Brenner - Globalisation as Reterritorialization

Urban Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3, 431±451, 1999

The Donald Robertson Memorial Prizewinner 1999

Globalisation as Reterritorialisation: The Re-scaling of Urban Governance in the European Union Neil Brenner  [Paper ®rst received, October 1997; in ®nal form, May 1998] 

Summary. In the rapidl rapidly y growing growing literat literatures ures on globali globalisation sation,, many authors authors have emphasise emphasised d the apparent disembedding of social relations from their local-territorial pre-conditions. However, such arguments neglect the relatively ®xed and immobile forms of territorial organisation upon which the current round of globalisation is premised, such as urban-regional agglomerations tions and territ territor orial ial states states.. This This articl articlee argues argues that that proces processe sess of  reterritorialisation  Ð  Ð th e r ec o n® n® gu gu ra ra t io io n a nd nd r e - sc sc al al in in g o f fo rm rm s o f t er er ri rit or ori al al o rg rg an a n is isa t io io n su ch ch a s c iti es es a nd nd states statesÐconst Ðconstit itute ute an intri intrinsic nsic moment of the curren currentt round round of globali globalissation. ation. Globalis Globalisa ation tion is conceived conceived here as a reterrit reterritorial orialisa isation tion of both socioeconomic socioeconomic and politica political-ins l-insti titutiona tutionall spaces spaces that u nfolds simultaneously simultaneously upon multiple, multiple, superimpo superimpo sed sed geographical geographical scales. scales. The territor territorial ial organisation of contemporary urban spaces and state institutions must be viewed at once as a presupposition, a medium and an outcome of this highly con¯ictual dynamic of global spatial restructuring. On this basis, various dimensions of urban governance in contemporary Europe are analysed as expressions of a politics of scale that is emerging at the geographical interface between processes of urban restructuring and state territorial restructuring.

1. Introduction

In the rapidly growing literatures on globali- spaces spaces based based upon `distanc `distancele eless, ss, borderless borderless sati sation, on, many many auth author orss have have empha emphassised ised the the interact interactions ions’’ (Scholte, (Scholte, 1996) are decentring decentring apparen apparentt disembe disembeddi dding ng of social, ocial, economi economicc  the  th e role ro le o f ter ri torial tor ial and an d p lacelac e-ba based sed soci so ciooand political relations from their local-terri- instit instituti utiona onall forms. forms. Whatever Whatever their their differdiffer tor  to r ial p reco re con n diti di tion on s. It is argu ar gued ed,, for fo r i nstan nst ance, ce, ence nce s of empha mpha sis, is, res rese arch rch obj obj e ct a nd  that  th at the th e `spac `s pac e o f ¯ ow s’ is sup su p ersed er sedin ing g the th e inte nterpret rpretat atio ion n, common common to the these dive divers rsee `space of places’ (Castells, 1989, 1996); that  anal analys yses es of globa globali lisa sati tion on is a focus focus on the the  terr  te rr itor it orial ialit ity y and an d even ev en g eogr eo grap aphy hy i tself tse lf are ar e accelerated circulation of people, commodibein being g dis dissolve solved d (Ruggi (Ruggiee, 1993; 1993; O’Bri O’Brien en,,  ties,  tie s, cap ital it al,, m o n ey, ey , iden id entt ities itie s and an d ima im a ges 1992); 1992); that that nati nationa onall border borderss have have beco become me  thro  th ro ugh g loba lo ball space sp ace.. T hese he se accele acc ele r ated ate d , glogl oirrele irreleva vant, nt, redunda redundant nt or obsolet obsoletee (Ohmae, (Ohmae, ball bally y circ circula ulati ting ng ¯ows are are said said to embody embody 1995); that nationally organised politico-culof d ete itori ito rial alisat isat io th gh

4 32

NEIL BRENNER

and territo territorie riess on sub-global ub-global geograp geographic hical al scales.  Two  T wo signi sig ni® ® cant can t de® de ® cienc cie ncies ies char ch aract acter erii se interpr interpreta etati tions ons of globali globalisa sati tion on that that focus focus one-sidedly upon ¯ows, circulation and process cesses es of dete deterri rritor toria ialis lisat atio ion. n. Firs First, such an al al y se se s t en d t o n e g l e ct t he f o orrm s o f   rela relati tive vely ly ®xed ®xed and immob immobil ilee terr territ ito oria rial organisation organisationÐin Ðin particul particular, ar, urban-regional urban-regional agglomeratio agglomerations ns and state state regulatory regulatory institu institu- ti onsÐ on sÐth that at e nab le such su ch accel acc eler erat ated ed m oveov ement. ment. Second Secondly ly,, and and most most cruc crucia iall lly, y, such analyses neglect the ways in which the current rent round round of neo-lib neo-libera erall globali globalissation ation has been been intrin intrinsi sica call lly y depe depend nden entt upon, upon, inte interr tw ined in ed with wi th and an d exp ex p resse re ssed d thr th r ou gh m ajor  aj or   tran  tr ansf sfor orma ma tion ti onss of ter rit ri t ori al o rg anisat an isatii on o n  multiple geographical scales. Building upon   thes  th esee criti cr iti cism s, the th e cen tral tr al t hesis hes is of this th is articl articlee is that that proces processses of  reterritorialisation Ð tion Ðth thee recon re con ® g urat ur ation ion and re-s re -scal calin ing g of  forms of territorial organisation such as cities and stat statesÐmus esÐmustt be viewed viewed as an intrins intrinsiic moment of the current round of globalisation. Drawing upon the work of David Harvey (1982 (1982)) and and Henr Henrii Lefe Lefebvr bvree (1977 (1977,, 1978, 1978, 1991), this argument is elaborated through a discussion of various ways in which contem por  p or ary citie cit iess and an d state sta tess are ar e cur cu r ren re n tly b ein g reterritoria reterritorialis lised ed and re-scale re-scaled. d. Globalisation  Globalisation  is conceived here as a reterritorialisation of  both both socioe ocioeco conomi nomicc and and polit politic icaal-in l-insstit titu ti onal on al space sp acess that th at u nf olds ol ds sim si m u ltan lt aneo eousl usly y upon multiple multiple,, superimpos uperimposed ed geograp geographic hical al scal scales es.. The territo territoria riall organis organisat ation ion of concon tem  te m pora po rary ry ur b an space sp acess and an d stat e inst in stit itut utii ons on s must be viewed at once as a presupposition, a medi medium um and an outc outcome of this this high highlly con¯ictual con¯ictual dy namic of global spatial spatial restrucrestruc tur  tu r ing. in g. On this th is basis, ba sis, v ario ar ious us d imen im ensio sions ns of  urban urban governan governance ce in contempora contemporary ry Europe are analysed as expressions of a `politics of  scale’ (Smith, 1993) that is emerging at the geographical interface between processes of  urba tructu tructurin rin and tate tate territ territori orial al

2. Cities, States and the Historical Geography of Capitalism  Fern  Fe rn and Br aude au del’s l’s fam fa m o us hist hi sto o rical ri cal stu st u dy o f  early modern Europe, The Perspective of the World  (1984), (1984), outline outliness the esse essenti ntial al role role of  cities cities and states states within capitalism’s capitalism’s long-run  long-run   histo  hi stori rical cal g eog r aph y. Br aud au d el’s el’ s w ork or k trace tr acess  the  th e epo ep o chal ch al shif sh iftt fr om the th e `cit `c ityy-cen centt red re d eco n S tadtw dtw irt scha sch a ft ) of Genoa omies’ omies’ ( Sta Genoa,, Venice Venice,, Ant Antwer wer p a nd Ams Am s t erda rdam t o t he Bri Bri t ish `territo `territorial rial economy’ (Territorialwirtschaft ), ), bas based upon upon an integ integra rate ted d nati nationa onall marke market  t  clus cluste tere red d arou around nd London London, during during the the 18th 18th century. Following the early modern period,  the  th e terr te rr i torial tor ial eco nom no m ies ie s of nati na tion on-st -state atess largel largely y subsumed ubsumed the geograp geographie hiess of citi cities es and urbanisation. As cities were subordinated  to the th e po liti li tical cal p ow er o f state st ates, s, they th ey w ere er e integrat integrated ed ever more tightly tightly into n ationall ationally y scaled caled regi regimes mes of accum accumula ulatio tion n (Arri (Arrig ghi, hi, 1994; Tilly, 1990). 1990). In the wake of the second second industri industrial al revolution of the late 19th century, century,  the  th e citi ci ties es of the th e old ol d er i ndu nd u stria st riali lise sed d w or ld became engines of Fordist mass production,  the  th e urba ur ban n infr in fr astru ast ructu ctu re of a g lob lo b al syste sy stem  m  compart compartment mental alis ised ed into distinc distinctt territo territoria riall states tates unde underr the the geop geopoli olitic tical al and and geoe geoeco co- nom  no m i c h egem eg emon on y of the th e U S ( Altv Al tvate ater, r, 1 9 92; 92 ; Scott Scott and Storpe Storper, 1992). 1992). Though transn transnaa tio n al i nter nt er-u -urb rban an l inkag in kag es were we re cruc cr ucial ial to North Atlantic Fordism, a relatively tight ®t  was was esta establ blis ished hed betwe between en urban urban dyna dynamism  mism  and nat nat i ona onal eco eco nomi nomicc grow growtth (Sa (Sa ss en, 1991). It is this this state tate-c -ceentri ntricc con on®g ®gura urati tio on of  world capitalism, premised upon a spatially isomorphic isomorphic relations relationship hip between between capital capital accumul cumulat atio ion, n, urba urbani nisa sati tion on and and state tate regu regu-lati lation on,, that that has has been been unrav unravel elli ling ng since ince the the global global economic economic cris crises of the early 1970s. 1970s.  Un der de r thes th esee cir cum cu m stan st ances ces,, as T aylo ay lorr (1 9 95) 95 ) argues, argues, the historic historically ally entrenched entrenched relation relation-ship of `mutuality’ between cities and terri tori  to rial al state st atess i s b ein g sign si gni® i®can can tly tl y ero er o ded, de d,

