of values in order to promote urban development. The result of such a global intercity competition determines cities' functions and positions in the global division of labour and thus in the global urban hierarchy, and ultimately determines their ability to increase prosperity and welfare in urban communities.

This paper analyses the hierarchy and ranking of the towns of the Duchy of Brabant within the Estates, the principality's representative political institution. It seeks to answer the question why social and economic changes in the urban landscape were not, or only partly, refl ected in the political sphere. An analysis of a series of convocation lists of the Estates on the one hand, and subscription lists of charters on the other, make it clear that a distinction can be made between the towns and the so-called liberties, and that a neat territorial hierarchy is applied between these two categories. Although the four " capitals " and three other important towns headed the urban hierarchy, both as regards attendance and the order in which they were placed, there was certainly space for other minor towns, both ducal and seigniorial, to participate in the political arena. The ranking of a town implied certain rights and (fi nancial) obligations and was also expressed symbolically, for example in wine gifts and in seating arrangements at the meetings of the Estates. Whereas the formal political hierarchy within the Estates was quite rigid, other rankings of a military and fi scal character were subject to change.

Resumen: Este artículo analiza la jerarquía y el ranking de las ciudades del ducado de Brabante en su principal institución política representativa, los llamados Estados de Brabante El objetivo de este artículo es intentar buscar una respuesta a la pregunta de por qué los cambios sociales y económicos en las ciudades no se manifi estan de forma total o parcial en el ámbito político. El análisis de una serie de listas de convocatoria de los Estados demuestra que había una diferenciación entre las ciudades y las llamadas " libertades " , y que además dentro de estas dos categorías se aplicaba una jerarquía territorial. Aunque las cuatro 'capitales' y otras tres ciudades importantes están en la cabeza de la jerarquía urbana, tanto en lo que se refi ere a la parti-cipación como en el orden en el que están mencionadas, había espacio también para que otras ciudades más pequeñas participaran en el escenario político. El ranking de una ciudad llevaba consigo no sólo el disfrute de algunos derechos sino también el cumplimiento de algunas obligaciones, sobre todo de índole fi nanciera, y que se expresaban simbólicamente, como por ejemplo en las donaciones de vino y en el orden de prece-dencia durante las reuniones de los Estados. Aunque la jerarquía política dentro de los Estados por lo general era bastante rígida, otros rankings como por ejemplo los militares y fi scales sí estaban sujetos a cambios.

The objective of this article is to describe how globalisation and related intercity competition pose challenges to the development of cities. A primary attention is paid to specialisation and profiling of cities and related strategies designed to attract resources from the global flows of values. The ability of cities to effectively attract external resources – especially in the areas of high-value adding activities – determines to a large extent their position in the global urban hierarchy, which both reflects and conditions their overall attractiveness and capability in the globalised environment.

The study of the emergence of the Hungarian urban hierarchy raises a number of methodological questions concerning the complex settlement structure and the unique urban development of the Carpathian Basin. Research on the Hungarian urban hierarchy reveals a strong positive correlation between the position of the cities in the hierarchy and the complexity of their urban functions. The aim of my inquiry is to provide a complex picture of the Hungarian urban hierarchy of the 1930s, or, more precisely, the potential hierarchies. I approach this issue from various perspectives. As there are different definitions of cities in judicial (administrative), statistical, economic, sociological, and geographical contexts, the questions remain open: what do we consider a city, and what makes a settlement a city in the interwar period in Hungary? One of the cornerstones of my research is the issue of the outskirts. In administrative terms, we can speak about a unit, but due to the differing patterns of urban development in Hungary, the relationship between the core territory and its periphery is complex. Since the classic homestead theory has been challenged, hierarchical investigations have had to address the problems involved in dividing the data between urban cores and urban peripheries. Hierarchic rankings based on the incorporation of outskirts are quite different from rankings which omit the latter zones, which tend to be dominated by scattered farms not linked functionally to the urban core. The differences also show strong regional patterns. This study, based on statistical data, tries to highlight these differences in the urban hierarchy using this new approach. This way, it becomes possible to put the study of the Hungarian urban hierarchy in the interwar period on a new methodological footing which differs in several significant ways from the foundations of earlier research on the subject in Hungary.

The identification of the city hierarchy of our home country raises numerous questions, which arises from the complexity of the settlement structure, as well as from the special urban development of the Carpathian Basin. The starting point has been the fact that there was a strong positive correlation between the position in urban hierarchy and the quantity (complexity) of the urban roles (Beluszky–Győri 2005.). The further aim of the study is to depict the network of cities of the interwar Hungary. First, I will study the emerging methodological issues, and I will also try to find solutions for them. The recent study published by Pál Beluszky and Róbert Győri (2005), which examines the 1910 conditions, provides a base to observe the changes in the mentioned structure until 1930.  An important element of the present hierarchy study is to separate the downtown data from data of the periphery, as the classical homestead principle had already ceased to exist (Mendöl 1993., Timár 2006.).  Another important methodological aspect of the study is the way my computer database is modelling and distorting the whole structure, as well as its levels. Using this method, the study of the interwar urban hierarchy can be put onto new methodological bases, which differ significantly from the earlier domestic research methods.

