City Branding as a Response to Global Intercity Competition

bs_bs_banner Growth and Change Vol. 46 No. 2 (June 2015), pp. 233–252 DOI: 10.1111/grow.12085 City Branding as a Response to Global Intercity Competition ARI-VEIKKO ANTTIROIKO ABSTRACT Globalisation is dramatically changing the context of urban communities and the premises for urban development policy. In the context of global intercity competition, cities’ major goal is to increase their competitiveness, in which the positioning and attractiveness of a city have a critical function. Attraction-oriented development strategies aim at effective absorption of external resources from the global space of flows. At the core of attraction strategy are business promotion activities with appealing incentives, but it is assumed that such a competition is risky and may lead to a race to the bottom. Therefore the emphasis is increasingly on less costly and more synergistic city marketing, which utilises city branding and “city profiling” that aim at attract high value-adding services or high-tech firms. This paper proposes a city attraction hypothesis that states that global intercity competition is essentially about a city’s ability to attract the highest possible value from global flows of values in order to promote urban development. The result of such a global intercity competition determines cities’ functions and positions in the global division of labour and thus in the global urban hierarchy, and ultimately determines their ability to increase prosperity and welfare in urban communities. G lobalisation implies a development towards a world-scale systemic interdependency. In such a process, real exchange and interactive relations become boundary-eroding. This, in turn, is why globalisation is dramatically changing the context of local communities. However, local places remain important even in a globalised world, for the circulation of people and capital and related economic and social complexes are anchored in specific places (Sassen 2006; Smith 2002). Because of increased cross-boundary flows of resources, urban governments have become increasingly concerned with their role in the global economy. Such an orientation paves the way to a new role for cities, their strategic task being to adjust to the conditions of the global economy. (Anttiroiko 2009b; Anttiroiko and Kasvio 2005; Chien 2008; Douglass 2002; Kresl and Fry 2005; Sassen 2006; Savitch and Kantor 2003; Sellers 2002). This in turn has increased their interest in internationally oriented city marketing. The objective of this article is to describe how globalisation and related intercity competition pose challenges to the development of post-industrial cities in the developed world. Attention is paid to industrial specialisation and “profiling” of cities designed to attract resources from the global flows of values. More precisely, this article aims at 1) analysing the fundamental logic of attractionoriented intercity competition, 2) categorising economic city profile options associated with postindustrial economic activities, 3) identifying advanced cities in each post-industrial activity area on the basis of empirical sector-specific city rankings, and lastly, 4) discussing the strategic and social dimensions of such attraction-oriented economic city branding. Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko is an adjunct professor at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. His e-mail address is: kuaran@uta.fi. Submitted October 2011; revised June 2012; accepted August 2012. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc 234 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 The City Attraction Hypothesis At the core of the urban attraction strategy are promotion activities with appealing incentives offered to businesses, including the donation of land, pledges to build infrastructure to support a new facility, low-interest loans, tax reliefs or tax holidays, free training for workers or provision of other public services (Kresl and Fry 2005; Savitch and Kantor 2003; Sellers 2002). In this field, municipal business promotion campaigns to attract foreign direct investments constitute a paradigmatic case for attraction strategy. Other forms of the attraction-based approach include providing premises for international agencies, hosting major international events or promoting tourism (Kresl and Fry 2005; van Gelder and Allan 2006). Especially in investment-oriented cases, such strategies are costly and extremely risky. Moreover, if they are not based on real local strengths, benefits are unlikely to stand the test of time. This means that cities must have a strategic approach to attractiveness in order to avoid high-risk investments and short-sighted solutions. Attraction strategies take three major forms, which can be used individually or in different combinations: providing premises, incentives, and information. The first is based on investments with the aim of developing and utilising world-class developments, attractions, or business sites, which, especially in the case of large-scale investment projects, are highly risky. An alternative and apparently less risky approach is the provision of financial incentives and tax reliefs. The third way is simply to try to attract the attention of potential investors and other stakeholders in the international arena with large-scale advertising and promotion campaigns. Aggressive