In the article by Fainstein
‘Inequality in global city-regions, the writer talks about the growing
inequality in the global cities in the world. This inequality is quite
paradoxical in the sense that this tag of global city in a sense based on high
economic growth which the Capitalism aspires for, but the fruits of this
Capitalism are not distributed among the cross section of the population. It is
not this growth makes poor more poor rather the rich become rich at a fast race
compared to the poor which results in the vast inequality seen in the Global
cities.
The notion of ‘Global Cities’ was put
on the global map by Friedmann (1986), Castells (1989) and Sassen (1991, 1994)
based on the notion of that these cities function as nodes in the global
economy with London, New York and Tokyo cited as prime examples. Derudder’s
(2006) summary of the Global Cities literature lists corporate organization and
infrastructure as the two key empirical criteria for Global City status[1].
Fainstein makes a very important point that apart from these common characteristics,
these global cities show growing income disparity in the population of these
cities with the middle class shrinking and the bottom class growing which has
serious bearings on the character of these cities. Another important point that the author makes
is the importance of the nation-state against a growing popular belief that the
nation-state has become redundant in this age of globalization. The
vulnerability of the poor and the disadvantaged becomes more pronounced as the
economic growth takes place, calling for the state to have better equitable
policies.
The Global city tag is on the top of
the wish list of many city managers and Mayors, primarily seeing it as panacea
for all urban ills. This notion of global city capitalism emphasizes the role
of knowledge, information, global networks and global finance for capital
accumulation and profit generation. This new phase of capitalism represents a
transformation from country-based economic systems to city-based ones[2].
The knowledge economy of these global cities makes the poor living there more
vulnerable in terms of income, job opportunities and job security. One of the
major alarming consequences of this divided dual cities is the fact that this
social and economic polarization of the population results in the spatial
polarization in the urban form of these global cities with clear cut division
where the rich live and where the poor live, resulting in the ‘Gated
Communities’.
Economist measure income disparities
in population by ‘Gini Coefficient’, which is a number between 0 and 1, where 0
corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1
corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income —
and everyone else has zero income). What is surprising is that some of the
developed countries of the world have a high score in Gini coefficient implying
greater income inequality in their cities. One of the plausible reasons for the
high income inequality is the presence of headquarters of large multinational corporations
especially financial firms, where the executives draw huge salaries but even if
that fact is discounted the bottom half of the population does not get the
equal fruits of economic growth compared to the upper half.
Inequality, growth and Cities
This presence of inequality of income
in both the developed national and developing or under developed nations raises
doubts about the effectiveness of the development in the rich countries and
leads to many questions “What bearings does the income inequality has on the
growth of cities? What is the casual relationship between the level of income
inequality and the pace of economic growth? Is the USA’s low GDP growth due to
large income inequality in its Cities? Or Income inequality is a market
imperfection that the market takes care in the long run and what are its
implications for public policy especially in the Urban Planning?
[1]
‘Global Cities in the South: Deepening social and spatial polarization in Cape
Town’, Charlotte Lemanski 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment