Search

The growth of the knowledge economy has led to new forms of business networks linking cities and towns across different spatial scales. Various attempts have been made to analyse these networks empirically using the interlocking network model of the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) research network. Two approaches can be distinguished from a spatial perspective: a global ‘top-down’ approach that studies the world city network from the perspective of the largest advanced producer service firms, and a macro-regional ‘bottom-up’ approach that starts with the most important knowledge-intensive firms located within specific territorial boundaries. This paper compares and critically assesses the methodological implications and empirical outcomes of both approaches with reference to case studies of the German space economy. Both approaches pursue similar objectives: to investigate external relations of cities, both transnationally and on the national scale. Differences exist in the theoretical argumentation: the top-down approach is grounded in world city research; the bottom-up approach is anchored in debates in regional science and economic geography. In this paper, we argue for the need of scale-sensitive interpretations of connectivity patterns resulting from different approaches to the interlocking network model and conclude with some tentative recommendations for the methodological direction of future research in world city network studies.

UK universities are receiving record amounts of funding from private philanthropists. In 2013, it was reported that, for the first time, UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) obtained more major donations from philanthropic sources than any other cause. Three decades of increased neoliberalism and internationalisation of the Higher Education (HE) sector, together with a decline in state funding, have heightened the imperative for English universities in particular to intensify engagement with potential private donors. The UK government, via its Matched Funding Scheme (MFS) 2008–2011, sought to incentivise giving to HEIs in England. Universities have thus been encouraged to grow a ‘culture’ of philanthropy. Yet, there has been limited investigation by geographers into the impact of private donations on UK HEIs. In this paper, we undertake a critical examination of the official publications of 17 diverse English HEIs which participated in the MFS 2008–2011. Particular attention is paid to the differentiated levels of participation by universities with the MFS and the ways in which donations were represented in their public documents. We argue that diverse cultures of HEI engagement with philanthropic giving are critically linked to their: location in conventional institutional hierarchies; integration in professional knowledge networks; and ability to mobilise strategic connections across geographical scales. In doing so, we advance theoretical work on the role of philanthropic giving in reconfiguring contemporary geographies of HE.

This paper contributes to emerging debates about uneven global geographies of higher education through a critical analysis of world university rankings. Drawing on recent work in geography, international higher education and bibliometrics, the paper examines two of the major international ranking schemes that have had significant public impact in the context of the on-going neoliberalization of higher education. We argue that the emergence of these global rankings reflects a scalar shift in the geopolitics and geoeconomics of higher education from the national to the global that prioritizes academic practices and discourses conducted in particular places and fields of research. Our analysis illustrates how the substantial variation in ranking criteria produces not only necessarily partial but also very specific global geographies of higher education. In comparison, these reveal a wider tension in the knowledge-based economy between established knowledge centers in Europe and the United States and emerging knowledge hubs in Asia Pacific. An analysis of individual ranking criteria, however, suggests that other measures and subject-specific perspectives would produce very different landscapes of higher education.

There are three purposes: (1) to illustrate diversity amongst world cities; (2) to show how this reflects/constitutes power relativities between cities; and (3) to place debates on diversity and power on a firm empirical basis. The power of cities is interpreted both as a capacity (“power over”) and as a medium (“power to”). World cities are treated as global service centres and the world city network is conceptualised as being “interlocked” through provision of business and financial services by global firms. The study is primarily empirical and uses a global data set comprising information on100 global service firms in 123 world cities. Seven different ways of measuring and illustrating power differentials are presented: global network connectivity, banking/finance connectivity, dominant centres, global command centres, regional command centres, high connectivity gateways, and gateways to emerging markets. These categories have been identified before but never specified as comprehensively and rigorously as here. Whereas power as command power is concentrated in the USA, western Europe and Tokyo, network power is much more geographically diffused transcending the old “North–South divide”. Finally the focus on diversity makes problematic the lazy policy tendency for emulation of a few well-known “global cities”.