Analysis of Articles about City Power and Centrality - Annotated Bibliography Example

Annotated Bibliography Alderson, A. S. & Beckfield, J. (2004). Power and position in the world system. American Journal of Sociology. 109(4 811-851. The main aim of the article is to place each of the fifty top cities within a contextualized ranking system defined by “power and prestige”. The main criterion involves enumeration of the number of a select group of multinationals operating in each of the cities. This approach appears to conform to the definition of global cities, which is in itself done through establishing the role it plays in hosting the multinational companies. There is a tendency to specifically address the question of power ranking for the sampled cities. However, at some point, it becomes hard to differentiate between the terms power and centrality, since what Alderson and Beckfield (2004) term as position seems to overlap with centrality at some point. This, when contrasted with Neals’ (2011) assertion that centrality is not entirely the product of location seems to misinform on what the term exactly stands for. In some instances, the authors use position to mean the hierarchical order of the cities based solely on power, which is also supported by the title and the aims. The statement “We assess the power of world cities in light of three measures of point centrality (i.e., outdegree, closeness, and betweenness)” (p. 822) corroborates the confusion with which Alderson and Beckfield laced the otherwise distinct terms that are centrality and power. As noted, neither power nor centrality is a function of the other, as the two aspects of a city’s ranking lie distinctly of each other. The discussion, therefore, waters down the strong empirical approach applied in the study. Regrettably, the article does not offer a strong conviction of the difference between power and centrality that is being sought through this analysis. For this reason, the quality of the article is negatively influenced by the way the discussion is presented, casting doubt on whether the results can be taken to represent the aims. Boyd, J. P., Mahutga, M. C. & Smith, D. A. (2013). Measuring centrality and power recursively in the world city network: A reply to Neal. Urban Studies. 50(8): 1641-1647. The article is a response to a 2011 study article by renowned researcher Zachary Neal. In his article, Neal had attempted to distinguish between power and centrality of a city through the use of two measures of recursive power and centrality: relational measure of power, and position in the world city networks. From the onset, Boyd, Mahutga and Smith (2013) expressed their appreciation for the way Neal made essential clarifications of the two measures, keeping the interpretation simplistic and easy to understand. However, their main focus is the methodical approach that Neal adopted when developing an empirical method for measuring the two. The initial indication is that Neal used questionable criteria when interpreting the theoretical background into an empirical approach. The authors noted: Neal’s effort to innovate methodologically is based on theoretical reasoning that is dubious when applied to world city networks. And his attempt to develop new measures is flawed since he conflates ‘eigenvector centrality’ with ‘beta centrality’ and then argues that ‘eigenvector-based approaches’ to recursive power and centrality are ill-suited to world city networks (p. 1641). Clearly, as Boyd et al. (2013) observed, one notices that Neal presents a contradiction of his methods at a point where he did not wish to present the weaknesses of the empirical formula applied. The article retraces some of the important methodological aspects by Neal, including calculation of distances that comprise interlinking networks, and, as per Neal’s argument (which Boyd et al. (2013) did not challenge), the ensuing power derived from such networks. The authors concluded with a cautionary note on any attempts to equate centrality to power, which is a view also shared by Neal. While agreeing with the use of eigenvectors to calculate relative cities’ power and centrality, the researchers discredited Neal’s measures of recursive centrality and recursive power. Grydehoj, A. (2014). Constructing a center on the periphery: Urbanization and urban design in the island city of Nuuk, Greenland. Island Studies Journal. 9(2): 205-222. The article explores a unique phenomenon in the determination of both peripherally located city and centrality. Grydehoj (2014) pays particular attention to the city of Nuuk, the capital city of Greenland. The author explained that Nuuk is found on the extreme west of the island nation, which internally serves it as a peripheral city. However, the location is more strategic to Greenland’s international trade partners, including Denmark that accesses Nuuk from her nearest port across the western port. The port city is equally easily accessible from Iceland and Canada. This reinforces its position as a peripheral city within Greenland and a central city to Greenland’s nearest trade partners. This, according to Grydehoj (2014), was the primary influencing factor for Nuuk’s selection for the study. The discussion offers intense arguments regarding the contrasts between a city’s peripheral and central status with reference to Nuuk. Yet, the arguments clearly indicate that peripheral status does not imply a lack of connections with other cities, as much as centrality is not merely the product of networks of connections with other cities. Effectively, Grydehoj (2014) noted: The above analyses of the city emphasize its dual power to connect and disconnect. Yet, even as the whole of society is drawn into the urban process, cities remain rooted in distinctions between centre and periphery. It is simply that the ‘centre’ is no longer necessarily the city as a unit, and the ‘periphery’ may no longer be the countryside (p. 207). The researcher presents the above arguments to advance a case for increased inclusion of Greenland, particularly due to the cited overall peripheral status of the entire country. This, Grydehoj (2014) argues, is possible through increased awareness and pulling towards the factors that make the capital, Nuuk, a more central city as opposed to its seeming peripheral status up to now. Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology. 25(2): 185-213. The article is a classic case of the link between the power of the cities within a country (which translates into greater participation of the internal society) and the overall power of the nation as an autonomous unit when approaching international obligations and partners. Collectively, the author retains a considerable awareness about the role of political power in accounting for the overall power of a city. There is a deliberate socialistic influence in the way Mann (1984) defines and outlines power, including the human geography aspects of population classes within a geographic setting. This broad approach is powerful in portraying the overall importance of the power that is associated with cities as foundational units of the state. The author explores the infrastructural interconnections that link a location to another in relation to the relative power it retains. Through the discussion, cities with sound infrastructural networks (including efficient trade routes and recognized structures for asserting power) tend to also have better empowered and influential populations both in terms of politics and trade. Essentially, an influential internal network is seen a fundamental starting point for external influence and control. The author equates the net outcome of influence and control to dominance, which further forms a basis for international inter-city contests of power. Domination is best played at the state level, since cities collectively appear to lose identity behind the state as the international bargaining entity. This point forms part of the concluding remarks by Mann (1984), who noted: The varied techniques of power are of three main types: military, economic, and ideological. They are characteristic of all social relationships (p. 117). Neal, Z. (2011). Differentiating centrality and power in the world city network. Urban Studies. 48(13): 2733-2748. The main focus of the article is to differentiate between power and centrality. Essentially, this still remains a thorny issue in the study of urbanization. The main point of confusion, Neal noted, is the close association between the two for many cities; that is, cities that are both central and powerful. This helps to effectively introduce the aim of this research – differentiate the difference between the two terms in relation to cities. The author challenges the equality that is often mistakenly accorded the two terms, thereby introducing two empirical approaches that serve to prove that centrality and power are indeed distinct both in application and properties. Neal (2011) introduces various combinations of centrality and power of cities that help distinguish between the two. He noted: “…quintessential world cities that are both central and powerful (such as New York and London), hub world cities that are central but not powerful (such as Washington and Brussels) and gateway world cities that are powerful but not central (such as Miami and Stockholm)” (p. 2733). Further, Neal noted that power is not radiated from a city within a network, but is rather spread along the nodes of the network. This is an effective way to underscore the fact that the amount of power retained by a city is not a function of centrality. The discussion is well supported by the empirical findings, which also borrow from a wide body of literature that efficiently corroborates the results. The study is a positive step in reinforcing the argument that cities’ centrality is distinct from their powerfulness. Further, the results were matched up to simulated network models that help to portray how such networks work in the real world. The author accomplishes the goal of distinguishing between the two terms in a way that offers both clarity and simplicity. Neal, Z. (2013). A conceptually efficient approximation of beta centrality. Connections. 33(1): 11-17. The article explores the use of alter-based centrality as a recursive measure of beta centrality. The main focus lies in proving whether the method is a robust way to measure the beta centrality. This follows the established effectiveness of the recursive methods as a way of estimating the power and centrality effect of various world cities. The author used an empirical approach to comparatively estimate the robustness of the beta measure. The comparative measures are introduced in a mathematical context that draws the reader to the derivation processes that underlie each measure. This approach is suitable for highlighting the model’s efficacy based on the underlying assumptions and how they affect the outcome. The author used real-time examples to show that the robustness of the beta is both effective for the alter-based centrality as it is for beta centrality. The relevance of the study was shown when the beta values corresponding to the two methods were applied to various models of city networks, with individual cities being represented by network nodes. The nodes appear to be highly correlated with the betas, which confirms the efficacy of the approach: The centrality scores yielded by AC+ and BC+ are very highly correlated in these networks (rCentrality mean = 0.997, sd = 0.007). Similarly, the power scores yielded by AC– and BC– are also highly correlated (rPower mean = 0.988, sd = 0.033) (Neal, 2013, p. 14). The conclusion restates the earlier aims of the study, and uses the findings and the discussion to redraw the place of various cities across networks. Apparently, there is clear distinction between centrality and power, mainly in that the coefficients of the two do not follow predictable patterns; an increase in one of the coefficients (of either centrality or power) does not correspond to a similar pattern for the other. In relation to the present study, this goes to confirm that centrality and power of a city are distinct or independent of each other. Based on the aims of the study, the empirical evidence clearly symbolizes the powerfulness of the results, signifying authority of the findings. Sassen, S. (2000). The global city: Strategic site/ new frontier. American Studies. 