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

capital accumulation have been consolidating as Fordist-Keynesian national economies are superseded by a con®guration of the world economy dominated by the super-regional blocs of Europe, North America and East  Asia (Altvater and Mahnkopf, 1996). On  sub-national spatial scales, interspatial com peti tion has inten si®ed among urban regions struggling to attract both capital investment  and state subsidies (Leitner and Sheppard, 1998; KraÈtke, 1991; Mayer, 1992; Swyngedouw, 1989). Meanwhile, new worldwide urban hierarchies have also begun to crystallise, dominated by global cities such as New York, London and Tokyo, in which  the majo r head quarter fu nctions of transna tional cap ital have been increasingly cen  tralised (H itz et al. 1995; Knox and Taylor, 1995; Sassen, 1991). Finally, particularly since the 1980s, states throughout the world economy have been struggling to restructure  themselves at once to adjust to intensi®ed global economic interdependencies and to  promote capital investm ent and renewed accumulation within their territorial boundaries (Cerny, 1995; Hirsch, 1995; Jessop, 1993, 199 4; RoÈttger, 1997 ). Braudel’s studies of early modern Europe focus more directly on the historical transition from a city-centric to a state-centric con®guration of world capitalism than on the changing relations between cities and states as intertwined modes of socioeconomic, political and geographical organisation. However, the preceding considerations indicate  that contempo rary cities and states oper ate  not as mutually exclusi ve or competing geo graphical con®gurations for capitalist development, but rather as densely superimposed, interdependent forms of territorial organisat ion. Cities and states are being recon®gured, reterritorialised and re-scaled in  conjunction with the most recent round of  capitalist globalisation, but both remain essential forms of territorial organisation upon 

433

restructuring. To this end, the next section  examines more closely the role of cities and  ter ritorial states as geographical fr amewor ks within, upon and through which capitalist  development unfolds. 3. Cities and States as F orms of Territorial Organisation

 The starting-point for this analysis is the endemic p roblem of territorial organisation  under capitalism, as theorised by David Harvey (1982) and Henri Lefebvre (1978, 1991). As Harvey has argued at length, capital is inherently oriented towards the elimination  of spatial barriers to its circulation process,  the ªannihilation of space thro ugh timeº in  Marx’s (1973 [1857], p. 539) famous formulation in the Grundrisse. Harvey’s crucial insight is that this drive towards the continual  tem poral acceleration of cap ital circulation, or `time-space compression’, has been   pr emised upo n the pr oduction of space and spatial con®guration. It is only through the construction of relatively ®xed and immobile  transpo rt, commun ications and regu lator yinstitutional infrastructuresÐa `second  nature’ of socially produ ced con®gurations of territorial organisationÐthat this accelerated physical movement of commodities  thro ugh space can be ach iev ed. Therefore, as Harvey (1985, p. 145) notes, ªspatial organization is necessary to overcome spaceº. Harvey introduces the notion of the `spatial ®x’ to theorise these complex matrices of  socially produced spatial con®guration and  their cor responding tem poral dimension, embodied in the socially average turnover time of capital at a given historical conjuncture. A spatial ®x, Harvey (1982, p. 416) argues, is secured through the construction of immobile socio-territorial con®gurations within which expanded capital accumulation can be generated; it entails ªthe conversion of temporal into spatial restraints to accumulationº.

434

NEIL BRENNER

systems, energy supplies, communications  netw orks and other exter nalities that  underpin historically speci®c forms of production, exchange, distribution and consumption (Gottdiener, 1985; Harvey, 1982, 1989b; KraÈtke, 1995; Scott, 1988a; Storper  and Walker, 1989). The role of territorial states as forms of territorialisation for capital  has been analy sed less fr equently. How ever, as Lefebvre has argued at length in his ne Âtat  (1976±  glected four-volume work De l’E  78), states have likewise operated as crucial geographical infrastructures through which  the cir culation of cap ital has been continually  terr itorialised, deterr itorialised and reterr itorialised, above all since the second industrial revolution of the late 19th century. According to Lefebvre, the territorial ®xity of state institutions provides a stabilised geographical scaffolding for the circulation of labour pow er, commodities and capital on multiple scales. States achieve this provisional territorialisation of capital in various waysÐfor  example, through the regulation of money, legal codes, social welfare provisions and, most crucially, by producing large-scale spa tial con®gu rations that serv e as ter ritorial ly speci®c forces of production. As Lefebvre (1978, p. 298) notes, ªOnly the state can take on the task of managing space `on a grand scaleº’. Lefebvre’s (19 78, pp. 278±280, 307, 388) more general claim in his writings on  state theory is that territorial states play crucial roles in moulding the social relations of  capitalism into relatively stable geographical-organisational con®gurations associated with distinct historical patterns o f capital accumulation and urbanisation.1 Lefebvre’s work suggests that each urbanised spatial ®x for capital necessarily presupposes a broader  scalar ®x  (Smith, 1995) composed of distinctive forms of territorial organisationÐincluding urban-regional agglomerations, state institutions and the world myÐthat t tr

reterritorialised during the course of capitalist development (Brenner, 1998b). This conceptualisation of the scalar ®x also has substantial implications for the analysis of   the changing relat ions among citie s and states in contemporary capitalism. On the one hand, it can be argued that the contradic tory dy nam ic of de- and reterr ito rialisation is endemic to capitalism as an historicalgeographical system, and that it has under pinned each wave of crisis-induced restruc turing that has un fo lded since the ®rst  industrial revolution of the mid 19th century (Mandel, 1975; Soja, 1985). In each case, capital’s restlessly transformative dynamic renders its own historically speci®c geographical preconditions obsolete, inducing a wave of restructuring to reterritorialise and  thereby reactivate the circulation pro cess. On the other hand, this recurrent dynamic of  de- and reterritorialisation has been organised through a wide range of scalar con®gurations, each produced through the intermeshing of urban networks and state  ter ritorial structures that together con stitute a relatively ®xed geographical infrastructure for each historical round of capitalist expansion. Therefore, as capital is restructured during periods of sustained economic crisis,  the scale- con®gurations up on which it is grounded are likewise reorganised to create a  new geog raph ical scaffo lding for a new wave of capitalist growth.  Until the ear ly 1970s, these pr ocesses of  de- and reterritorialisation occurred primarily within the geographical scaffolding of state  ter ritoriality. Desp ite the explosive ten sions and con¯icts induced by both interstate and intercapitalist competition, the modern interstate system has provided capital with a rela tiv ely stab ilised ter ritorial fr amew ork for  economic growth and geographical expansion since the 17th century (Arrighi, 1994;  Taylor, 19 93 ). In this sense state ter rito rial

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

435

 nati onal scal e as a con tainer for bo th cap ital  this epochal transfo rmation ªfrom the pr oaccumulation and urbanisation was in- duction of things in space to the production   tensi®ed to such a deg ree that its historicity of spaceº during the late 19th century in  as a scale-level was frequently naturalised or  which `neo-capitalism’ and the `state mode misrecognised (Taylor, 1996). However, it  of production’ ( le mode de production eÂtawill be argued here that one of the most  tique) were ®rst consolidated on a world important geographical consequences of the scale. Lash and Urry (1987) have described  post-1 970s ro und of cap italist globalisation   this state-centric con®gu ration of wo rld capi has been to decentre the nation al scale of   talist development as `o rganised cap italism ’ accumulation, urbanisation and state regu- andÐalong with many other researchers lation in favour of new sub- and suprana- (see, for example, Arrighi, 1994; Lipietz,  tional ter ritorial con® gurations. 1987; Jessop, 1994; Scott and Storper, 1992)Ðinterpreted the global economic crises of the early 1970s at o nce as a medium  4. `Glocalisation’: The Denationalisation and a consequence of its unravelling. I view of Territoriality  the most recen t, po st-1970s ro und of world For pr esen t purposes, the term globalisation  scale capitalist restructuring as a second marefers to a double-edged, dialectical process  jor wave of cap itali st globalisati on thro ugh  throu gh wh ich: the movement of commodi- which global socioeconomic interdependen ties, capital, money, peo ple and info rmati on  cies are being simultaneously intensi®ed,  throu gh geograp hical space is con tinually ex- deepened and expanded in close conjunction   panded and accelerated; and, relativ ely ®xed with the production, recon®guration and and immobile spatial infrastructures are pro-  transfo rmati on of ter ritori al organisation at  duced, recon®gured and/or transformed to once on urban-regional, national and supraenable such expanded, accelerated move-  national spatial scales. Whereas the late ment. From this perspective, globalisation  19th century wave of capitalist globalisation  entails a dialectical interplay between the occurred largely within the framework of  endemic drive towards time±space com-  nationally or ganised state territorialities, the  pression under cap italism (the moment of   post-1 970s wave of globalisation has signideterritorialisation) and the continual pro- ®cantly decentred the role of the national duction and recon®guration of relatively scale as a self-enclosed container of socio®xed spatial con®gurationsÐfor example, economic relations while simultaneously  the ter ritori al infr astructures of urb an- intensifying the importance of both sub- and regional agglomerations and states (the mo- supranational forms of territorial organisment of  reterritorialisation) (Harvey, 1989a, ation. This ongoing re-scaling of territoriality 1996; Lefebvre, 1977, 1978, 1991). Thus can be viewed as the differentia speci®ca of  de®ned, globalisation does not occur merely  the cur re ntly unf olding recon®guration of   throu gh the geogra phical ext ension of cap i- world capitalism (Brenner, 1998c).  talism to encompass pro gr essiv ely larger   Thus conceived, the moment of ter rito rial zones of the globe, but emerges only when  isation remains as fundamental as ever to t he  the expansion and acceleration of cap ital ac-  pr oce ss of cap ital cir culation in the contemcumulation becomes intrinsically premised  porary era. How ever, the scales on which this upon the construction of large-scale terri-  ter ritorialisation pro cess occurs are no longer   torial infr astructures, a `second nature’ of  spatially co-extensive with the nationally orsocially produced spatial con®gurations such ised matric of stat territorialit that 