Until now, studies of urbanization in India have been based only on official urban figures as provided by Census surveys. This approach has inevitably introduced several avoidable biases into the picture, distortions which are further compounded by numerous regional inter-Census adjustments. A much sounder option is now available in the Geopolis approach [www.e-geopolis.eu], which follows the United Nations system of classifying as urban all physical agglomerates with at least 10,000 inhabitants.
From this standpoint, the Indian scenario exhibits all signs of a much-diffused process of urbanization rather than a major demographic polarization led by mega-cities. While 3,279 units were officially categorized as urban, the Geopolis criterion has identified 6,467 units with at least 10,000 inhabitants. Moreover, Geopolis estimates the urban population at 37% for 2001, which is 10% more than the official Census estimate. In absolute terms, this difference accounts for 100 million inhabitants. Brought to light by both physical identification and gradation of the census units of all localities as well as a study of the morphological profiles of individual agglomerates, a major finding reveals a greater spread of the country’s metro and secondary cities than previously believed. Statistical and political considerations have obscured the emergence of small agglomerations of between 10,000 and 20,000 inhabitants. This omission can only be seen as a gap in the national policy on planning and urban development. In other words, the country seems to be firmly headed toward an extended process of metropolitanization alongside diffused combinations of localized socio-economic opportunities, clusters, cottage industries, and market towns partially interlinked by developmental corridors. Far from a dual model of modern versus traditional, urban versus rural, metro city versus small town, the Indian subcontinent features many sub-regional settings which converge, overlap, and diverge. This study of the distribution of current and emerging agglomerations challenges the pertinence of the urban/rural divide.

A new trend is emerging in China that categorises cities according to economic conditions and political statuses and that formulates a new urban hierarchical system. This urban hierarchy has historical echoes from several decades ago, when the country was divided into three “fronts” for geopolitical concerns. Ironically, the Chinese character of “tiers” and “fronts” is identical: “线” (xian). By referring to Luzhou, a medium-sized city in Western China that bears the same label as “三线” (“third tier” / “third front”) in different periods, we explore the change of urban political economy and governing techniques that are underlying these two different (yet at the same time identical) labels of a city. It turns out that the two labels of Luzhou indicate dissimilar logics of the state. The “third front” in the Maoist era, with centrally-dominated redistribution of resources, rendered the local state a passive political subject. In contrast, the recent rise of “tiers” discourse has a lot of purchases from the local state. Situating in inter-city competitions, they are empowered yet also impelled to be more active in promoting the urbanisation process and boosting “urban-ness” in partnership with capital. Here, between the territorial logic of the planned economy half century ago and the ongoing entrepreneurial local governance at present, we are invited to further reflect on how the development trajectory of an ordinary (and even overlooked) city could contribute to more global urban studies.

The post-apartheid era in South Africa demonstrated a grand shift in the country’s legislation. Local government legislation was particularly affected, as it was at the municipal level that the policies of apartheid were visible. Part of addressing the legacy of spatial segregation included a suite of legislation aimed at addressing the legacy of apartheid and the deep socio-economic inequality present by ensuring that local government had high levels of autonomy. By forging the concept of “developmental local government”, the legislation cemented local government as an active branch of state, able to address the post-apartheid goal of redistribution. My research focuses on one aspect of this legislation, the categorizing of municipalities. South African local government legislation is outlined in a way that provides greater autonomy to municipalities that are deemed “metros” whilst simultaneously describing the model of “cooperative governance” which describes all levels of government as being equally crucial and able to perform governance. The case of Buffalo City Municipality (BCM) forms the focus of my case study because it is an example of a small city that was promoted to ‘metro status’. My research teases out the political and technical hopes, dreams and realities of ‘metro status’. It relies on a narrative qualitative inquiry based on the input from 19 interviewees (including academics, national government ministers and municipal employees) and an analysis of the governmental, legislative and media archives focussed on the local government transformation in the country.
Being prompted by the work of Jennifer Robinson, who asks scholars to consider the trajectory of urban labels and the theories they are grounded in, I do not take for granted the jurisdictional/legislative label of “metro” and I seek to answer the question: Is bigger better? Further, the growing questions on the absence of scholarly research on smaller cities gives this research room to ask questions regarding a city caught between larger and smaller cities. BCM demonstrates a municipality whose hopes to be a big city may have been rooted more in appearances rather than in fact. Whilst the term metro speaks to a set of technical assumptions of the characteristics of a city, BCM demonstrates an example of how politics plays a large part in how local government policy is enacted. Where ‘metro status’ can be perceived simply as a change in jurisdictional status, BCM demonstrates that even for a small city the prestige of ‘metro status’

Until now, studies of urbanization in India have been based only on official urban figures as provided by Census surveys. This approach has inevitably introduced several avoidable biases into the picture, distortions which are further compounded by numerous regional inter-Census adjustments. A much sounder option is now available in the Geopolis approach [www.e-geopolis.eu], which follows the United Nations system of classifying as urban all physical agglomerates with at least 10,000 inhabitants. From this standpoint, the Indian scenario exhibits all signs of a much-diffused process of urbanization rather than a major demographic polarization led by mega-cities. While 3,279 units were officially categorized as urban, the Geopolis criterion has identified 6,467 units with at least 10,000 inhabitants. Moreover, Geopolis estimates the urban population at 37% for 2001, which is 10% more than the official Census estimate. In absolute terms, this difference accounts for 100 million inhabi...