Global Cities Making Policy or Policy-Making for Global Cities?

Everyone acknowledges that cities have become increasingly important in the world economy.  But there is much confusion about what this means for how they are governed.  A natural assumption is that the municipal governments of the central-city municipalities of a global city-region are becoming more important for urban policy-making.  But, unless the boundaries of such a municipality corresponds to the entire city-region (however defined), which is highly unlikely, then the central-city municipality will be quite incapable of responding to the most important policy issues, especially those relating to urban sprawl.  The result in many countries is a search for the perfect municipal structure to enable effective city-region policy-making.

But what is forgotten in this kind of analysis is that, if city-regions are becoming relatively more populous in relation to small towns and rural areas, then our national and sub-national legislatures are becoming increasingly dominated by urban voters.  In countries with one dominant city (France, England) and in federations and countries with strong devolved regional legislatures, urban policy for city-regions will not be made at the municipal level, whatever the municipal boundaries and structures might be.  We are used to hearing that “all politics is local.” What we need to consider is the likelihood that “all politics is urban.”

Although examples will be drawn from around the world, particular attention will be paid to the Toronto city-region (the Greater Golden Horseshoe) and Ontario, the Canadian province in which it is situated.  Despite Ontario’s vast territory, two-thirds of Ontario’s population lives in the Toronto city-region.  Ontario’s politics is urban politics.  Although the main argument of this paper derives from my 2008 book, The Limits of Boundaries: Why City-regions Cannot be Self-governing, the paper modifies the analysis in light of recent developments.