436

NEIL BRENNER

 torialisation, triggering what Jessop (1 99 8,  p. 90) has aptly termed a ªrelativisati on of  scaleº: [I]n contrast to the privileging of the na tional eco nomy and the nat ional state in   the peri od of Atlantic Fo rd ism, no spatial scale is currently privileged  The concep t of `gloca lisation’, introd uced by Swyngedouw (1997, 1992, p. 61) to indicate ªthe combined process of globalization and local-territorial recon®gurationº, likewise usefully highlights this ongoing, highly con¯ictual restructuring, interweaving and redifferentiation of spatial scales. The remainder of this paper concretises this conception of globalisation/reterritorialisation b y examining various ways in which cities and  terr itorial states are curr ently being re-scal ed in relation to capital’s increasingly `glocal’ geographies.

5. Re-scaling Cities

One way to interpret the proliferation of  research on world city formation since the  pub licati on of Fr iedm ann and Wolff’s (1982) classic paper is as a sustained effort to analyse the ways in which the recent consolida tion of a new inter national division of lab our   has been inter twined with a con comitant  reterritorialisation of urbanisation on differential spatial scales (Hitz et al., 1995; Knox and Taylor, 1995). Whereas some world cities researchers have conceived w orld cities as a distinctive class of cities at the apex of  world-scale central place hierarchies, I view  the analy tical fr amework of wo rld city theory more broadly, as a means of investigating  the ways in which the curr ent round of  capitalist globalisation has entailed a terri torial reorgani sation of the urbanisation   pro cess simultaneously on global, national and urban-regional ales (se als KraÈtke,

(Friedmann, 1986, p. 69), it is centrally focused on the problematic of geographical scale, its politico-economic organisation and its role in the articulation of socio-political con¯icts. Yet in practice this methodological challenge of analysing the changing historical linkages between differential spatial scales has not been systematically confronted. Much of world cities research has been composed of studies that focus largely upon a single scale, generally either the urban or the global. Whereas research on the socioeconomic geography of world cities has focused predominantly on the urban scale, studies of changing urban hierarchies have focused largely on the global scale. The scales of state territorial power have been   neglected alm ost ent irely by wo rld cities researchers (Brenner, 1998a) and efforts to in teg rate diff erential spatial scales within a single analytical framework are still rela tiv ely rare wi thin the paramete rs of wor ld city theory. Nevertheless I suggest that world city theory contains various methodological insights that may be readily deployed to this end. Perhaps more systematically than any other world cities researcher, Sassen (1991, 1993) has emphasised the inherent placedependency of the globalisation process. World cities are conceived as the territorially speci®c urban places within which various  pr oduction processes that are crucial to globalisation occur, above all those associated with the producer and ®nancial services industries upon which transnational capital is  heavily dependentÐfor example, banking, accounting, advertising, ®nancial and management consulting, business law, insurance and the like. From the point of view of the  pr esen t discussion, Sassen’s analy sis can  be viewed as an empirical application of  Harvey’s theorisation of capital’s spatio tem poral dy nam ics. The consolid ation of  global cities is understood as an historically

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

 trial organisation and the development of new informational technologies have signi®cantly enhanced capital’s ability to co-ordinate ¯ows of value on a world scale. On the other hand,  the strateg ies through which cap ital attem pts at once to command and annihilate space are  necessar ily dependent upon investm ent in  and control over the speci®c places within  which the territorialised technological, insti tutional and social infr astructu re of globalisa tion is secu red. These plac es, Sa ssen argu es, are the built environments, agglomeration  economies, technological-institutional infrastructures and local labour markets of global cities. The consolidation of a worldwide  hier archy of competing yet interd ependent  world cities since the 1980s can thus be viewed as the territorial embodiment of this latest round of space±time compression. A second, equally crucial, dimension of   this reter rit orialisation of the urbanisation   pro cess has been a major recom position of  urban form. Through their role in articulating local, regional, national and global economies, cities have today become massive,  polycentric ur ban regions that are better described in terms of Jean Gottmann’s (1961)  notion of megalo polis than thro ugh the len s of traditional Chicago School or central place models of concentric land-use patterns surrounding centralised metropolitan cores. The concept of the urban ®eld, already deployed by both Lefebvre (1995/1968) and Friedmann (1973; Friedmann and Miller, 1965)  three decades ago, was an ear ly attempt to grasp this emergent multi-centred, patchwork  patt ern of supr alocal ur banisation du ring the  period of high For dism. Sudjic (1 993) has more recently described the massive, sprawling mosaics of post-Fordist urbanisation as `100-mile cities’. Relatedly, Soja (1992) has coined the suggestive term `exopolis’ to cap ture the transform ed geom etr ical patterns of  urbanisation that have crystallised in the  techn les of uther Califo ia. Th

437

form appears to be occurring in city-regions as diverse as Los Angeles, Amsterdam/Randstad, Frankfurt/Rhein-Main, the ZuÈrich region, Tokyo/Yokohama/Nagoya and Hong Kong/Guandong, among many o thers. As the scale of the urbanisation process encom passes pro gressi vel y lar ger geog raphical are nas, urb an systems articulate new, increasingly polycentric geometries that blur  inherited models of urban centrality while simultaneously reconstituting the patterns of  core±periphery polarisation through which capital asserts its power over space, territory and place (Keil, 1994).  Thirdly, and most crucially here, the reterritorialisation of transnational capital within  major urban regions has been closely linked  to a broader re-scalin g of the urb anisat ion   pr oce ss on supraregional scales. Whereas the world urban hierarchy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries corresponded roughly to  the geop olitical hier archy of states, today the geoeconomic power of cities has been increasingly disarticulated from the territorial matrices of the interstate system (Scott, 1998; Taylor, 1995). It is today widely acknowledged that contemporary cities are embedded in transnational ¯ows of capital, commodities and labour-powerÐin Friedmann’s (1995, p. 25) phrase, a ªspace of  global accumulationºÐthat no state can fully control, and that capital valorisation within  global cities does not necessarily translate into national economic growth. Cities are  therefore no longer to be conceived as the sub-national components of self-enclosed, autocentric and nationally scaled regimes of  accumulation, but rather as `neo-Marshallian   nodes within global netw orks’ (Amin and  Thrift, 1992), as the `r egional motors of the global economy’ (Scott, 1996), and as ¯exibly specialised locational clusters within  a `global mosaic of regions’ (Storper and Scott, 1995). Under these circumstances, as

438

NEIL BRENNER

Duncan and Goodwin, 1988; Peck and Tick- Albrow, 1996; Appadurai 1996; Ohmae, ell, 1994, 1995; Smith, 1997). 1995; Ruggie, 1993; Strange, 1996), urban These considerations sugg est that contem - ists have frequently assumed that intensi®ed  por ary urb an regions must be con cei ved as economic globalisation is leading to an ero pre-em inently `g local’ spaces in wh ich mul- sion of state territoriality. According to this  tiple geographical scales intersect in poten- globalist position, capital’s purportedly  tially highly con¯ictual ways. Here the local greater geographical mobility and increasing is embedded within and superimposed upon  scales of operation weaken irreversibly the  the global, wh ile global processes sim ul- state’s ability to regulate economic activities  taneo usly appear to perm eat e all aspects of  within its boundaries. On the other hand,  the local (Amin and Thrift, 1994; Prigg e, among those authors who emphasise the con1995). As Veltz (1997, p. 84) has recently  tin ued importance of state institutions in the  noted: current con®guration of world capitalism  (see, for example, Hirst and Thompson,  The tim e is ov er when it was po ssible to 1995; Mann, 1997), territoriality is freshow, as Braudel did, an economic world quently understood as a relatively static and organized into clear-cut layers, where big unchanging geographical container that is not  urban centres linked, by themselves, adjacqualitatively modi®ed by the globalisation  ent `slow’ economies with the much more  pr oce ss. Fr om this point of view , the state is rapid rhythm of large-scale trade and said to react to intensi®ed global economic ®nance. Today, everything occurs as if  interdependence by constructing new forms  these superimposed lay ers were mixed and of national socioeconomic policy, but is not  interpenetrated in (almost) all places. itself transformed qualitatively through these Short- and long-range interdependencies  new global±national interactions. These can no longer be separated from one anstatist positions reify state territoriality into other. an unhistorical framework for socioeconomic  The boundary separating spatial scales is intervention that is not fundamentally trans thus beco ming so blurr ed that it may formed through its role in processes of global be increasingly appropriate to conceive capitalist restructuring. They th ereby pro duce  the scalar org anisat ion of contemporary a misleading sense of `business as usual’ in  capitalism as a continuum of glocalised inter-  the wor ld eco nomy in which nati onally actionÐas a ªhierarchical strati®ed morphol- scaled state institutions retain sovereign regogyº, in Lefebvre’s terminology (see, for  ulatory control over national economic sysexample, Lefebvre 1976, pp. 67±69)Ðin and  tem s.  throu gh wh ich cap ital’s latest rou nd of reterIn contrast to both of these positions, I ritorialisation is unfolding.  pr opose that the state’s ro le as a form of  (re)territorialisation for capital is analytically distinct from the structural signi®cance of the 6. Re-scaling States national  spatial scale in circumscribing capi This ongoing re- scaling of urbanisation has  tal ¯ows, eco nomic transactio ns, urban hierbeen analysed in detail in contemporary ur- archies and social relations. From this point  ban studies, but concomitant processes of  of view, the globalists are indeed correct to state re-scaling have received far less atten- emphasise the ongoing decentring of the na tion. In particular, much urb an research on   tio nal scale of political-econom ic regulation, globali atio ha be ba ed but they err in interpreting this development 

