A Research Odyssey: from Interlocking Network Model to Extraordinary Cities

Abstract

The paper charts a personal research journey that begins with the specification of the interlocking network model for cities and concludes with interpretation of cities as truly extraordinary. Three products of this model are discussed. First, this very specific model has generated a mini‐literature on cities in globalisation and this is briefly outlined. Second, the model has been interpreted as a generic description of inter‐city relations – central flow theory – and this is illustrated using historical examples. Third, there is a discussion of criticisms of the model and the relevance of green networks of extraordinary cities for thinking about the future of humanity.

Cities as command and control centres of the world economy: An empirical analysis, 2006–2015

“…Taylor (2001) introduced his interlocking network model (INM) in which "globalised producer services firms are the key 'network makers' connecting cities in a 'world city network' (WCN)" (Derudder, Parnreiter, 2014). As a consequence of these major concepts (Sassen's global city theory and Taylor's interlocking network model), APS firms and banks have become the key agents of the world city formation (see, for example, Beaverstock et al 1999;Taylor et al, 2002;Derudder et al, 2003;Taylor, 2004;Derudder, Taylor, 2005;Hanssens et al, 2013;Neal, 2014;Taylor, 2014), and they have significantly contributed to the diminishment of the importance of TNCs as symbols of world cities.…”

After the ‘World City’ has Globalised: Four Agendas Towards a More Nuanced Framework for Global Urban Research

“…Robinson ( and 2005) has perhaps been the most vocal of opponents of the discursive lionisation of World Cities as spaces of privilege, contending that such labels impose limitations on city planning futures. Even Taylor, as one of the most emphatic champions of World Cities referred to this tendency as ‘thing theory’, stating that ‘assessing a city's importance by its collection of firms rather than relationally through the connections of its firms’ (, p. 389) is less than useful in assessing global urban networks holistically. Nonetheless, claims to global‐ness and worldliness abound in urban policy, often with vast sums of money deployed for cities to brand themselves as such.…”

“…Furthermore, as numerous scholars have noted (Douglass ; Keil ; Olds and Yeung ), there are diverse ‘pathways’ to World/Global City formation—an observation that has in many ways problematised the entire theoretical project. As Taylor has written, ‘there is no such entity as a “non‐global city”’ (, p. 394), opening up a theoretical discussion that begs the question of whether the concept is useful at all or if in fact all cities are in fact somehow ‘ordinary’ (Robinson ; Smith ).…”

Introduction: The Interlocking Network Model for Studying Urban Networks: Outline, Potential, Critiques, and Ways Forward

“…As we have noted in our overview of the main critiques, a reframing of INM research based on insights derived from advances in various qualitative literatures is probably overdue, and the papers by Jacobs (), Taylor (), Parnreiter (), and Watson and Beaverstock () spell out some of the possible contours of such a reframing.…”

“…The postcolonial critique of INM research takes issue with its alleged Euro‐American bias. In his paper, Taylor () argues against this appraisal by positing that the ‘GaWC‐ish’ reading of the INM represents a particular, contemporary specification of a more general logic of how cities have always related to each other. This generic relevance of the INM for comprehending cities stems, from his proposition that city‐ness in general emerges only from relations between the local and the non‐local, as these are made and remade by the key actors of that time.…”