Symbolic Use of Globalization in Urban Politics in Tokyo

Abstract

Since the 1980s, more complicatedly interwoven forces of globalized capital, central and local states, and growth‐oriented local actors have produced not a single form but variations of global city formation. In the reconstruction process of postindustrial cities, the concept of globalization does not necessarily provide a dominating and self‐sufficient story, but actually acts as a symbolic catalyst which stimulates them to establish a new urban regime on the basis of more exclusive political powers. This article investigates why Tokyo, though lacking in consensus about such a change, once succeeded and then failed in establishing a political coalition for urban restructuring. For newly‐emergent global cities such as Tokyo, ‘globalization’ had two different local impacts on urban restructuring: a substantial one derived from the economic interests of globalized capital; and a symbolic one manipulated by local dominating political actors. Globalization as a political symbol took on an ideological role by both masking pre‐modern traits behind the coalition and giving postmodern appearances to it. But, concurrently with this, as a social cleavage has developed from an influx of foreign workers, the meaning of globalization has shifted to a more conflicting one. Depuis les années quatre‐vingt, les forces du capital globalisé, des états centraux et locaux, et des participants locaux orientés vers l'expansion, entremêlées de fa??on plus complexe, ont produit non pas une seule forme mais des variations de la formation de la ville globale. Dans le processus de reconstruction des villes post‐industrielles, le concept de globalisation ne fournit pas nécessairement un narratif dominant et suffisant, mais agit en fait comme un catalyseur symbolique qui les encourage àétablir un nouveau régime urbain basé sur des pouvoirs politiques plus exclusifs. Cet article examine pourquoi Tokyo, qui n'a pas de consensus pour un tel changement, réussit d'abord àétablir une coalition politique pour la restructuration urbaine, et puis y échoua. Pour les villes globales naissantes comme Tokyo, la ‘globalisation’ a deux effets locaux différents sur la restructuration urbaine: un effet substantiel provenant des intérêts économiques du capital globalisé, et un effet symbolique manipulé par les participants politiques locaux dominants. La globalisation comme symbole politique a pris un rôle idéologique en masquant les traits pré‐modernes de la coalition et en lui donnant des apparences post‐modernes. Mais, simultanément, alors qu'une division sociale provenant d'un afflux de travailleurs étrangers se développe, la signification de la globalisation est devenue plus contradictoire.

Pencilling Tokyo into the map of neoliberal urbanism

“…But there are other factors at play: the corporate sector's burgeoning role in urban restructuring also suggests an approximate entrepreneurial urbanism. The sheer extent of urban restructuring that has transformed Japanese city centres and inner city areas can only result from a dynamic urban construction sector and a loosening of the regulations that once held it back (Machimura, 1998;Waley, 2007). As we have seen, the last three decades or so have been punctuated by some important rounds of regulatory relaxation (Sorensen et al, 2010).…”

Shifts in Tokyo's World City Status and the Urban Planning Response

“…Thus it could be said that Tokyo at this time was a Japanese city with global reach, rather than a world city. However, as Machimura notes, the world city label was extensively used as an ideological tool (Machimura, 1998). It was useful in providing legitimacy to the rapid process of urban change with its many detrimental effects.…”

Co-evolution of the Finnish National and Local Innovation and Science Arenas: Towards a Dynamic Understanding of Multi-level Governance

“…In the 1970s, according to Machimura (1998), local development was largely seen as the result of global forces (multinational corporations, international capital, international division of labour, etc.). In the 1980s, a new "bottom-uporiented development view" started to gain ground to counterbalance, or to challenge, the earlier development paradigm.…”