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

inextricably to nationally scaled state institu tions and po licies. In my view , both arguments fail to appreciate various ongoing  transforma tions of state terr itori al org anisation through which: qualitatively new insti tutions and regulatory fo rms are curr ently being produced on both sub- and suprana tional scal es; and, the ro le of the national scale as a level of governance is itself being radically rede®ned in response to the current  round of capitalist globalisation. This rescaling of state territorial organisation must  be viewed as a constitutive, enabling moment  of the globalisation process.  Tho ugh the highly cen tralised , bureau cra tised states of the For dist-Keynesian era con verged around the national scale as their   predominant or ganisational locus, since the world economic crises of the early 1970s the older industrial states of North America and western Europe have been restructured substantially to provide capital with ever more of its essential territorial preconditions and collective goods on both sub- and suprana tional spatial scales (Cern y, 1995). This ongoing re-scaling of territoriality is simultaneously transferring state power upwards to supranational agencies such as the European Union (EU) and devolving it  downwards towards the state’s regional and local levels, which are better positioned to  promote and regulate urban-regional restruc turing. As Jessop (1 994, p. 264) ar gues:

439

international bod ies with a widening range of powers; others are devolved to restruc tured local or regional lev els of gover nance in the national state; and yet others are being usurped by emerging horizontal  netw orks of powerÐloca l and regionalР which by-pass central states and connect  localities or regions in several nations.

 Thro ughout the EU and No rth Am erica, in   particular, this dynamic of state re-scaling  has emer ged as a major neo-liberal strategy of industrial restructuring and crisis management, aiming at once to enhance the adminis trati ve ef®cien cy of stat e institutions, to enable new forms of capital mobility on  supranational to promote the global competi tiv eness of major sub-national grow th poles and to enforce the de- and revalorisation of  capital within declining cities and regions. Much like the place-based infrastructures of global cities, these newly emergent, rescaled state institutions can be viewed as crucial forms of reterritorialisation for capi tal. As noted above, rather than abandon the concept of urbanisation in the face of emergent, polycentric forms of `global sprawl’ (Keil, 1994), world cities researchers have  pr oposed revised geometr ical models of urban growth, urban form and u rban hierarchy. A formally identical methodological strategy can be deployed to characterise the recon®gured spatial form of territorial states in   the curr ent era. If the spatial form of wor ld  The nation al stat e is now subject to vari- city-regions today increasingly approaches ous changes which result in its `hollowing  that of the `exopo lis’ analy sed by Soja out’. This involves two contradictory (1992), it can be argued analogously that the  trends, for, while the nati onal stat e still spatial form of territorial states in the age of  remains politically important and even re- global capitalism is being `glocalised’ (see  tains much of its national sovereignty [¼ ] also Swyngedouw, 1997). Like the exopolis, its capacities to project its power even   the urb an exp ression of post- Fordist fo rms of  within its national borders are decisively capitalist industrialisation, the `glocal state’ weakened ¼ by the shift towards interna- is a polymorphic geometrical con®guration   tionalized, ¯exible (b ut also regionalize d)  that is likewise bei ng turned sim ultane ously du ctio st [ ] This l of  inside-out and outside-inРi nside out  insofar 

440

NEIL BRENNER

regulation and restructuring of its internal  terr itorial spaces. This on go ing `g localisa tion’ of the state is rearticulating inherited  political geographies in wa ys that are sys tematically deprivil egi ng nati onally organised institutional arrangements and regulatory forms. Thus understood, state territoriality currently retains a critical role as a geographical precondition for contemporary forms of capital accumulation, but this role is  no longer prem ised up on an isom or ph ic ter ri torial corr esponden ce between state institu tions, urban systems and circ uits of cap ital accumulation centred around the national scale. 2 Cerny (1995, p. 618) has vividly referred  to this simultaneous fragmentation and redifferentiation of political space as a `whipsaw effect’ through which each level of the state attempts to react to a nearly overwhelming variety of sub- and supranational pressures, forces and constraints. In the present context, one particularly crucial geographical consequence of this `whipsaw effect’ has been the intensi®ed mobilisation of central, regional and local state institutions to promote indus trial restructuring on the sub-national  scales of major urban-regional agglomerations. On   the one hand , state re-scalin g can be view ed as a neoliberal strategy of `deregulation’ to dismantle the nationally con®gured redis tributiv e operations of the Fordist-Key nesian  order, frequently by undermining the socialwelfare functions of municipal institutions. On the other hand, just as crucially, state re-scaling has served as a strategy of `reregulation’ to construct new institutional capacities for promoting capital investment within  major urban growth poles, often through locally or regionally organised workfare polici es, n on -elected q uan gos and o ther   entrepreneurial initiatives such as public±private partnerships. Und er these circumstances,  the ro le of the local and regional levels of the stat is bei signi® ntly rede®ned. Con-

 towards maintaining and enhancing the loca tio nal advantag es of their delin eated terri torial jurisdictions (G ottdiener, 199 0; Mayer, 1994). Indeed, it is above all through their  key role in the mobilisation of urban space as a force of production that local and regional states, in particular, have acquired an increasing structural signi®cance within each  ter ritorial state’s administrativ e hierarchy. A major goal of these `glocally’ oriented state institutions is to enhance the locational advantages and productive capacities of their   ter ritorial jurisdictions as maxi mally competitive nodes in the world economy.  Throug hou t western Eur ope, this increasing internal fragmentation, redifferentiation  and polarisation of erstwhile national economic spaces has been further intensi®ed since the early 1980s through: the deployment of new forms of regional structural  policy oriented towards the `endogenous’ development o f m ajor urban regions (Albrechts and Swyngedouw, 1989; Heeg, 1996); and,  the constru ction of new fo rms and lev els of  state territorial organisation, n otably on urban-regional or metropolitan scales (Evans and Harding, 1997; LefeÁvre, 1998; Sharpe, 1993; Voelzkow, 1996). In major urban regions throughout the EU, regionally scaled regulatory institutions are being planned,  pr omoted and constr ucted as a mean s to secure place-speci®c locational advantages against. These new state spaces for the regulation of urban growth are being justi®ed not  as components of national socioeconomic  pr ogram mes or as fu nctional units with in   nationally hier archised administrative sys tem s, bu t rath er as place-speci®c institutional  pr erequisites for main taining the global structural competitiveness of a given urban  region. One major consequence of this emergent pattern of sub-national locational poli tics has been a massive inten si®cat ion of  uneven geographical development as isolated  tem ral `b sts’ of th ted b

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

alisation of the national economy and urban   hier archies is not und erm ining the stat e’s role as a form of territorialisation of capital, but `denationalising’ its scalar structure to  privilege supra- and sub-n ational lev els of  regulatory intervention and capital valorisa tion. The resu ltant `g localised’ regu latory institutions are reterritorialising state power  onto multiple spatial scales that do not converge with one another on the national scale or constitute an isomorphic, self-enclosed na tional total ity (Anderson, 1996; Cer ny , 1995). However, just as world city-regions remain  urban agglomerations, the post Fordist, post-K eynesian states that have been  consolidated throughout the older industrialised world since the early 1980s likewise remain  territorial  states in signi®cant ways. Insofar as the scales of state territorial organisation continue to circumscribe social, economic and political relations within delineated geographical boundaries, state institutions  have main tained their essentially territor ial character. The crucial point in the present  context is that state territoriality is today increasingly being con®gured in `glocalised’ rather than in nationalised scalar frameworks. As early as the mid 1970s, Henri Lefebvre  had begun to ou tline some of the bro ad con  tours of this newly em er gen t, re-scaled fo rm  of state territorial power in which ªthe economy and politics [are] fusedº (Lefebvre, 1977, 1986, p. 35), and its implications for   the state’s relation to its ter ritori al space . As Lefebvre notes in the concluding chapter of  T he P rodu ction o f Spa ce (1991/1974,  p. 378):

441

and through every agency of the economic realm.  This ten dency towards a fu sion of state insti tutions into the circuit of cap ital is crucially enabled through strategies of state re-scaling, which in turn translate into recon®gured forms of local±regional regulation that enable capital to extract and valorise the sur plus. The resultant, re-scaled con®gurations of state territorial power are tightly inter twined with cap ital on differential spati al scales, and therefore, increasingly sensitive  to the rh ythms and con tradictions of each circuit of capital (see also Poulantzas, 1978,  pp. 166±179 ). As the state comes to operate as an increasingly active moment in the mobilisation of each territory’s productive forces, its scalar organisation in turn assumes a central role in mediating and circumscribing capitalist growth.

