Workshop 3THE “ARCHIPELAGO” VISION: toward rising territorial polarisation

Introduction

« Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things. »

TOBLER, W. R. (1970). "A computer model simulation of urban growth in the Detroit region". Economic Geography, 46(2): 234-240.

Introduction

«  Globalization represents a metageographical moment, a time when the taken-for-granted way in which, collectively, we organise our knowledge of the world as spatial structures is being eroded. Globalization challenges the mosaic metageography of states with a new putative network metageography of connections.»

TAYLOR P.J.. (2004). « Being Economical with the Geography », Environment & Planning A, 33, 6, pp. 949-954 (published in GWAC, Research

Bulletin n°39

Introduction

«  What seems to have emerged from the empirical work of the past dozen years is a compromise vision. Distance matters a lot, though possibly less than it did before modern ttelecommunications. Borders also matter a lot, though possibly less than they did before free trade agreements. The spaceless, borderless world is still a Platonic ideal, a long way from coming into existence.»

KRUGMAN P. (2004).  »The new economic geography : where are we ? ». Ide-Jetro Symposium, Globalization and Regional Integration – from the viewpoint of Spatial Economics

Introduction

???

Discussion of the archipelago approach

• Social dimension : « space of flows » is not a neutral ideological choice.

• Ecological dimension : flows ignore the ecological impact of air transport.

• Theoretical dimension : What is important is not flows but movement (flows weighted by distance)

The social dimension

Richest people are LIVING in the discontinuous « space of flows » … 

The social dimension

… poorest peoples are DYING in the continuous « space of places »

The Ecologicql dimension• The ecological impact

of the speaker is 3,4 planets.

• Which he was a real “nomad” of the “creative class”, it would be 18 planets …

The theoretical dimension

• A flight London-Paris is less « global » than a flight London-New-York…

• But what about a flight New-York-Los Angeles ?

• Can we assume that Pusan-Hong-Kong is equivalent to Paris-Auckland ?

• Etc…

The theoretical dimension

The top-25 FLOWS does not really define a Global City network at world scale !

The theoretical dimension

The top-25 MOVEMENTS does really define a World Archipelago.

Map of major MOVEMENTS by air in 2000

This representation support much better the theories of discontinuous territoriality …

Top world cities according to air MOVEMENTS

The hierarchy based on air MOVEMENTS is more equivalent to Taylor (GaWC) results than the one based on FLOWS.

AN INVENTORY OF WORLD CITIES (GaWC)

A. ALPHA WORLD CITIES

12: London, Paris, New York, Tokyo

10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore

B. BETA WORLD CITIES

9: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich

8: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, Sao Paulo

7: Moscow, Seoul  

C. GAMMA WORLD CITIES

6: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Dusseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington

AKL

AMS

ATH

ATL

AYT

BER

BJSBKK

BNE

BOG

BOM

BOS

BRU

BUE

CAI

CAS

CCS

CHI

CMB

CPH

CPT

CUN

DAC

DAL

DEL

DET

DPS

DUB

DUS

DXB

FRA

FUK

HAV

HEL

HKG

HNL

HOUHRG

IST

JED

JKT

JNB

KHI

KUL

LAX

LIM

LIS

LON

MAA

MAD

MAN

MBJ

MEL

MEX

MIA

MILMIR

MNL

MOW

MRU

MSP

MUC

NBO

NGO

NYC

ORL

OSA

PAR

PER

PHL

POP

PUJ

PUS

RIO

ROM

RUH

SAO

SCL

SDQ

SEA

SELSFB

SFO

SGN

SHA

SIN

SJO

SNN

STO

SYD

TLV

TPE

TYO

VIE

WAS

YMQ

YTO

YVR

YYC

ZRH

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

-12000 -7000 -2000 3000 8000

-- Dim1 -->

-- D

im2

-->

EU+

NorthernAmerica

EasternAsia

SouthernAmerica

Africa

Oceania

Southern Asia

Type A : Integration

• States localised in the immediate neighbourhood of EU+2 whose trade and air relations are strongly polarised by EU+2.

• They do not necessary share a common language or religion but they are fully integrated to EU+2 from functional point of view and their delimitation fit to the area of the neighbourhood policy

• . What is at stake is not the question of membership to EU or belonging to “Europe” but the existence of an area of cooperation based on proximity and complementarities.

Type B : Responsability

• States for which EU+2 has a great responsibility in their future development.

• First because the historical responsibility of colonization and exploitation of African countries.

• Second because Africa could be a major centre of the World production in the future and its young population will be an opportunity.

• Many other world powers are actually investing in this area (Japan, China, Brazil, USA, …) and the historical influence of Europe is decreasing very quickly.

Type C : Opportunity

• Countries located at relatively long distance from EU+2 but sharing a common language or a common history.

• They could be very precious allies for EU+2 in a global World were services represented the major part of added value and where scientific and cultural innovations are major factors of long term development.

• Concern English speaking developed countries like USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand which has always been in strong relation with European countries (both politically and economically),

• But also emerging countries (India, Brazil, Mexico) which are crucial strategic partners for the future of Europe as they are actually relatively independent from the influence of other major competitors of European Union (China, Japan, USA).

Type D : Challenge

• Countries on which EU+2 is less able to have an influence or to develop easily relations because of differences of languages, geographical distance, weakness of historical relations...

• But those countries are located in a space where energetic resources are great and the economies are the most dynamic.

• EU+2 countries and firms are actually very attracted and fascinated by this part of the World where they try to invest and to gain positions.

• But we can really ask if it is a reasonable strategy in long term. The geopolitical and cultural influence of EU+2 countries is indeed particularly week in this part of the world and they have no controls on what could happen in case of economic and political crisis.

Territorial assets

• 1- Major European cities become highly internationalized metropolitan areas

• 2- Western European countries benefit the most from international metropolises

• 3- The Western metropolises are most integrated in the global top urban system

Shortcomings

• 1- Increase of territorial disparities in Europe

• 2- Eastern Member States rapidly loose their competitive advantage (rise of costs in their capital cities)

• 3- Substantial destabilisation of the economy of Mediterranean neighbours (rough 2010 liberalisation)

• 4- Border situation: toward the “continent” vision

Expected impacts on EU territorial cohesion

Expected impacts on EU territorial cohesion

Global cities

Global gateway

National capitals or other major cities

Rural regions

Touristic regions

Old industrial regions

High tech regions

Workshop 1, 2, 3 THE “REGIONAL ” VISION: an attempt of pro-active scenario

Territorial assets

• 1- Complementarity between Europe (capital, know how) and its neighbours (markets, labour forces)

• 2- A regulated relationship (trade agreements but also environment, labour rights, etc.)

• 3- Europe peripheral territories are boosted in their development

• 4- The European region becomes a major player in the World

• 5- Maghreb becomes a genuine interface between Africa and Europe

• 6- Eastern Europe becomes an interface between former Soviet Union and Europe.

Shortcomings

• 1- High political controversy (as Schuman’s declaration in 1950)

• 2- A difficult agreement between EU Member States being in favour rather of eastern or of southern neighbours

• 3- The risk of external conflicts with other world powers having own interest in avoiding the development of an integrated broader European region.