use of any of these approaches—investment-oriented, subsidy-oriented, and marketing-oriented approaches—in global competition may lead to a race to the bottom and are thus likely to have a negative aggregate impact on urban development (Allard 2006; Brecher and Costello 1994; Chien 2008; UN-HABITAT 2004; van Gelder and Allan 2006). It goes without saying that in some cases, any of these strategies may work well for an individual city, but at an aggregate level their impact may be questionable because of the race to the bottom effect caused by narrow-minded and investment-oriented local development policy. Such strategies may prove unfeasible especially for middle and lower rank cities with few special advantages in the global intercity competition. Thus, in general, cities would do well to seek a more feasible approach to both supporting existing economic life and attracting new resources from the global value flows. Place promotion, city marketing, and city branding are strategic tools for such an approach (Anholt 2007; Dinnie 2010; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2008). One of the strategic decisions of cities in the context of globalisation is to determine the most beneficial mix of offerings, interactions, and attraction factors in order to derive maximum benefits from the local-global dialectic (Harvey 1989). This requires an understanding of both the local community and its economic environment. With regard to such premises, I formulate a city attraction hypothesis that includes five main arguments on the premises of the attraction-based global intercity competition: 1. Global intercity competition is about the attractiveness of a city. What is essential in global attractiveness is the types of values a city is able to attract from the global value flows, be they founded on organisational demand or individual consumption. 2. For any city, it is rational to attract the highest possible value in terms of urban development based on their goals, attraction factors, and locality characteristics, such as population, geography, location, and natural resources. GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 235 3. Attraction of optimal value constellations requires a strategic city marketing approach, with special reference to industrial specialisation and economic city branding as part of a wider range of place promotion activities. 4. Materialised attractiveness determines a city’s function in the global division of labour and position in the global urban hierarchy. 5. The higher position in the urban hierarchy and the greater the ability to attract resources from the global value flows, the better are the chances to create local prosperity and to ensure the well-being of citizens and the entire local community. The hypotheses presented above outline the basic rationality of urban development in the age of globalisation. They aim to clarify how intensification of intercity competition tends to increase city governments’ conscious attempts to manage their contextual relations and, so to strengthen attraction-oriented thinking among city management and developers. This phenomenon has its darker side, too, for it may loosen city administration’s connection to local communities and lure cities into a bold “development game” that may be alienated from local realities. This suggests that even if the strategic element of city attraction hypothesis is crucial for urban development in the global age, it also contains seeds of “uncreative destruction.” This point has been elaborated most notably in critical and neo-Marxist urban analyses since the late 1980s (Harvey 1989; Logan and Molotch 1987; Logan 1999). City Branding as a Strategic Tool The conscious attempt of governments to shape a specifically designed place identity and promote it to identified markets is almost as old as territorial government itself (Anholt 2007; Kavaratzis 2008; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005, 2008). Cities are finding it insufficient merely to invest in the provision of urban facilities: “they make serious efforts to communicate their attractiveness and creativity inside and outside the city” (Hospers 2008:227). City branding represents one of the most recent features of such efforts. It is understood as the means both for achieving competitive advantage in order to increase inward investments and tourism, and also for achieving community development, reinforcing local identity and the identification of the citizens with their city and activating all social forces to support development efforts. In addition, the environmental dimension has assumed an increasingly important role in city branding (Dinnie 2010; Kavaratzis 2004; Miyamoto 2007). One of the cases that has generally been thought to be able to balance such aspects—competitiveness, inclusion, and sustainability—is Barcelona (García 2004; Marshall 2004). Brand management emerged in business life in the early decades of the 20th century. Its application to urban development began to attract attention from the 1990s onwards. A successful brand is an identifiable product, service, person, or place augmented in such a way that the buyer, user, or investor perceives relevant, unique added value, which matches their needs most closely. Furthermore, its success results from being able to sustain such added value in the face of competition (de Chernatony and McDonald 1992). Such thinking provides