7. New State Spaces: The Re-scaling of  Urban Governance in the EU 

 The implem entat ion of both urb an re-scaling and state re-scaling is a highly contested, con¯ictual process, mediated through a wide range of socio-political struggles for hegemonic control over social space that are in   turn articulated upon multi ple spatial scales. On the one hand, as argued above, urban  re-scaling and state re-scaling can be understood as two distinctive forms of reterritorialisation that have emerged in conjunction  with the most recent round of crisis-induced capitalist globalisation (as summarised in   Table 1). On the other hand, pr ocesses of  urban-regional restructuring and state terri That relationship [b etw een the state and  torial restructuring are clo sely intert wined space] [¼] is becoming tighter: the spatial insofar as each form of reterritorialisation  role of the state [¼] is more patent. Ad- continually in¯uences and transforms the ministrative and political state apparatuses conditions under which the other unfolds. are no longer content (if they ever were)  Fi rst, the pr ocesses of ur ban-regional restrucmerely to intervene in an abstract manner   turi ind ced by th lobal ic is

442

NEIL BRENNER

Table 1. Globalisation as reterritorialisation: re-scaling cities and states

Spatial scale of capital accumulation   Form of (r e)terr ito ria lisation Cities  Urban re-scaling World city formation

 States State territorial restructuring Emergence of neoliberal `glocal states’

Global

Nati onal

Urban-regional

Formation of a world urban  hierarchy. Intensi®ed interspatial c om petition am ong c ities th ro ugho ut  the wo rld economy

Rearticulation of national citysystem s into global and supraregional urban hi era rchie s. U nco upling o f world-city gr owth from national economic growth

Fo rm ation of  `exopolis’: recom position of  urban form : emergence of   p olyc entric u rb an   r eg io ns and new industr ial distr icts

Territorial states turned `outside-in’: re-scaled upwards  towards supra national lev els of regulation as institutions such as  the EU , the IM F and the World Bank restructure state space

`Denationalisation’ of the national scale. Central state tra nsf ers vario us tasks upwards towards supranatio nal agencies and devolves others downwards towards regional and local state institutions

Territorial states turned `inside-out’: re-scaled downwards towa rds sub-national levels. States promote investment by transna tional corporations within  major urban regions. Construction of `new state spaces’ to regulate `new industrial spaces’

 tion in a wide range of urb an-regional con  texts, fr om declining Fo rd ist manuf acturing regions to new industrial districts and global city-regions. State re-scaling can thus be viewed as a crucial accumulation strategy  that is curr ently being deployed by neoliberal  political regimes throughout Eur ope to restructure urban and regional spaces. Secondly, processes of state re-scaling have in turn signi®cantly recon®gured the relationship between capital, state institutions and  terr itorially cir cumscribed socio -p olitical forces within major European urban regions. Whereas capital constantly strives to enhance its spatial mobility by diminishing its placedependency, contemporary `glocal’ states are attempting ever more directly to ®x capital

manner, through processes of state rescaling, the scales of state territorial organisation have become central mediators of  capitalist industrial restructuring. It can be argued, therefore, that the governance of  contemporary urbanisation patterns entails  not only the constru ction of `new industrial spaces’ for post-Fordist forms of indus trial isation (S cott, 1988b) but, just as crucially, the consolidation o f w hat m ight be  ter med new state spaces to enhance each state’s capacity to mobilise urban and regional space as a productive force. Insofar as today neither urbanisation, accumulation nor state regulation privilege a single, self-enclosed and circumscribed spatial scale, the geographical boundaries of 

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

 political stru ggle. How ever, many contem  por ary discussions of urb an governance have  presupposed a relatively ®xed urban or regional jurisdictional framework within which  the regulatory preconditions for cap italist urbanisation are secured (for a recent overview, see Hall and Hubbard, 1996). In this sense,  the scales of ur ban go vernance have been  viewed as the preconstituted platforms for  urban politics rather than as one of their  active, socially produced moments, dimensions or objects. By contrast, the preceding analysis indicates that new geographies of  urban governance are currently crystallising at the multi-scalar interface between processes of urban restructuring and state terri torial restructuring. The contemporary dilemmas and contradictions of urban gover nance must thus be analy sed on each of the spatial scales on which these intertwined processes of reterritorialisation intersect, from   the urban- regional to the nati onal and European scales. Though it is not possible in the  present context to elabor ate a detailed analy sis of each of these scales and their complex interconnections, some of the major socio-institutional mechanisms linking processes of  urban-regional restructuring and processes of  state re-scaling in the contemporary EU can  be brie¯y identi®ed.

443

 pull Europ e’s loca tional cen tre of gravity  towards their respect ive terr itories (Lo ndon  received only a meagre consolation prize, the European Patent Of®ce). The process of European monetary integration also has poten tially major im plications for patterns of  interspatial competition among European  ®nancial centres. London currently remains  the most important cen tre of ®nancial ser vices within the EU. However, the introduc tio n of the euro may pro vide new opportunities to Frankfurt and Paris, which are currently developing new regulatory and  techno logical infr astructures for global ®nancial markets, and whose host states are immediately p articipating in the single currency (see The Economist , 9 May 1998, Fi nancial Centres Su rv ey, p. 17). For this reason, the re-scaling of European territorial states upwards towards the EU may favour   the eventual form atio n of an integr ated  Fr ankfurt±P aris±L ondon axis articu lating the European super-region with the world economy (Taylor, 1997). World Cities and Intergovernmental Relations

Since the early 1980s, central±local relations  have been radically tr ansformed throu ghout  western Europe. Insofar as states conceive  their ter ri tor ial sub- un its as fun ctionally World Cities and the Geopolitics of Euequivalent administrative tiers rather than as ropean Integration geographically distinctive nodes of urbanisa The locations of wo rld cit ies have play ed a  tio n, pro cesses of wo rld city formation are major role in the competition among Eu- rarely discussed in central state policy deropean states to acquire EU government  bates on intergovernmental relations (the deof®ces within their territories. This form of  bate on `city provinces’ in the Netherlands interspatial competition is mediated directly since the early 1990s is a signi®cant recent   throu gh world cities’ host states as they exception). Nevertheless, recon®gurations of   negotiate the term s and pace of Euro pean  in ter gov er nm en tal r elati ons ca n h av e integration. Such locational decisions have signi®cant rami®cations for the governance resulted in part from strategic compromises of major urban regions to the extent that they among Europe’s hegemonic powers, as i llus- rearrange the local state’s administrative, or trated in th choi f Br sel th EU’s ganisational and ®nancial links to the central

444

NEIL BRENNER

of centrally imposed governance in the Lon- mid 1970s, the dynamism of England’s don region (Duncan and Goodwin, 1988). At  South East as a global city-region has been   the other extreme, state re structuring in the based predominantly on an offshore econ FRG since the ear ly 198 0s has entailed an  omy, derived from the City’s role as a global increasingly decentralised role for both the ®nancial centre, largely delinked from the LaÈnder and the municipalities in the formu- declining cities and regions located elselation and implementation of industrial pol- where within the UK. The rise of Thatchicy (Herrigel, 1996). Between these poles, in  erism in the 1980s can be interpreted as a  the Netherlan ds debates on central±local re- ªdeclaration of independence by the south of  structuring have proliferated on all levels of  England, the community dependent on Lon the Dutch state since the mid 1980s, leading don as a world cityº (Taylor, 1995, p. 59).  the central state, the provinces and the mu- However, even in the N etherlands, where the  nici palities to converge upo n the goal of  Amsterdam/Randstad region is widely world city formation in the western Randstad viewed as the urban engine of the national megalopolis as a shared priority for national economy, the mobilisation of central and losoci oe con om ic p oli cy ( Dielem an an d cal policies around the goal of world city Musterd, 1992). The nature of urban gover- formation during the late 1980s entailed the  nance within world city-r egions is therefore construction of a `national urban growth coconditioned strongly by patterns of intergov- alit io n’ to co nve rt cen tr al citi es f rom   ernmental relations within their host states.  pr oviders of welfare state services into the As the local state’s linkages to the regional  new `spear heads’ of eco nom ic grow th (T eran d central lev els of t he state are re-  horst and van de Ven, 1995). Thr ou gho ut the con®gured, so too are its institutional and EU, the political-economic geography of  ®nancial capacities to regulate the urban con- world cities extends beyond the jurisdictional  tradictio ns of globalisation. reach of the local state to recon®gure political-territorial alliances on multiple scalelevels of their host states. Therefore, just as World Cities and Territorial Politics  the ter ritorial structu re of the state conditions  The dynamics of local gro wth coalitions  the politics of scale within wor ld cities, so  have been analy sed in detail by urban regime  too is the re-scalin g of urbanisation processes  theorists (L ogan and Mo lotch, 198 7). How - intertwined with a re-scaling of politics and ever, the articulation of municipal political  political contestation within the ter ri torial dynamics within world cities with broader  state. regional and national political constellations  has not bee n extensi vely investi gated (b ut  Urban R egions and Sp atial Planning Systems see Logan and Swanstrom, 1990). However, as Friedmann and Wolff (1982, p. 312) point  As noted earlier, new geographies of state out, spatial policy are emerging throughout the EU that are oriented towards the `endogeBeing essential to both transnational capi nous’ poten tials of delineated sub- national  tal and nat ional political inter ests, world  ter ritories such as urb an regions, which are cities may become bargaining counters in   now increasin gly view ed as the geo gr aphical  the ensuing str uggles foundations of national industrial perfor The crucial qu estion, from this persp ective, m an ce. F or in st anc e, in con tem po rary is how the economic disjuncture between the G th S ti l Pl i La

