WAYFINDING IN THE LONG SHADOW OF CITY BENCHMARKING: Or How to Manufacture (an Economy of) Comparability in the Global Urban

Abstract

In response to Acuto et al.’s invitation to ‘take city rankings seriously’, I suggest that one strategy for doing so would be to examine what the production and reproduction of these rankings reveals about the ways in which their makers seek to govern cities across the globe. Drawing upon twenty months of ethnographic research of the global urban ‘solutions’ industry, I offer an immersive critique of what happens when city rankings ‘go wild’, frequently beyond the intentions of their makers. Often with little choice but to play by the rules of the game of global urban entrepreneurialism, the injunction for urban policy actors to subscribe to dominant logics of city rankings gives rise to—and reinforces—three tendencies of contemporary global urbanism: wayfinding, performativity, and (auto)parody. I conclude by asking what is at stake for critical urban studies and critical urban scholars when we are encouraged to engage proactively and productively with city rankings.

An economic geography perspective on city diplomacy

“…By the same token, Chan (2016) stresses that city diplomacy is primarily aimed at the common well-being by means of peaceful, equal and inclusive relationships. This optimist discourse highlights cities’ role as sites of opportunity in terms of ‘smart’ and innovative urban policies and ‘solutions’ (Bok, 2021; Montero, 2020). As a logical corollary of this alleged solution-oriented and pragmatic character, the aforementioned inter-urban networks are often said to be much more collaborative, horizontal, participatory and solution-oriented compared to the more hierarchically organised intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations or the European Union (see also Heeg et al, 2003; Leitner and Sheppard, 2002; Pred, 1977).…”

WHOSE CITY BENCHMARKS ? The Role of the Critical Urbanist in Comparative Urban Measuring

“…We have argued that the proliferation of city benchmarking activities and the growth of an 'industry' (a term we use loosely and suggest discarding below) of quantitative urban comparison is a topic worthy of attention from critical urban scholars. This is a sentiment that seems broadly shared by the authors who have offered valuable commentary on our intervention in this forum (Bok, 2021;Robin, 2021;White and Kitchin, 2021). What perhaps remains as the key outstanding question is, at least in our view: what form should this attention take?…”

“…In the midst of this engagement, especially when speaking and writing from a relatively privileged position, we should certainly strive and advocate for a broadening of the global imagination with regard to what counts as ‘urban’ and the cities that are measured in the world of benchmarking. Bok's critique of the ‘ideological structures of power’ (Bok, 2021: 382) inherent in comparative (and competitive) global urbanism aligns with Robin's call for a more ‘collaborative’ framing of comparison (Robin, 2021: 380). While our study provides evidence of a gradually broadening geography of the comparative urban imagination, including many more cities from the ‘global South’, we are careful not to laud this development, and we recognize that is it still largely the ‘usual suspect’ cities of the global North that are best placed to engage with and benefit from city benchmarking studies to guide policy perspectives, advocate for reform, and drive media attention and city branding opportunities.…”

“…Whichever stance we take, questions of ownership and audience are also very pertinent ones. Bok (2021) takes us up on the question of engagement, though by focusing the gaze more specifically on the benchmark producers and querying whom new modes of global comparative urbanism actually serve. Her comment is timely.…”

Mapping policy pathways: Urban referencing networks in public art policies

“…How cities direct their attention to one another has become an integral part of municipal policy making (Peck and Theodore, 2015; Wood, 2022). As the bean instance reveals, cities may be either competing or emulating one another, learning about a particular policy programme, or ranking themselves next to others (Bok, 2021; González, 2011; Lecavalier et al, 2023; McCann and Ward, 2010; Patterson, 2012; Silvestre and Jajamovich, 2023). Inter-referencing may include performative elements, such as visualising these mental maps and including them in presentations and documents (Prince, 2014a).…”