The Rise of Cities as Global Actors: What Consequences for Policy?
| Published date | 01 September 2014 |
| Date | 01 September 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12139 |
| Author | William Attwell |
The Rise of Cities as Global Actors: What
Consequences for Policy?
William Attwell
Africa Analyst, Oxford Analytica
Are cities beginning to articulate a distinctive agenda in
international affairs, one that sets them apart as diplo-
matic actors in their own right? A growing body of opin-
ion thinks so (Attwell, 2013; Calder and Freytas, 2009;
Tavares, 2013; van der Pluijm, 2007). Yet the evidence
points to an uneven evolutionary process, the analysis of
which has been further clouded by an array of new
terms and ideas posited by enthusiastic commentators.
In a recent Foreign Affairs article, Rodrigo Tavares, inter-
national relations head for the Sao Paolo state govern-
ment, describes how sub-national governments around
the world are articulating external relations agendas that
are distinctive from their national contexts and which
focus on the nuts and bolts of promoting their regional
interests (2013). Of course, the idea of nimble, confident
city-regions forging practical partnerships to solve prob-
lems while lumbering nation states struggle to achieve
traction on a range of issues, from Syria to climate
change, has intuitive appeal. There is also much truth in
this narrative. A real-world example is the recent trade
deal signed between Chicago and Mexico City, which
sets out an ambitious economic partnership involving
joint initiatives in trade, innovation, education, industrial
expansion and enhanced global competitiveness (Liu and
Donahue, 2013). What makes it intriguing is that the
agreement is tailored to the economic interests of each
partner city, rather than, say, following the instructions of
some broad geostrategic agenda defined at a federal
level. It goes far beyond a ‘sister cities’pact to stipulate
specific programs aimed at enhancing the $1.7 billion in
locally produced trade that flows between the two
metropolitan areas.
If size or economic heft were the determinants of
whether a political entity were deserving of attention on
the international stage, then the case for an enhanced
role for ‘metrodiplomacy’along the lines advocated by
Tavares is reasonably clear. It makes sense that a city-
region like Sao Paolo pursues a distinctive international
agenda because it is a major international player in its
own right. If it were a country, Sao Paolo would be the
19
th
largest economy in the world. Already, the governor
Geraldo Alckmin receives on average, more heads of
state and government than any other Latin American lea-
der, with the exception of President Dilma Rousseff of
Brazil herself.
1
Yet, national governments have often
been slow to realise the growing relative significance of
cities and regions. In an essay for the Brookings Institu-
tion New Players on the World Stage, William Antholis
points to the rapid rise of Chongqing to become the
largest city in China with a population of 30 million peo-
ple and exports of $7 billion a year (Antholis, 2013). This
makes it roughly the size of Canada. Yet, as Antholis
points out, the city has no US diplomatic representation
at all, despite the fact that it is a major trade partner and
is the Chinese base for many American-owned compa-
nies. The same could be said for other large, high-growth
regions in China, as well as India, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Turkey and Nigeria.
2
There is clearly a disconnect between the growing eco-
nomic, demographic and political significance of certain
highly urbanised regions and the ability of established
diplomatic practice to respond to, and accommodate,
their rapidly evolving significance in the world.
3
This
paper posits that three simple theoretical parameters
need to be stated upfront to help bring clarity to what is
a growing field of interest, albeit one that has at times
been driven by a deterministic ‘rise of cities’narrative.
4
First, it is important to emphasise that the fundamen-
tal governance structures and processes underpinning
the international system following the Second World War
–international law, multi-lateral institutions and the like
–are principally the domain of nation states. With the
exception of city-states such as Singapore or the Holy
See, which are also sovereigns, and certain multi-lateral
agencies, metropolitan and regional governments,
regardless of their size, do not possess diplomatic cur-
rency of the kind that allows them to participate in
defining ‘the rules of the game’.
Second, the key agents in international affairs, national
foreign ministries and their embassies around the world,
are institutions that are deeply rooted in traditions,
modes of behaviour and a symbolic vocabulary that date
from the establishment of the modern diplomacy follow-
ing signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1815 –the basis of
©2014 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2014) 5:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12139
Global Policy Volume 5 . Issue 3 . September 2014
374
Practitioner Commentary
To continue reading
Request your trial