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

essential `level of policy implementation’ (Brenner, 1997b). Likewise, in the Netherlands, the post-war project of `deconcentra tion’, wh ich attempted to spread urbanisation  beyond the western agglomeration of the  Randstad , has been radically reversed since  the lat e 1980s un der a new `com pac t cities’  policy. The revised nation al fr amew orks for  Dutch spatial planning introduced in the 1990s have likewise actively promoted the recentralisation of industrial growth within   the western ur ban cores (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht and the Hague) and unambiguously speci®ed the Randstad megalopolis as  the urban-regional engine of national eco nomic growth (Faludi and van der Valk, 1994). Closely analogous reorientations of   nati onally organised spatial planning system s are occurring throughout the EU (Albrechts and Swyngedouw, 1989). Meanwhile, on the EU level itself, the classical goal of mediating core±periphery po larisation through regional structural policies is likewise being rede®ned to promote `endogenous’ potentials for regional economic development throughout European territorial space (ToÈmmel, 1996). This trend is likely to intensify as the structural funds programme is rede®ned in  conjunction with EU enlargement. As these examples make clear, nationally organised state spaces throughout the EU are currently being rehierarchised and redifferentiated into a highly uneven mosaic of relatively distinc tive ur ban- regional eco nomic spaces, each de®ned according to its speci®c position  within supranational divisions of labour.

445

regional scales that generally supersede the reach of each of these administrative levels. Problems of metropo-litan governance are  therefore return ing to the fo refro nt of political discussion and debate in many European  cities. Whereas debates on metropolitan insti tu tio ns d ur ing th e 1 960s an d 19 70s focused predominantly on the issues of  administrative ef®ciency and local service  pr ovision, contempo rary discussions of  regional governance increasingly emphasise  the need for adm inistrative ¯exibility, regionally co-ordinated economic development  strategies and the problem of intensi®ed global interspatial competition. In this con tex t, regional form s of regulation are being  justi®ed as crucial prer equisites for main taining a city’s locational advantages in the world economy. Throughout Europe, from  London, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, Lyon and Paris to the Ruhr agglomeration, Hannover, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich, ZuÈrich, Bolog na and Milan, urban economic  policy is bei ng linked ever more direct ly to diverse forms of spatial planning, investment  and regulation on regional scales (see LefeÁvre 1998; Wentz, 1994).3  These newly emergent forms of regional cooperation within major urban regions are grounded upon a distinctively post-Fordist  variant of `solidarity’ that entails an economic logic of maximising the competitive ness of a territorially deli mited space of  capitalist production rather than a social logic of redistributing its economic surplus across the social space of a single coherent  `society’ (Ronneberger, 1997). On the other   hand, this globally induced con cern to estabUrban Regions and Metropolitan Goverlish regional forms of regulation is frequently nance challenged through pressures from below in  In the midst of these supra-urban re-scalings, defence of local autonomy, place- and scale the pro blem of constructing relatively ®xed speci®c vested interests and the continued con®gurations of territorial org anisation on   jurisdictio nal fr agmentation of the loca l stat e urban-regional scales has remained as urgent  (Ronneberger and Schmid, 1995). Under  The politi l-regulator institutions  th nd itio stat te itorial isat io

446

NEIL BRENNER

struggle for regulatory control over the valorised at globally competitive turnover  urbanisation process mediated through socio-  tim es. Thro ughout Euro pe, this lin k between   political contestation ov er the scal e(s) of   pr oce sses of ur ban re-scalin g and state regovernance. As urban regions throughout  scaling is embodied institutionally in the key Europe compete with one another for loca- role of various newly created para-state  tional advantag es in the global and Euro pean  agencies in planning and co-ordinating inurban hierarchies, the scales of urban and vestment within these local mega-projects regional territorial organisation are becoming (for example, the London Docklands Develever more crucial at once as regulatory opment Corporation, Frankfurt’s Rhein-Main  instruments of the state and as sites of socio- Economic Development Corporation, the  political con¯ict. Schiphol Airport Development Corporation; and many others).  This br oad ov erview has only begun to The Territorial O rganisation of World Cities examine the intricacies of the various geoIt is ultimately on the urban scale, however, graphical scales on which these struggles  that the pro ductive cap acities of territor ial over the territorial organisation of urban govorganisation are mobilised. Today, municipal ernance are occurring in contemporary Eugovernments throughout Europe are directly rope and their complex, rapidly changing embracing this goal through a wide range of  interconnections. The scales of state terrisupply-side strategies that entail the demar-  torial power are both the medium and the cation, construction and promotion of stra- outcome of this dizzying, multi-scalar dialec tegic urb an places for industrial  tic of `g local’ transformati on that is today far  developmentÐfor example, of®ce centres, from over. Con¯icts that erupt over the terriindustrial parks, telematics networks, trans-  torial organisation of the state on each of   port and shipping terminals and various types  these scales ar e, of cour se, also conditioned of retail, entertainment and cultural facilities. by the territorial-organisational con®guration   These em ergent fo rms of `u rb an entrepren eu- of the other scales upon which they are surialism’ have been analysed extensively with  perimposed. At the same tim e, these cir cumreference to the crucial role of public±private scribed socio-political con¯icts can become  partnerships in facil itating cap ital investm ent   highly volati le, `jum ping scales’ (S mith , in mega-projects situated in strategically des- 1993) to in¯uence, restructure or even transignated locations of the city (Gottdiener, form the organisational structure of the 1990; Harvey, 1989c; Mayer, 1994). The broader scale-con®gurations in which they Docklands in London is perhaps the most  are enmeshed. spectacular European instance of this type of  It is in this sense that the currently unfo ldmassive state investment in the urban infra- ing denationalisation of urbanisation, accustructure of global capital, but it exempli®es mulation and state territorial power has a broader strategic shift in urban policy that  opened up a space for scales themselves to can be observed in cities throughout the become direct objects of socio-political world. As Harvey (1989c, pp. 7±8) indicates, struggle. U nder these circumstances, scales such state-®nanced mega-projects are de- do not merely circumscribe social relations signed primarily to enhance the productive within determinate geographical boundaries, capacity of urban places within global ¯ows but constitute an active, socially produced of value, rather than to reorganise living and and politically contested moment of those working conditions more broadly within cit- relations. As densely organised force®elds in 

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

447

 political and geoe con om ic terms. The central  tin ual construction, deconst ruction and analytical and political conclusion that  reconstruction of relatively stabilised emerges from this analysis is that problems con®gurations of territorial organisation. The of urban governance can no longer be con- re-scaling of urbanisation leads to a confronted merely on an urban scale, as dilem- comitant re-scaling of the state through mas of municipal or even regional regulation, which, simultaneously, territorial organisbut must be analysed as well on the national, ation is mobilised as a productive force and supranational and global scales of state terri- social relations are circumscribed within de torial po werÐ for it is ultim ately on these  terminate geo graphical boundaries. These resupra-urban scales that the intensely contra- scaled con®gurations of state territorial dictory political geography of neoliberalism  organisation in turn transform the conditions is con®gured. under which the urbanisation process unfolds. However, whether these disjointed strategies of reterritorialisation within Eu8. Conclusion: Scaling P olitics, P oliticising ropean cities might establish new spatial Scales ®xes for sustained capital accumulation in  Currently unfolding re-scalings of urbanisa-  the global±local disorder of the late 20th  tion and state ter ri tor ial power have entailed century is a matter that can only be resolved a major transformation in the geographical  thro ugh the po litics of scale itself, thro ugh organisation of world capitalism. The spatial  the on going strugg le for hegemonic control scales of capitalist production, urbanisation  over place, territory and space. and state regulation are today being radically Henri Lefebvre (1995/1968, 1991/1974, reorganised, so dramatically that inherited 1978) has argued at length that struggles over  geographical vocabularies for describing the  the terr itori al org anisation of the urb anisat ion   nested hierarchy of scales that interl ace  pr oce ss express the dual character of spati al world capitalism no longer provide adequate scales under capitalismÐi.e. their role at  analytical tools for conceptualising the multi- once as framings for everyday social relalayered, densely interwoven and highly con-  tio ns and as pro du ctive for ces for successive  tradictory chara cter of contempor ary spatial rounds of world-scale capital accumulation.  practi ces. Faced with cap ital’s increasingly  Therefore, each scale on which the urb anisa`glocal’ spatio-temporal dynamics, the terri-  tio n pro cess unf olds simultaneously bounds  torial infr astructures of urb anisation and state social relations within determinate geographregulation no longer coalesce around the na- ical arenas, hierarchises places and territo tional scal e-lev el. Wh ereas cities today oper- ries within broader con®gurations of uneven  ate increasingly as urban nodes within a geographical development and mediates world urban hierarchy, states are rapidly re- capital’s incessant struggle to expand its structuring themselves to enhance the global command and control over the abstract space competitiveness of their major cities and re- of the world economy. The emergent politics gions. of scale regarding urban governance within  Because urban regions occupy the highly contemporary urban regions presents yet ancontradictory interface between the world other dimension of territorial organisation  economy and the territorial state, they are under capitalism to which Lefebvre also deembedded within a multiplicity of social, voted considerable attentionÐits role as a economic and political processes organised realm of potentially transformative political upon superimposed spatial scales. The resultaxi in hich `c ter lan s’, `c t

448

NEIL BRENNER

on which each of these intertwined dimensions of spatial practices is superimposed.  Today, there is an urg ent need for new con ceptualisations of scale to obtain an analyticalÐand politicalЮx on current processes of reterritorialisation and their implications for the geographical organisation of social relations in an era of neoliberal globalisation. Notes 1.