41(2/3): 79-95. The main concern of the article is the place of global communications and economic globalization in light of the power that is associated with the efficiency of the city brought about by the two aspects of growth. Inevitably, the author wades into the question of how communication and economic globalization are interrelated. Reflecting back upon how the author presents the initial paragraphs in the article, it is apparent that the work of the reader is made unnecessarily difficult by the failure to explicitly define the aims of the research, or even present an overview of the approaches adopted thereof. The author makes an attempt to link the location of major production sites to the economic success of the city. Effectively, the following argument bends towards proving that the economic capacity of the city is the key driving factor for the power that it is associated with. This notion, besides being well argued out, presents some weaknesses. For instance, the definition of power dictates that it is indeed a multifaceted thing, including political, ideological, economic, and military, among other factors that are all interrelated. Therefore, postulating that economic position is the only determinant of a city’s power is misguided and misleading. Another line of thought pursued by Sassen (2000) is that of centrality. He describes centrality in the context of interlinking networks, specifically infrastructural. This is contained in the note: The ascendance of information industries and the growth of a global economy, both inextricably linked, have contributed to a new geography of centrality and marginality. This new geography partly reproduces existing inequalities but also is the outcome of a dynamic specific to current forms of economic growth (p. 82). This, therefore, indicates that the argument that links power to centrality in Sassen (2000) is inaccurate. The discussion and concluding remarks run against the current body of literature on cities’ power and centrality. Sassen, S. (2005). The global city: Introducing a concept. Brown Journal of World Affairs. 11(2): 27-43. The article clearly outlines the objectives of the study and follows up with a theoretical explanation of the aims. Sassen (2005) explored the emergence of global cities in the context of the territorial dynamics and processes of a global magnitude. Effectively, the deliberate choice of the global cities and not just cities has the consequence that the power aspect of cities is played out more significantly throughout the article. The author made attempts to define a global city through the formulation of seven hypotheses that effectively define the parameters within which such should be considered. The article’s outlook of the global city is also fastened through the inclusion of discussions on city centrality and power. The global city is indicated as having firms that offer services on a global scale. Similarly, a global city is seen through the global spread of its activities, which consequently leads to the emergence of a more sophisticated headquarters of the chain business. The global city, therefore, benefits from the location of the most sophisticated roles of all its branches of the global firms headquartered in it. The net effect of the increased complexity of these global firms then creates the extra capacity for outsourcing of the major services required internally, thereby developing a chain of interdependent global firms. Sassen (2005) noted: By central functions I do not only mean top level headquarters; I am referring to all the top level financial, legal, accounting, managerial, executive, planning functions necessary to run a corporate organization operating in more than one country (p. 34). While the arguments are basically based on the valid theoretical foundations of growth of global cities, there is no empirical framework to corroborate the same. The arguments are further weakened by the author’s fronting of un-validated, unilateral arguments that do not borrow from supplementary literature, as would be expected of theoretically-advanced propositions. Conclusively, the theoretical approach adopted is essential in advancing the association between centrality and power, but also lacks the authority that comes with the employment of empirical and literally documented evidence. References Alderson, A. S. & Beckfield, J. (2004). Power and position in the world city system. American Journal of Sociology. 109(4): 811-851. Boyd, J. P., Mahutga, M. C. & Smith, D. A. (2013). Measuring centrality and power recursively in the world city network: A reply to Neal. Urban Studies. 50(8): 1641-1647. Grydehoj, A. (2014). Constructing a center on the periphery: Urbanization and urban design in the island city of Nuuk, Greenland. Island Studies Journal. 9(2): 205-222. Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology. 25(2): 185-213. Neal, Z. (2011). Differentiating centrality and power in the world city network. Urban Studies. 48(13): 2733-2748. Neal, Z. (2013). A conceptually efficient approximation of beta centrality. Connections. 33(1): 11-17. Sassen, S. (2000). The global city: Strategic site/ new frontier. American Studies. 41(2/3): 79-95. Sassen, S. (2005). The global city: Introducing a concept. Brown Journal of World Affairs. 11(2): 27-43. Read More