It is widely believed that the integration of the global economy and the development of information technology have led to the creation of the world city as a centre of command-and-control functions in the world economy. However, as each city is nested in its national and regional context, such a simple deterministic logic is not satisfactory. This article explores the world city formation of Tokyo by investigating the decision-making process of the Tokyo waterfront sub-centre, one of the flagship urban development projects. The author argues that the institutional relations among the national and local governments, and the business community in Tokyo were grounded in the country's unique tradition of a state-capital relationship which can be explained by capitalist developmental state theory.
The position of a city in any hierarchy of world importance is not a static phenomenon. This paper takes the example of Tokyo and explores its interaction with the dramatic economic and political events in Japan over the past 20 years. Although Tokyo is widely regarded as one of the top three 'world cities', the argument is supported that it retained many national characteristics, partly based on its location in a 'developmental state'. As national fortunes have changed, so has Tokyo's relationship with its global environment. The paper focuses on strategic urban policy and the way that this reflects Tokyo's world role, as perceived by national and city governments. Three phases in approach are identified since the 1980s. Twenty years ago Japan was experiencing economic boom and this was reflected in dramatic development projects in Tokyo. The concept of 'world city' was used at this time to legitimise such development. The 1990s were viewed in Japan as 'the lost decade' with great uncertainty over policy direction as the boom collapsed and urban policy in Tokyo entered a phase of inertia. It is argued that the city is now entering a third phase in which a new competitive attitude is emerging regarding the role of Tokyo and this is leading to changes in strategic urban policy. However, this new approach is still embedded in old structures and conceptions and hence there are tensions in developing future policy.
Tokyo, the capital city of Japan, has always been a center of national economic growth, and hence a focal point of political struggle between local and national government. There exist two kinds of political forces; the former desires strong concentration of economic activities in Tokyo based on market rationality and economic efficiency, and the latter counters the former claiming more decentralization based on the balanced national economic structure. This paper reviews the development of urban and regional policy in Japan over the last 20 years and examines how such political forces have played out. After the decade‐long sluggish economic performance and the challenge of inter‐urban competition by Asian mega‐cities, Tokyo Metropolitan Government formulated an aggressive promotional policy under the leadership of the then Governor Ishihara. He tactically created a political consensus to give locational favor to the central part of Tokyo at the expense of other regions. It was partially challenged by the election of the then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who insisted the need to revitalize the regions that were economically lagging. Despite his words, however, the centralization of Tokyo continued. This paper argues that the regional revitalization policy under the Abe administration was political rhetoric rather than reality, and Japan's economic fortune may still depend on the performance of Tokyo in the global economy under the neoliberal policy orientation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.