2.

3.

Although much of Lefebvre’s state theory focuses upon the state’s role as a form of   ter ritorialisa tion fo r cap ital, he also devotes extensive attention to ways in which the state operates as the m ost crucial institutional me diator of capital’s uneven geographical development. The state’s mediation of uneven  geographical development always occurs  through historically speci® c regulatory strategies and institutional forms that often  stand in sharp tension with those oriented  towards the ter ritorialisation of cap ita l. On  Lefebvre’s state theory, see Brenner, 1997a, 1998b. With Mann (1988, 1993), I view the essential attribute of the modern territorial state as its  ter ritorially cen tralised form , in contradis tin ction to all oth er power actors in the capi talist wor ld system (capita list ®r ms, civic associations, NGOs, etc.). This de®nition  leads to an analysis of contemporary processes of globalisation as being superim posed and overlaid upon the glob al grid of  state territorialities rather than signalling a unilinear erosion of territoriality as such. By contrast, many authors who de®ne the state in terms of the isomorphic link between terri tory and sovereignty; as a self-enclosed con tainer of econom ic, polit ical and/or cultural  processes; or as a locus of community and collective identity interpret contemporary  transfo rmati ons as a pr ocess of state decli ne (see, for example, Appadurai, 1996; Cerny, 1995; Ruggie, 1993). After over a decade of central state control over London, the Confederation of British Industry has advocated the construction of a London Development Agency responsible for planning urban growth throughout the South East; meanwhile, a London municipal council has recently been approved by local

 tra tive organisatio n and prod uctive capacities within a single regulatory armature of the state. Even in the Randstad region of the Netherlands, where central state proposals to construct new, regionally organised `city provinces’ were ov erw helm ing ly rejected in  local referenda held in 1995 in Amsterdam  and Rotterdam, new forms of informal insti tut ion al co-ordination are neverth eless currently being developed throughout the  Randstad to regulate and pr omote urban  growth on regional scales.

References A LBRECHTS , L. and S WYNGEDOUW , E. (1989) The challenges for regional policy under a ¯exible regime of accumulation, in: L. A LBRECHTS (Ed.) Regional P olicy at the Crossroads: European Perspectives, pp. 67±89. London: Jessica Kingsley. A LBROW , M. (1996) The Global Age: State and   Society Be yo nd Mod ern ity. Oxford: Polity. A LTVATER, E. (1992) Fordist and post-Fordist in ternational division of lab or and mo netary regimes, in: M. S TO RP ER and A. J. S COTT (Eds) Pa thways to Industrialization and Regional D evelopment , pp. 21±45. New York: Routledge. A LTVATER, E. and M AHNKOPF, B. (1996) Grenzen der Globaliseriung . MuÈnster: WestfaÈlisches Dampfboot. A MI N , A. and T HRIFT, N. (1992) Neo-Marshallian   no des in glob al networ ks, International Journal  of Urban and Regional Research, 16, pp. 571±  587. A MI N , A . a n d T HRIFT, N. (1994) Living in the g lo ba l, in: A . A MI N  and N. T HRIFT (Eds) Globalization, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe, pp. 1±22. New York: Oxford University Press. A NDERSON , J. (1996) The shifting stage of poli tic s: new mediev al and po stm odern ter ritoriali tie s?, E n viro nm en t a nd P la nn ing D,  14,  pp . 13 3±1 53. A PPADURAI, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Min neapolis: Univ ersity of Minn esota Press. A RR IG HI , G. (1994) The Long Twentieth Century. New York: Verso. B RA UD EL , F. (1984) The Perspective of the World ,  trans. SiaÃn Reyn olds. Berk eley and Los An geles: University of California Press. B RE NN ER , N. (1997a) Global, fragmented, hierchical Hen i Lefeb e’ phie of 

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

structuring in contemporary Europe, Review of    International Political Economy, 5, pp. 1±37. B RE NNE R , N. (1998b) Between ®xity and m otion: accumulation, territorial organization and the  historical geog raphy of spatial scales, Environment and Planning D , 16, pp. 459±481. B RE NNE R , N. (1998c) Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality and geographical scale in  globalization studies, Theory and Society. C ASTELLS , M . (1 98 9) The Informational City. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. C ASTELLS , M. (1996) The Rise of the Network   So cie ty. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. C ERNY , P. (1995) Globalization and the changing logic of collective action, International Organi zatio n, 49, pp. 595±625. C OX , K. (1990) Territorial structures of the state: some conceptual issues, Tijdschrift voor E con omisch e en S ocia le G eog ra® e, 81,  pp. 251±266. C OX , R. (1987) Production, Power and World  Order. New York: Columbia University Press. D IELEMAN , F. and M UST ER D, S. (Eds) (1992) Th e Randstad: A Research and Policy Laboratory. Dordrecht: Kluwer. D UNC AN , S. and G OODWIN , M. (1988) The Local   State and Uneven Development . London: Polity Press. Economist, The (1998) Capitals of capital: a survey of ®nancial centres. 9 May, pp. 1±46. E VANS, R. and H ARDING, A. (1997) Regionalisa tion, regional institutions and econom ic development, Policy and Politics, 25, pp. 19±30.  F ALUDI, A. and VAN DER V AL K , A. (1994) Rule and  Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  F RI ED MA NN , J. (1973) The future of human habi tat, in: D. M ACA LLISTER (Ed.) A New Focus for Land Use Planning , pp. 96±134. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation Press.  F RI ED MA NN , J. (1986) The world city hypothesis, Development and Change, 17, pp. 69±83.  F RI ED MA NN , J. (1995) Where we stand: a decade of world city research, in: P. K NOX  and P.  T AYLOR (Eds) World Cities in a World-System ,  pp. 21±4 7. New York: Cam bridge University Press.  F RI ED MA NN , J. and M ILLER , J. (1965) The urban  ®eld, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, pp. 312±320.  F RI ED MA NN , J. and W O LFF, G. (1982) World city formation: an agenda for research and action, Int national Journal of Urba and Regi l 

449

 USA , International Journal of Urban and Re gional Research, 14, pp. 383±403. G OTTMANN , J. (1961) Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United   States. New York: The Twentieth Century  Fu nd . H ALL , T. and H UBBA RD , P. (1 99 6) T he e n trepreneurial city: new politics, new urban geographies, Progress in Human Geography, 20,  pp . 15 3±1 74. H ARVEY, D. (1982) The Limits to Capital . New York: Oxford University Press. H ARVEY, D. (1985) The geopolitics of capitalism, in: D. G RE GO RY and J. U  RRY (Eds) Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp. 128±163. London: Macmillan. H ARVEY, D . ( 198 9a) The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. H ARVEY, D. (1989b) The Urban Experience. Bal tim ore: Joh ns Hop kins Univ ersity Press. H ARVEY, D. (1989c) From managerialism to en trepreneurialism: the transfo rmation in urban  governance in late capitalism, Geogra®ska Annaler, B , 71, pp. 3±18. H ARVEY, D. (1996) Globalization in question, Rethinking Marxism , 8(4), 1±17. H EEG , S. (1996): Endogene Potentiale oder footloose capitalism? Einige Anmerkungen zur  sozialen Regulation des Raums, in: M. B  RU CH and H.-P. K RE BS (Eds) Unternehmen Globus: F a cette n n ach fo rd istisch er R egu la tio n,  pp . 19 9±2 23. MuÈn ster: WestfaÈlisches Da mp fboot. H ERRIGEL , G . ( 199 6) Industrial Constructions: The Sources of German Industrial Pow er. New York: Cambridge University Press. H IRSCH, J. (1995) Der nationale Wettbewerbssta at: S ta at, D em okra tie u nd P olitik in  globa len Kap ita lism us. Berlin/Amsterdam: Edition ID-Archiv. H IRST , P. and T HOMPSON , G. (1995) Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity. H IT Z , H., K EI L , R., L EHRER , U. ET AL . (Eds) (1995) Capitales Fatales: Urbanisierung und Politik  in de n F inanzm etropolen F rankfurt u nd Z uÈrich. ZuÈrich: Rotpu nktverlag.  JESSOP, B (1993) Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on post-Fordist   po litical econom y, Studies in Political Economy, 40, pp. 7±40.  JESSOP, B (1994) Post-Fordism and the state, in: A. A MI N  (Ed.) Post-Fordism: A Reader,  pp 25 1±2 79. Cambridge, MA: Bla ckwell.

450

NEIL BRENNER

K EI L , R. (1994) Global sprawl: urban form after   Ford ism, Environment and Planning D , 12 ,  pp. 162±166. K NOX , P. and T AYLOR, P. J. (Eds) (1995) World  Cities in a World-system . N ew Y or k: C ambridge University Press. K RA È TK E, S . ( 199 1) Strukturwan del der StaÈdte.  Frankf urt: Campus.  È konomie. Ba sel: K RA È TK E, S. (1995) Stadt, Raum, O BirkhaÈuser Verlag. L ASH , S . a nd U RR   Y J. (1987) The End of Organized Capitalism . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.  Âtat: d e H egel aÁ M arx  L EFEBVRE , H. (1976) De l’E   pa r Staline, V ol. 2. Paris: Union GeÂneÂrale d’E Âditions.  Âtat: le mode de proL EFEBVRE , H. (1977) De l’E  duction eÂtatiq ue, Vol. 3. Par is: Union GeÂneÂrale d’E Âditions.  Âtat: les contradictions L EFEBVRE , H. (1978) De l’E   Âtat modern, Vol. 4. Par is: Union GeÂneÂrale de l’E  d’E Âditions. L EFEBVRE , H. (1986) Le retour de la dialectique: 12 mots clefs pour le monde moderne. Paris: Messidor/E Âditions sociales. L EFEBVRE , H. (1991[1974]) The Production of     Sp ace, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. L EFEBVRE , H. (1995[1968]) The right to the city, in: Writings on Cities, pp. 63±184. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. L EFE Á VRE , C. (1998) Metropolitan government and governance in western countries: a critical review, International Journal of Urban and Re gion al Research, 22, pp. 9±26. L EITNER , H . a n d S HEPPARD, E. (1998) Economic uncertainty, inter-urban competition and the ef®cacy of entrepreneurialism, in: T. H ALL and P. H UB BA RD (Eds) The Entrepreneurial City,  pp. 285±308. Ch ich ester: Wiley. L IPIETZ , A. (1987) Mirages and Miracles. London: Verso. L OGAN , J. and M OLOTCH , H. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. L OGAN , J. and S WANSTROM , T. (Eds) (1990) Be yo nd the City Limits: Urban Policy and Ec onom ic R estructuring in Comparative Perspective. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. M ANDEL , E. (1975) Late Capitalism . New York: Verso. M , M. (1988) The autonomous power of the

M ANN , M. (1997) Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the nation-state?, Review o f I nte rn atio na l P o litica l E co nom y, 4,  pp . 47 2±4 96. M ARX , K. (1973[1857]) Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, trans. Martin Nicolaus. New York: Penguin. M ASSEY, D . (19 93) P ow er- geo me try and a  pr ogressive sense of place, in: J. B IR D E T A L .  (Eds) Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, G lob al Ch an ge, pp. 59±70. London:  Ro utledge. M AYER, M. (1992) The shifting local political system in European cities, in: M. D  UN FO RD and G. K AFKALAS (Eds) Cities and Regions in the New Europe: The Global±Local Interplay and   Spati al Development Strategies, pp. 255±276. London: Belhaven Press. M AYER, M. (1994) Post-Fordist city politics, in: A. A MI N  (Ed.) Post-Fordism: A Reader,  pp . 31 6±3 37. Cambridge, MA: Bla ckwell. O’ B RIE N , R. (1992) Global Financial Integration: The End of Geography. London: Pinter. O HMAE, K. (1995) The End of the Nation State. New York: The Free Press. P EC K, J. and T ICKELL, A. (1994) Searching for a  new institution al ®x : the aft er- Fordist crisis and  the global±local disorder, in: A. A MI N  (Ed.) Post-Fordism: A Reader, pp. 280±315. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. P EC K, J. and T ICKELL, A. (1995) The social regulation of uneven development: `regulatory de®cit’, England’s South East, and the collapse of Thatcherism, Environment and Planning A , 27, pp. 15±40. P OULANTZAS , N. (1978) State, Power, Socialism ,  trans. Pa trick Ca miller. Lo nd on: New Left  Books. P RI GGE , W. (1995) Urbi et orbiÐZur Epistemologie des StaÈdtischen, in: H. Hitz E T A L .  (Eds) Capitales Fatales: Urbanisierung und Politik  in de n F inanzm etropolen F rankfurt u nd Z uÈrich,  pp . 17 6±1 87. ZuÈric h: Ro tpunk tverlag.  R ONNEBERGER, K . (1 997) K on tr oll iert e A u tonomie und rig ide No rm: Zur neoli beralen   Restr uktur ierung des So zia len, W ide rspruÈche.  R ONNEBERGER, K. and S CHMID, C. (1995)  È berGlobalisierung und Metropolenpolitik: U  legungen zum Urbanisierungsprozess der   neun ziger Jahre, in: H. Hitz ET AL .  ( Ed s) C ap itale s F ata les: U rb anisie ru ng u nd   Politik in den Finanzmetropolen Frankfurt  un d ZuÈrich pp. 354±378. ZuÈrich: Rotpunkt-

GLOBALISATION AS RETERRITORIALISATION 

 tions, International Organization, 47, pp. 139±  174. S ASSEN , S. (1991) The Global City. Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press. S ASSEN , S. (1993) Cities in the World Economy. London: Sage. S CHOLTE , J. A. (1996) The geography of collec tive identities in a globalizing world, Review of   International Political Economy, 3, pp. 565±  608. S COTT, A. J. (1988a) Metropolis: From the Division of Labor to Urban Form . Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. S COTT, A. J. (1988b) New Industrial Spaces. London: Pion. S COTT, A. J. (1996) Regional motors of the global economy, Futures, 28, pp. 391±411. S COTT, A. J. (1998) Regions and the World Econom y. London: Oxford University Press. S COTT, A . J. an d S TO RP ER , M. (1992) Industrialization and regional development, in: M. S  TOR PE R and A. J. S COTT (Eds) Pathways to Industrialization and Regional Development ,  pp. 3±20 . Ne w Yo rk: Routled ge. S HARPE, L. J. (1993) The European meso: an  appraisal, in: L. J. Sharpe (Ed.) The Rise of    Meso-government in Europe, pp. 1±39. London: Sage. S MITH , N. (1993) Homeless/global: scaling places, in: J. B IR D E T A L .  (Eds) Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, pp. 87±119. New York: Routledge. S MITH , N. (1995) Remaking scale: competition  and cooperation in prenational and postnational E ur op e, in: H . E SKELINEN  and F . S NICKARS (Eds) Competitive European Peripheries,  pp. 59±7 4. Berlin: Sp rin ger Verl ag. S MITH , N. (1997) The satanic geographies of  globalization: uneven development in the 1990s, Public Culture, 10, pp. 169±192. S OJA , E. (1985) Regions in context: spatiality,  perio dicity, and the historical geography of the regional question, Environment a nd Planning  D , 3, pp. 175±190. S OJA , E. (1992) Inside exopolis: scenes from  Orange County, in: M. S ORKIN  (Ed.) Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and  the End of Public Space, pp. 94±122. New York: The Noonday Press. S TOR PER , M. and S COTT, A. (1995) The wealth of  regions: market forces and policy im peratives in local and global context, Futures, 27,  pp. 505±526.

451

S TR AN GE , S. (1996) The Retreat of the State. New York: Cambridge University Press. S UD JIC , D. (1993) The 100-mile City. New York/ London: Flamingo. S WYNGEDOUW , E. (1989) The heart of the place:  the resurrection of locality in an age of hyperspace, Geogra®ska Annaler B , 71, pp. 31±42. S WYNGEDOUW , E. (1992) The mammon quest: `glocalisation’, interspatial competition and the monetary orderÐthe construction of new scales, in: M. D UNF ORD and G. K AFKALAS (Eds) Cities and Regions in the New Europe, pp. 39±  67. New York: Belhaven Press. S WYNGEDOUW , E. (1996) Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new authoritarianism: closing the Belgian Mines, Urban Studies, 33, pp. 1499±1521. S WYNGEDOUW , E. (1997) Neither global nor local: `glocalization’ and the politics of scale, in: K. C OX  (Ed.) Spaces of Globalization, pp. 137±  166. New York: Guilford Press.  T AYLOR, P. J. ( 1993) Political Geography: Wo rldeconomy, Nation-state and Locality, 3rd edn. New York: Longman.  T AYLOR, P. J. (1995) World cities and territorial states: the rise and f all of their m utuality, in: P. K NO X  and P. T AYLOR (Eds) World Cities in a World-system , pp. 48±62. New York: Cambridge University Press.  T AYLOR, P. J. (1996) Embedded statism and  the social sciences: op ening up to new spa ces, Environment and Planning A , 28, pp. 1917±  1928.  T AYLOR, P. J. (1997) Is the UK big enough for  both London and England? Editorial comment, Environment and Planning A , 29, pp. 766±770.  T ERHORST , P . a n d V AN D E V EN , J. (1995) The  natio nal ur ban grow th coalition in The Neth erlands, Political Geography, 14, pp. 343±361.  T ILLY, C. (1990) Coercion, Capital and European  States, AD 990±1 990. Oxford: Blackwell.  È MMEL , I. (1996) Internationale Regulation und  T O Zeitschrift fuÈr lokale Modernisierung, Wirtschaftsgeographie , 40, pp. 44±58. V ELTZ , P. (1997) The dynamics of production  systems, territories and cities, in: F. M OULAERT and A. J. S COTT (Eds) Cities, Enterprises and   Society on the Eve of the 21st Cen tury, pp. 78±  96. London: Pinter. V OELZKOW , H. (1996) Der Zug in die Regionen: Politische Regionalisierung als Antwort auf die  È konomie. Berliner Deba tte Globalisierung der O Initial , 5, pp. 68±79.