Global cities are not global cities after all: the surprising big secret of global city research, rankings, and action

Abstract

The meaning of the concept of global cities has changed considerably from its modern origins to present day. Initially only some cities used to be described as so. Now the “global city” is linked to a range of new qualifications usually related to good meanings: cosmopolitan, diverse, updated, or modern (MARCUSE, 2006; KING, 2006). Currently many cities are described as global (TAYLOR, 2008). It incorporated several new topics inside this conceptualization: migration influence, cultural exchange, and other social factors (SASSEN, 2001; SAMERS 2002; BRENNER AND KEIL, 2014). Despite this fact, few researchers are focused on this transformation, preferring to do broader literature reviews (ACUTO, 2011) or simply ignoring this issue, using new partial broader definitions. The current importance of this term for urban policy around the world makes necessary a more detailed review of these semantic changes. During my research I observed the influence of a new set of actors in the global city conceptualization: consulting firms. They are linked sometimes to academia but usually are better connected to media, policy makers, and powerful investors. They partially help to explain the widening of the global city concept. Presently they are the largest disseminators of the global city idea. Scholars are not anymore the main font of information.