This is an empirical paper that measures and interprets changes in intercity relations at the global scale in the period [2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005][2006][2007][2008]. We draw on the network model devised by the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) research group to measure global connectivities for 307 cities across the world in 2000 and 2008. The measurements for both years are adjusted so that a coherent set of services/cities is used. A range of statistical techniques is used to explore these changes at the city level and the regional scale. The most notable changes are (i) the general rise of connectivity in the world city network, (ii) the loss of global connectivity of US and Sub-Saharan African cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco and Miami in particular), and (iii) the gain in global connectivity of South Asian, Chinese and Eastern European cities (Shanghai, Beijing and Moscow in particular).

Sassen's identification of global cities as 'strategic places' is explored through world city network analysis. This involves searching out advanced producer service (APS) firms that constitute 'strategic networks', from whose activities strategic places can be defined. 25 out of 175 APS firms are found to be strategic and from their office networks, 45 cities out of 526 are designated as strategic places. A measure of 'strategic-ness' of cities is devised and individual findings from this are discussed by drawing on existing literature about how APS firms use specific cities. A key finding shows that New York and London have different levels of strategic-ness and this is related to the former's innovation prowess and the latter's role in global consumption of services. The strategic-ness of Johannesburg, Mexico City, Palo Alto, and leading Chinese and German cities are also discussed in terms of the balance between production and consumption of advanced producer services.

importance. Discussion of these findings elaborates upon two key points: first, globalisation is not a 'blanket' process creating a homogeneous world, and second, the resulting fuzzy and porous regionalisation counters the traditional 'territorialist' regional geographies that can provide a framework for global conflict with a more complex geography of multiple global integrations.

No abstract