英文原文-全球城市：纽约、伦敦、东京.docx

TheGLOBALCITY:NEWYORKzLONDON,TOKYOBySaskiaSassenPage19OverviewForcenturies,theworldeconomyhasshapedthelifeofcities.Thisbookisaboutthatrelationshiptoday.Beginninginthe1960sztheorganizationofeconomicactivityenteredaperiodofpronouncedtransformation.Thechangeswereexpressedinthealteredstructureoftheworldeconomy,andalsoassumedformsspecifictoparticularplaces.Certainofthesechangesarebynowfamiliar:thedismantlingofonce-powerfulindustrialcentersintheUnitedStates,theUnitedKingdom,andmorerecentlyinJapan;theacceleratedindustrializationofseveralThirdWorldcountries;therapidinternationalizationofthefinancialindustryintoaworldwidenetworkoftransactions.Eachofthesechangesalteredtherelationofcitiestotheinternationaleconomy.InthedecadesafterWorldWar11,therewasaninternationalregimebasedonUnitedStatesdominanceintheworldeconomyandtherulesforglobaltradecontainedinthe1945BrettonWoodsagreement.Bytheearly1970s,theconditionssupportingthatregimeweredisintegrating.Thebreakdowncreatedavoidintowhichstepped,perhapsinalastburstofnationaldominance,thelargeU.S.transnationalindustrialfirmsandbanks.Inthisperiodoftransition,themanagementoftheinternationaleconomicorderwastoaninordinateextentrunfromtheheadquartersofthesefirms.Bytheearly1980szhowever,thelargeU.S.transnationalfirmsexperiencedsharpmarketsharelossesfromforeigncompetition.Yettheinternationaleconomydidnotsimplybreakintofragments.Thegeographyandcompositionoftheglobaleconomychangedsoastoproduceacomplexduality:aspatiallydispersed,yetgloballyintegratedorganizationofeconomicactivity.Thepointofdepartureforthepresentstudyisthatthecombinationofspatialdispersalandglobalintergrationhascreatedanewstrategicroleformajorcities.Beyondtheirlonghistoryascentersforinternationaltradeandbanking,thesecitiesnowfunctioninfournewways:first,ashighlyconcentratedcommandpointsintheorganizationoftheworldeconomy;second,askeylocationsforfinaceandforspecializedservicefirms,whichhavereplacedmanufacturingastheleadingeconomicsectors;third,assitesofproduction,includingtheproductionofinnovations,intheseleadingindustries;andfourth,asmarketsfortheproductsandinnovationsproducedandP4innovationsproduced.Thesechangesinthefunctioningofcitieshavehadamassiveimpactuponbothinternationaleconomicactivityandurbanform:Citiesconcentratecontrolovervastresources,whilefinanceandspecializedserviceindustrieshaverestructuredtheurbansocialandeconomicorder.Thusanewtypeofcityhasappeared.it'istheglobalCityr-LeadingexamplesnowareNewYork,London,andTokyo.Thesethreecitiesarethefocusofthisbook.AsIshallshow,thesethreecitieshaveundergonemassiveandparallelchangesintheireconomicbase,spatialorganization,andsocialstructure.Butthisparalleldevelopmentisapuzzle.Howcouldcitieswithasdiverseahistory,culture,politics,andeconomyasNewYork,London,andTokyoexperiencesimilartransformationsconcentratedinsobriefaperiodoftime?Notexaminedatlengthinmystudy,butimportanttoitstheoreticalframework,ishowtransformationsincitiesrangingfromParistoFrankfurttoHongKongandSaoPaulohaverespondedtothesamedynamic.Tounderstandthepuzzleofparallelchangeindiversecitiesrequiresnotsimplyapoint-by-pointcomparisonofNewYork,London,andTokyo,butasituatingofthesecitiesinasetofglobalprocesses.Inordertounderstandwhymajorcitieswithdifferentcultureshaveundergoneparalleleconomicandsocialchanges,weneedtoexaminetransformationsintheworldeconomy.Yetthetermglobalcitymaybereductiveandmisleadingifitsuggeststhatcitiesaremereoutcomesofaglobaleconomicmachine.Theyarespecificplaceswhosespaces,internaldynamics,andsocialstructurematter;indeed,wemaybeabletounderstandtheglobalorderonlybyanalyzingwhykeystructuresoftheworldeconomyarenecessacilysituatedincities.Howdoesthepositionofthesecitiesintheworldeconomytodaydifferfromthatwhichtheyhavehistoricallyheldascentersofbankingandtrade?WhenMaxWeberanalyzedthemedievalcitieswoventogetherintheHanseaticLeague,heconceivedtheirtradeastheexchangeofsurplusproduction;Itwashisviewthatamedievalcitycouldwithdrawfromexternaltradeandcontinuetosupportitsetalbeitonareducedscale.ThemodernmoleculeofglobalcitiesisnothinglikethetradeamongselfsufficientplacesintheHanseaticLeague,asWeberunderstoodit.Thefirstthesisadvancedinthisbookisthattheterritorialdispersalofcurrenteconomicactivitycreatesaneedforexpandedcentralcontrolandmagement.Inotherwords,whileinprincipletheterritorialdecentralizationofeconomicactivityinrecentyearscouldhavebeenaccompaniedbyacorrespondingdecentralizationinownershipandhenceintheappropriationofprofits,therehasbeenlittlemovementinthatdirection.Thoughlargefirmshaveincreasedtheirsubcontractingtosmallerfirms,andmanynationalfirmsinthenewlyindustrializingcountrieshavegrownrapidly,thisformofgrowthisultimatelypartofachain.EvenP5industrialhomeworkersInremoteruralareasarenowpartofthatchain.Thetransnationalcorporationscontinuetocontrolmuchoftheendproductandareaptheprofitsassociatedwithsellingintheworldmarket.Theinternationalizationandexpansionofthefinancialindustryhasbroughtgrowthtoalargenumberofsmallerfinancialmarkets,agrowthwhichhasfedtheexpansionoftheglobalindustry.Buttop-levelcontrolandmanagementoftheindustryhasbecomeconcentratedinafewleadingfinancialcenters,notablyNewYork,London,andTokyo.Theseaccountforadisproportionateshareofallfinancialtransactionsandonethathasgrownrapidlysincetheearly1980s.thefundamentaldynamicpositedhereisthatthemoreglobalizedtheeconomybecomes,thehighertheagglomerationofcentralfunctionsinarelativelyfewsites,thatis,theglobalcities.Theextremelyhighdensitiesevidentinthebusinessdistrictsofthesecitiesareonespatialexpressionofthislogic.TheWidelyacceptednotionthatdensityandagglomerationwillbecomeobsoletebecauseglobaltelecommunicationsadvancesallowformaximumpopulationandresourcedispersalispoorlyconceived.Itis,Iargue,preciselybecauseoftheterritorialdispersalfacilitatedbytelecommunicattonthataggromerationofcertainCentralingactivitieshassharplyincreased.Thisisnotamerecontinuationofoldpatternsofagglomeration;thereisanewlogicforconcentration.InWeberianterms,thereisanewsystemof"coordination,"onewhichfocusesonthedevelopmentofspecificgeographiccontrolsitesintheinternationaleconomicorder.Asecondmajorthemeofthisbookconcernstheimpactofthistypeofeconomicgrowthontheeconomicorderwithinthesecities.ItisnecessarytogobeyondtheWeberiannotionofcoordinationandBell's(1973)notionofthepostindustrialsocietytounderstandthisnewurbanorder.Bell,likeWeberzassumesthatthefurthersocietyevolvesfromnineteenth-centuryindustrialcapitalism,themoretheapexofthesocialorderisinvolvedinpuremanagerialprocess,withthecontentofwhatistobemanagedbecomingofsecondaryimportance.Globalcitiesare,however,notonlynodalpointsforthecoordinationofprocesses;therearealsoparticularsitesofproduction.Theyaresitesfortheproductionofspecializedservicesneededbycomplexorganizationsforrunningaspatiallydispersednetworkoffactories,offices,andservicemarkets,bothcentraltotheInternationalizationandexpansionofthefinancialindustry.Tounderstandthestructureofaglobalcity,wehavetounderstanditasaplacewherecertainkindsofworkcangetdone,whichistosaythatwehavetogetbeyondthedichotomybetweenmanufacturingandservices.The"things"aglobalcitymakesareservicesandfinancialgoods.Itistruethathigh-levelbusinessservices,fromaccountingtoeconomicconsulting,arenotusuallyanalyzedasaproductionprocess.Suchservicesareusuallyseenasatypeofoutputderivedfromhigh-leveltechnicalknowledge.Ishallchallengethisview.Moreover,usingnewscholarshiponproducerservices,Ishallexaminetheextenttowhichakeytraitofglobalcitiesisthattheyarethemostadvancedproductionsitesforcreatingtheseservices.Asecondwaythisanalysisgoesbeyondtheexistingliteratureoncitiesconcernsthefinancialindustry.Ishallexplorehowthecharacterofaglobalcityisshapedbytheemergingorganizationofthefinancialindustry.Theacceleratedproductionofinnovationsandthenewimportanceofalargenumberofrelativelysmallfinancialinstitutionsledtoarenewedorexpandedroleforthemarketplaceinthefinancialindustryinthedecadeofthe1980s.Themarketplacehasassumednewstrategicandroutineeconomicfunctions,incomparisontothepriorphase,whenthelargetransnationalbanksdominatedthenationalandinternationalfinancialmarket.Insofarasfinancial"products"canbeusedinternationally,themarkethasreappearedinanewformintheglobaleconomy.NewYork,London,andTokyoplayrolesasproductionsitesforfinancialinnovationsandcentralizedmarketplacesforthese"products."Akeydynamicrunningthroughthesevariousactivitiesandorganizingmyanalysisoftheplaceofglobalcitiesintheworldeconomyistheircapabilityforproducingglobalcontrol.Byfocusingontheproductionofservicesandfinancialinnovations,Iamseekingtodisplacethefocusofattentionfromthefamiliarissuesofthepoweroflargecorporationsovergovernmentsandeconomies,orsupracorporateconcentrationofpowerthroughinterlockingdirectoratesororganizations,suchastheIMF.Iwanttofocusonanaspectthathasreceivedlessattention,whichcouldbereferredtoasthepracticeofglobalcontrol:theworkofproducingandreproducingtheorganizationandmanagementofaglobalproductionsystemandaglobalmarketplaceforfinance.Myfocusisnotonpower,butonproduction:theproductionofthoseinputsthatconstitutethecapabilityforglobalcontrolandtheinfrastructureofjobsinvolvedinthisproduction.Thepoweroflargecorporationsisinsufficienttoexplainthecapabilityforglobalcontrol.Obviously,governmentsalsofaceanIncreasinglycomplexenvironmentinwhichhighlysophisticatedmachineriesofcentralizedmanagementandcontrolarenecessary.Moreover,thehighlevelofspecializationandthegrowingdemandforthesespecializedinputshavecreatedtheconditionsforafreestandingindustry.Nowsmallfirmscanbuycomponentsofglobalcapability,suchasmanagementconsultingorinternationallegaladvi-ce.Andsocanfirmsandgovernmentsanywhereintheworld.Whilethelargecorporationisundoubtedlyakeyagentinducingthedevelopmentofthiscapabilityandisaprimebeneficiary,itisnotthesoleuser.Equallymisleadingwouldbeanexclusivefocusontransnationalbanks.Uptotheendofthe1982ThirdWorlddebtcrisis,thelargetransnationalbanksdominatedthefinancialmarketsintermsofbothvolumeandthenatureoffirmtransactions.After1982,thisdominancewasincreasinglychallengedbyotherfinancialinstitutionsandtheInnovationstheyproduced.Thisledtoatransformationintheleadingcomponentsofthefinancialindustry,aproliferationoffinancialinstitutions,andtherapidinternationalizationoffinancialmarketsratherthanjustafewbanks.Theincorporationofamultiplicityofmarketsallovertheworldintoaglobalsystemfedthegrowthoftheindustryafterthe1982debtcrisis,whilealsocreatingnewformsofconcentrationinafewleadingfinancialcenters.Hence,inthecaseofthefinancialindustry,afocusonthelargetransnationalbankswouldexcludepreciselythosesectorsoftheindustrywheremuchofthenewgrowthandproductionofinnovationshasoccurred;itwouldleaveoutanexaminationofthewiderangeofactivities,firms,andmarketsthatconstitutethefinancialindustryinthe1980s.Thus,thereareanumberofreasonstofocusastudyonmarketplacesandproductionsitesratherthanonthelargecorporationsandbanks.Mostscholarshipontheinternationalizationoftheeconomyhasalreadyfocusedonthelargecorporationsandtransnationalbanks.Tocontinuetofocusonthecorporationsandbankswouldmeantolimitattentiontotheirformalpower;ratherthanexaminingthewidearrayofeconomicactivities,manyoutsidethecorporation,neededtoproduceandreproducethatpower.And,inthecaseoffinance,afocusonthelargetransnationalbankswouldleaveoutpreciselythatinstitutionalsectoroftheindustrywherethekeycomponentsofthenewgrowthhavebeeninventedandputintocirculation.Finally,exclusivefocusoncorporationsandbanksleavesoutanumberofissuesaboutthesocial,economic,andspatialimpactoftheseactivitiesonthecitiesthatcontainthem,amajorconcerninthisbookandoneIreturntobelow.Athirdmajorthemeexploredinthisbookconcernstheconsequencesofthesedevelopmentsforthenationalurbansystemineachofthesecountriesandfortherelationshipoftheglobalcitytoitsnation-state.Whileafewmajorcitiesarethesitesofproductionforthenewglobalcontrolcapability,alargenumberofothermajorcitieshavelosttheirroleasleadingexportcentersforindustrialmanufacturing,asaresult:"ofthedecentralizationofthisformofproduction.CitiessuchasDetroit,Liverpool,Manchester,andnowincreasinglyNagoyaandOsakahavebeenaffectedbythedecentralizationoftheirkeyindustriesatthedomesticandinternationallevels.Accordingtothefirsthypothesispretsentedabove,thissameprocesshascontributedtothegrowthofserviceindustriesthatproducethespecializedinputstorunglobalproductionprocessesandglobalmarketsforinputsandoutputs.Theseindustriesinternationallegalandaccountingservices,managementconsulting,financialservices-areheavilyconcentratedincitiessuchasNewYork,London,andTokyo.Weneedtoknowhowthisgrowthalterstherelationsbetweentheglobalcitiesandwhatwereoncetheleadingindustrialcentersintheirnations.DoesglobalizationbringaboutatriangulationsothatNewYork,forexample,nowplaysaroleinthefortunesofDetroitthatitdidnotplaywhenthatcitywashometooneoftheleadingindustries,automanufacturing?Or,inthecaseofJapan,weneedtoask,forexample,ifthereisaconnectionbetweentheincreasingshiftofproductionoutofToyotaCity(Nagoya)tooffshorelocations(Thailand,SouthKorea,andtheUnitedStates)andthedevelopmentforthefirsttimeofanewheadquartersforToyotainTokyo.Similarly,thereisaquestionabouttherelationbetweensuchmajorcitiesasChicago,Osaka,andManchester,onceleadingindustrialcentersintheworld,andglobalmarketsgenerally.BothChicagoandOsakawereandcontinuetobeimportantfinancialcentersonthebasisoftheirmanufacturingindustries.Wewouldwanttoknowiftheyhavelostground,relatively,inthesefunctionsasaresultoftheirdeclineintheglobalindustrialmarket,orinsteadhaveundergoneparalleltransformationtowardstrengtheningofservicefunctions.Chicago,forexample,wasattheheartofamassiveagroindustrialcomplex,avastregionaleconomy.HowhasthedeclineofthatregionaleconomicsystemaffectedChicago?Inallthesequestions,itisamatterofunderstandingwhatgrowthembeddedintheinternationalsystemofproducerservicesandfinancehasentailedfordifferentlevelsinthenationalurbanhierarchy.Thebroadertrends-c-decentralizationofplants,offices,andserviceoutlets,alongwiththeexpansionofcentralfunctionsasaconsequenceoftheneedtomanagesuchdecentralizedorganizationoffirms-maywellhavecreatedconditionscontributingtothegrowthofregionalsubcenters,minorversionsofwhatNewYork,London,andTokyodoonaglobalandnationalscale.Theextentto,whichthedevelopmentspositedforNewYork,London,andTokyoarealsoreplicated,perhapsinlessaccentuatedform,insmallercities,atlowerlevelsoftheurbanhierarchy,isanopen,butimportant,question.Thenewinternationalformsofeconomicactivityraiseaproblemabouttherelationshipbetweennation-statesandglobalcities.Therelationbetweencityandnationisathemethatkeepsreturningthroughoutthisbook;itisthepoliticaldimensionoftheeconomicchangesIexplore.Ipositthepossibilityofasystemicdiscontinuitybetweenwhatusedtobethoughtofasnationalgrowthandtheformsofgrowthevidentinglobalcitiesinthe1980s.Thesecitiesconstituteasystemratherthanmerelycompetingwitheachother.Whatcontributestogrowthinthenetworkofglobalcitiesmaywellnotcontributetogrowthinnations.Forinstance,isthereasystemicrelationbetween,ontheonehand,thegrowthinglobalcitiesand,ontheotherhand,thedeficitsofnationalgovernmentsandthedeclineofmajorindustrialcentersineachofthesecountries?Thefourthandfinalthemeinthebookconcer