Varieties of Glocalisation: The International Economic Strategies of Amsterdam, Manchester, and Zurich Compared

Abstract

Our aim in this paper is to explain the international strategies of cities by focusing on market conditions. Drawing on a critique of the glocalisation thesis we show that the design of these strategies can plausibly be explained by the specific characteristics of urban capitalism found in the different cities. Whereas the international strategy of Manchester must be seen as a response to problems of postindustrial restrictions, the importance of the logistic sector in Dutch capitalism strongly shapes Amsterdam's strategy. In Zurich, though, it is argued that the city was already very well prepared for the transformation towards a post-Fordist regime, and so did not need any strategy at all. We conclude that varieties of glocalisation trajectories are a major factor driving and shaping the characteristics of international urban strategies.

Framing the Debate on Suburbanization in North America and Germany Conceptually—Edward Soja’s Concept of “Regional Urbanization” Revisited

“…She researched that thesis in her study on Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taipei and argues that, although urban development is dependent on trends in global markets, this does not prejudge forms of political regulation at the local level. Van der Heiden and Terhorst [87] also qualify homogenizing assumptions made in the globalization debate. The authors attempt to conceptualize the considerable development differences in three select European cities (Zurich, Rotterdam, and Manchester) by modifying the variety of capitalism approach towards a variety of glocalization approach.…”

“…They are convinced that "(t)he strategy a city follows within its international economic activities can be explained by both the specific market conditions a city faces and the role of the national state within the specific form of urban capitalism. This variety of glocalisation trajectories explains the persistent and astonishing differences within the international economic strategies of European cities" [87] (p. 353).…”

Von politischen Grabenkämpfen zur kooperativen Planung

“…Die dadurch entstandenen urbanen Brachen forderten die Planungsroutinen heraus und stellten so Politik und Verwaltung vor neue Herausforderungen, die wegen der ideologisierten Diskussionen in den polarisierten politischen Institutionen und wegen der hierarchisch organisierten Planungsprozesse schwer lösbar waren (siehe auch Kühne 1997). Drittens machte der zunehmende globale Städ-tewettbewerb in den 1990er Jahren eine stär-kere Fokussierung auf städtebauliche Entwicklungsziele in Bezug auf Dienstleistungs-und Büroinfrastruktur nötig, um unter anderem die erworbene Stellung Zürichs als Finanzzentrum nicht zu gefährden (siehe auch van der Heiden, Terhorst 2007;Schmid 2006). Gleichzeitig führte viertens die Verschlechterung der Konjunkturlage Anfang der 1990er Jahre zu einer allgemeinen Verunsicherung unter privaten Investorinnen und Investoren, die ohne die Sicherheit der politischen Machbarkeit keine neuen Entwicklungsprojekte mehr auf eigene Faust planen wollten.…”

When Mayors Go Global: International Strategies, Urban Governance and Leadership

“…The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a proliferation and a diversification of cities' international activities in the context of globalization, Europeanization and changing relationships between state and local authorities (Aldecoa and Keating, ; Pinson and Vion, ; Lefèvre and d'Albergo, ; Van der Heiden and Terhorst, ; Payre, ). Alongside twinning, new international activities emerged, such as marketing strategies, involvement in transnational city networks, lobbying, applications to bid for the organization of international events, study visits or the selective use of international ‘best practices’.…”