essay about determining the difference between global city from world city. it's indicators positive and negative impacts in the globalization process?
Answers
Answer:
here is your answer
Explanation:
Globalization and the City
1It is often said that the world is turning into a “global village”. In reality, it is much more a “global city”: today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities (although often under poor conditions), and many metropolises of the world are much more economically productive and significant with respect to global networks than most of the world’s states. In addition, these cities look increasingly alike, shaping a global space which is more and more indistinguishable between continents. Thus the modern city is the primary manifestation of globalization today, and its very essence is a global network of multidimensional spaces of congestion that both describes and shapes it.
2The relevance of cities is nothing but new. While there were phases and places in history, when and where cities were not particularly important, and as a rule, only a small fraction of the population lived in these settlements, the history of civilization as we know it is very much connected to cities. From ancient to medieval and modern times, and from China, India and Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean, Europe and Mesoamerica, cities have been a recurrent phenomenon, and still archeology finds further evidence for large and hitherto undocumented – albeit not totally unexpected – settlements in distant periods and places. Hence, cities were essential for culture and civilization; they allowed a centralization of power and knowledge, and they were crucial for the division of labor and for organizing the demand of the people, on which economic development rests. And if we adopt a view of globalization that allows for a history in the longue durée, then cities emerge as the places people traveled to and from, where people exchanged news and goods, and where people could develop a view of a wider world, particularly if the city was located at the sea-shore.
3Hence, as places of intense and continuous interactions, cities are the locations par excellence where global history takes place, and we must study the history of cities in connection with the history of globalization from this perspective. Interestingly, although we can look back on twenty years of manifold globalization debates and shelves of books about the topic, this has hardly been done so far.1 Hence, we lack orientation. One reason for that is, of course, methodological: it is simply impossible to fully grasp the complexities of a global social system that incorporates about seven billion individuals and a lot of collectives that are organized in different hierarchies and networks, all of them interwoven. But there are also two ways out of this dilemma: the first is to study the emergence of globalization in its various dimensions historically to identify the characteristics relevant for change and to understand the path-dependence of the process in order to comprehend recent developments and to contextualize them properly in the form of a meta-narrative; the second is to collect data about what is “really” going on, recently as well as historically, to get an idea of the structure and practical constraints of human action and choices at the micro level as well. Both help us make (more) sense of the alleged chaos of human existence.