a fresh perspective on the development challenges of cities in a situation in which attraction is becoming a critical success factor because of the global mobility of resources. We have little empirical evidence on how to brand a city successfully (Parkerson and Saunders 2004). Most great cities have a brand that has developed as a kind of evolutionary process or sequence of events that evolved step by step from special preconditions or some historically 236 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 significant events. The most well-known city branding cases are those of the cities at the top of the global urban hierarchy and, in the usual case, reflect the special conditions of such internationally renowned cities. The most famous cases in this category are the branding of New York (Bendel 2010; Greenberg 2008), Singapore (Koh 2011), Seoul (Kim and Kim 2010), and Barcelona (Bellaso 2010). However, this does not reflect the realities of most of the cities around the world, as for many of them the mission is simply to increase the awareness of the target audience that the city exists (Salman 2008). This is particularly important for tourist destinations that depend on consumption by large masses of visitors (see Tasci and Gartner 2007). City branding is becoming increasingly challenging because of intensified global intercity competition and pervasive trends of service transformation, creative city development, and digitalisation, which when combined create new premises for urban competitiveness. These trends enforce the immaterialisation of the economy implying that the focus should be increasingly on high technology, high value-adding services, and cultural amenities. A special legitimation problem related to city branding is the apparent difficulty in branding a city, which pits conscious branding efforts to gain high mindshare for a brand against the long-term evolution of the image of a city. For example, if a manager of a manufacturing company considers creating connections with some high-tech centres or R&D hubs in the world, there are literally thousands of viable options available, but because of the reputation of various high-tech centres, his or her attention is attracted by only a handful of such centres. The consciously promoted brand is an attempt to associate the city with a desired category of urban development, analogously to the way in which Hoover was synonymous with vacuum cleaners, Xerox with copy machines, or “googling” (after Google) with the use of a web search engine. However, no city government can exercise exhaustive control over the image of the city, which is why branding is always a risky business and resembles a kind of viral branding or partnership approach to city branding, which is a middle strategy between mindshare brand and natural evolution of the image (van Gelder and Allan 2006). For example, in a Bloomberg’s financial news article entitled “Made-in-London Scandals Risk City Reputation as Money Center,” it is speculated that London may be risking losing its status as the world’s top financial centre “as the $360 trillion interest-rate fixing probe follows a series of market abuses by banks that eroded trust in a city already shrinking faster than rivals” (Crowley and Choudhury 2012). This illustrates that branding has a strong tie with both economic realities and the increasing mediatisation of the economy (Rawolle and Lingard 2010). City branding may be used with an emphasis on industrial development and economic activities, which in the context of post-industrial cities revolve around post-industrial economic activities. Such a perspective helps to focus on the city’s role and profile in economic terms, thereby providing a good way of combining city branding with local economic development policy. Moreover, such an approach indicates that city branding has a primary connection to exogenous growth, whereas its connection to the endogenous growth model with an emphasis on internal factors is assumed to be weaker or at least more complicated (e.g., in the case of branding of Arno Valley in Tuscan, empirical evidence indicates that the brand triggered limited social learning, fairly weak community-building, and left little room for institutional change; see Pasquinelli 2010). Economic city branding can thus be seen primarily as a tool for economic development that is determined by external factors, which reflects the fundamental logic crystallised in city attraction hypothesis. Economic Profiles of Post-Industrial Cities According to the rationality assumption based on both the previously discussed city attraction hypothesis and the more widely discussed world city hypothesis (Friedmann 2005; Sassen 1991/ GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 237 2001), in order to maximise welfare for their communities, city governments strive for as high a position as possible in the urban hierarchy. Such a tendency is associated with cities’ ability to attract high value-adding activities to their communities. Such high value-adding, knowledge-intensive and service-oriented economic activities rely on sufficient concentrations of skilled workers and creative people (Florida 2005). This is an indication of the increased importance of knowledge, know-how, innovativeness, and creativity to high-profile urban development strategy, reflecting not only the informational mode of development but a transition towards a kind of creational mode of development, in which growth is increasingly based on innovativeness and creativity (cf. Castells 1999; Florida 2005). It is noteworthy that in spite of globalisation agglomeration economies and thus proximity factors have a considerable role to play—even in services and creative industries (Kolko 2007; Rubalcaba and Carrido 2006). Cities may profile themselves utilising both hard and soft productive inputs. At the core of hard factors are corporate power and capital on the one hand and knowledge and technology on the other. Softer factors may focus on business and professional services or culture and entertainment. On this basis we may divide city profiles into four broad categories, which relate to specific city conceptions (Anttiroiko 2009b): 1. Capital: headquarter cities, financial centres and business service centres. 2. Knowledge: college towns, knowledge cities, science cities and high-tech centres. 3. Mobility: logistics hub, hospitality city, conference city and MICE (meeting, incentive, convention, and exhibition) cities. 4. Pleasure: cultural city, tourist centre, creative city, shopping city and service city. These form a field of high value-adding city profiles, which are illustrated in Figure 1. The profiles presented in the figure are examples of city profiles, meant only to show some of the most widely discussed city conceptions and profiles. An important context for such profiling of a city is post-industrial society or information society or network society, depending on which factors are emphasised. At the level of urban communities, this discussion may be attached to the generic concept of post-industrial city. This is a city that strives to adjust to the conditions of post-industrial society, as first theorised by Daniel Bell (1973). This development is accelerated by globalisation, as manufacturing from highcost cities, especially from North America and Western Europe, seeks more favourable environments for production in terms of regulation, taxation, labour costs, and proximity of markets. The most characteristic feature of a post-industrial city is that its employment is based on advanced, knowledge-intensive and high value-adding and IT-enabled services, i.e., jobs in the professions, management, administration, and technical industries. Another trend is to rely in development policy design and implementation on new forms of governance—especially networking and partnership—and on such progressive ideas as sustainable development and smart growth, which are apparent in the strategies of many global and internationally oriented cities (Savitch and Kantor 2003). Yet, even if there are some common denominators in the premises of the postindustrial cities, they have different profiles, which reflects the varieties in preconditions of each city in coping with the problems of declining industries, changing occupational structures, increasing educational requirements, and the urgent need for job creation and wider local economic restructuring. What follows is a description of city profiles and sector-specific rankings, which are useful in determining the strategic branding options for post-industrial cities. 238 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 High-tech city Financial centre Technology Know-how R&D Capital Finance Insurance Business service city Financial district Corporate intelligence Business services Head office cluster Logistic hub Transport Logistics Warehousing Knowledge Research Education High-tech park City profile University campus Cultural centre Art Culture History Exhibition Tourist centre destination Logistics city Exhibitions Conferences Hospitality Conference city Knowledge city Cultural city Entertainment Tourism Well-being Tourist city FIGURE 1. CITY PROFILE PIE: EIGHT POST-INDUSTRIAL ECONOMIC CITY PROFILES. Source: Anttiroiko (2009b). Cities of corporate power, capital, and business intelligence. A special place in the global urban hierarchy is reserved for those cities that have attracted corporate management functions— strategic planning, corporate law, finance, marketing, human resources, and so forth—and various business services, some of them specialised in international business. A headquarter city is a special agglomeration of such functions (Collis, Young, and Goold 2007; Davis and Henderson 2004; Diacon and Klier 2003; Strauss-Kahn and Vives 2009; Wanner, LeClef, and Shimizu 2004; Bloom and Grant 2011). A large number of headquarters not only strengthens the city as a command centre of economy but also increases the demand for legal and accounting staff and various business services. A global overview of top headquarter cities is presented in Table 1. Another indicator of the special attractiveness of a city is its role as a host for multinational corporations (MNCs). Here again, the top-level players include well-known global cities and business hubs of emerging markets, as illustrated in Table 2. Finance is a critical part of business life and also the most globalised sector in the economy. Consequently, successful financial centres have traditionally had a high profile in the global urban hierarchy (Agnes 2000; Castells 1999; Clark and Wójcik 2007; Dixon 2011; Reszat 2002; Sassen 1991/2001). The preconditions for building such centres include open financial markets, free flow of capital, transparent political, regulatory and tax regimes, skilled workforce, and high quality physical infrastructure. Old and still powerful financial centres are located in the U.S. and Europe, including New York, London, Zurich, and Frankfurt, but the world’s largest companies are increasingly opting to locate their offices in Asia’s booming cities, reflecting the eastward drift in global economic power (CBRE 2011). The first successful financial centres in Asia were Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Since the opening up of the Chinese economy, Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen have emerged as GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 239 TABLE 1. TOP 20 HEADQUARTER CITIES BY TOTAL REVENUES. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 City Number of GICS Number of HQs Aggregate revenue (billion USD) Tokyo Paris New York London Seoul Beijing Dallas San Francisco Chicago Nagoya Osaka Fayetteville Munich Moscow Houston Minneapolis The Hague Hong Kong Shanghai San Jose 10 10 10 9 9 7 9 8 9 6 8 2 6 6 7 7 3 9 7 4 163 61 84 59 42 34 18 17 32 19 34 2 10 17 28 14 4 49 16 25 3,115.02 1,956.69 1,541.50 1,416.25 758.01 707.66 558.77 540.33 497.13 464.01 439.96 435.03 434.95 383.30 380.05 375.85 363.12 347.49 340.49 324.82 Source: Taylor and Csomós (2011). GICS, Global Industry Classification Standard; HQ, Headquarter. TABLE 2. OFFICE PRESENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES BY CITY. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Source: CBRE (2011). City Number of companies % of companies present in city (n = 280) Hong Kong Singapore Tokyo London Shanghai Moscow Beijing Madrid Dubai Paris 191 189 179 177 172 170 169 167 157 156 68.2 67.5 63.9 63.2 61.4 60.7 60.4 59.6 56.1 55.7 240 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 TABLE 3. MAJOR GLOBAL FINANCIAL CENTRES. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 City GFCI9 ratinga London New York City Hong Kong Singapore Shanghai Tokyo Chicago Zurich Geneva Sydney Toronto Boston San Francisco Frankfurt am Main Shenzhen Seoul Beijing Washington, DC Taipei Paris 775 769 759 722 694 694 673 665 659 658 658 656 655 654 653 651 650 650 639 637 a The Global Financial Centres Index (ninth edition) is based on two sets of data input: 75 instrumental factors and responses to an online survey. Scores are aggregate values drawn from these two data sets. Source: Yeandle (2011). new rivals with a claim to become the economic and financial centres of the Greater China region (Heng 2003). Recently, Seoul has also improved its position as an East Asian financial centre (Yeandle 2011) (see Table 3). Besides the clusters of headquarters, MNCs, and financial institutes, some cities may have a business-friendly environment or may possess special strengths in a wide range of business services. Kotkin (2009) describes the relevance of this sector as follows: “Media coverage of America’s best jobs usually focuses on blue-collar sectors, like manufacturing, or elite ones, such as finance or technology. But if you’re seeking high-wage employment, your best bet lies in the massive ‘business and professional services’ sector.” The cities with such strengths at the top of the urban hierarchy are called “global cities”; they have a special position as trans-territorial marketplaces and command centres, as described by Sassen (1991/2001) in her seminal book on New York, London, and Tokyo. Thus, internationally oriented business services are for obvious reasons the most developed in global cities, such as New York, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, and London (see Table 4). Cities of knowledge and high technology. A group of cities that reflect the current trend in knowledge-based economy are concentrations of knowledge, science, and technology, sometimes referred to as knowledge cities. According to Carrillo (2006), knowledge cities are urban commu- GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 241 TABLE 4. TOP 10 GLOBAL CITIES FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITY.a City New York Tokyo Paris Hong Kong London Beijing Singapore Shanghai Seoul Chicago 2010 Rank 2010 Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.4 6.4 6.3 5.4 5.2 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.5 3.5 a Business activity is scored on the basis of five factors: number of international conferences, flow of goods, capital markets, number of companies among the top 40 global service firms, and number of Fortune Global 500 companies with headquarters in the city. Source Data: A.T. Kearney Global Cities Index 2010. Source: Global Sherpa (2011). nities that possess an economy driven by high value-added exports created through research, technology, and brainpower. In these communities, knowledge is valued and nurtured, resources are dedicated to supporting knowledge dissemination, learning and innovation, and knowledge is harnessed to create products and services that add value and create wealth (see Table 5). Paradigmatic examples of such cities are university cities, college towns, and cities of science, such as Cambridge, Oxford, and London in the UK, or Boston and Cambridge, MA, and Berkeley and Palo Alto, CA, in the U.S. A special category of city, the global university city, hosts top rank universities which attract a huge amount of paying international students and have a lot of international research projects, exemplified by Harvard University (Cambridge, MA), MIT (Cambridge, MA), University of Cambridge (UK), UC Berkeley (CA), Stanford University (CA), University of Oxford (UK), and the like. The Global University City Index measures liveability, education expenditure, the number of graduates produced, and how many universities the city has in the Financial Times Higher Education top universities list. The 2008 Global University City Index gives the highest rank to the following cities: 1) London, 2) Boston, 3) Tokyo, 4) Melbourne, 5) Sydney, 6) Pittsburgh, 7) Paris, 8) Vienna, 9) Chicago, and 10) New York (Tomazin 2008). Under this category, we may also include more technology-oriented conceptions, such as technocities, high-tech cities, e-cities, smart communities, ubiquitous cities, intelligent cities, and so forth (Aurigi 2005; Komninos 2002; Downey and McGuigan 1999). The most important formation in industrial terms has been the high-tech city, i.e., a city profiled by its extensive high-tech industries and R&D activities. This was probably the most popular urban high-tech development paradigm in the 1980s, and even more so in the 1990s. In high-tech development, Silicon Valley in California became a global benchmark for urban developers. One indication of the power of this trend is that since the 1980s the number of science parks proliferated in different parts of the world (Anttiroiko 2004; Castells and Hall 1994). Most of the high-tech cities are specialised in a few products and technologies. A competitive environment inevitably leads to specialisation, for no single site can create world-class expertise with 242 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 TABLE 5. TOP 10 GLOBAL CITIES FOR HUMAN CAPITAL.a City London New York Los Angeles Chicago Hong Kong Tokyo Sydney Boston Toronto San Francisco 2010 Rank 2010 Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5.6 5.4 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.1 a Human capital is scored on the basis of five factors: size of a city’s foreign-born population, quality of its universities, number of international schools, international student population, and percentage of residents with university degrees. Source Data: A.T. Kearney Global Cities Index 2010. Source: Global Sherpa (2011). a broad set of high technologies. Cortright and Mayer (2001) analysed 14 American high-tech metropolitan areas and observed that each area tended to specialise in relatively few products or technologies, with the exception of such large-scale concentrations as Route 128 around Boston and San Jose at the heart of Silicon Valley (Anttiroiko 2004; Chapple et al. 2004). The top U.S. high-tech cities, such as San Jose, Washington, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, and Raleigh (Cook 2009), are ranked high in global comparison. Even if this trend began in the U.S., leading U.S. cities are challenged by numerous European and Asian high-tech centres with varying profiles. The top high-tech cities include such European cities as Munich, Stockholm, and Cambridge (UK) and such Asian cities as Seoul, Singapore, Taipei, and Hong Kong (Anttiroiko 2004; Belisle 2009; Icon 2007). The high-tech field is changing slowly from production-oriented conceptions towards a stronger demand-orientation and high-tech services even to the extent that in spatial terms the time of isolated suburban science parks is said to be over (Castells 2001). The new paradigm emphasises closer connection to a rich innovation milieu, demand, and services, which requires close proximity to the very heart of urban life. This may, in the long run, change the overall picture in favour of liveable metropolitan high-tech areas. Cities of logistics, exhibitions, and hospitality. Services have been and continue to be on the urban development agenda, including such a broad range of activity areas as logistics, transportation, tourism, hospitality, entertainment, retail trade, consumer services, welfare services, and cultural services (Bryson, Daniels, and Warf 2004; Clark 2004; Hanssens, Derudder, and Witlox 2012; Konishi 2000; Law 2002; Martinelli and Moulaert 1993; Miles and Miles 2004; Fisher 2007). Let us first discuss cities with two different roles in international business and trade: transport interchange and host city for trade fairs and conferences. Some studies indicate that investments in transport infrastructure are among the most important contributors to urban growth (UN-HABITAT 2008). Related to this, transportation is also critical to GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 243 the location decisions of international business. This is one reason why the development of a logistics city—be it global or regional logistic hub or a specialised port city, airport city, or distribution or warehousing hub—is an appealing profile for a city in the globalising world. The top 10 logistics performers in 2010 include (starting from the highest rank of the Logistics Performance Index 2010): Germany, Singapore, Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Japan, UK, Belgium, and Norway (Arvis et al. 2010). European cities, especially those in continental Europe, such as Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Frankfurt, have for long served as major global and regional logistic hubs. Similar kinds of logistics hubs in the U.S. include New York-Newark, Houston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit (King and Keating 2005; Steele 2009). In the Asian context, world-class logistics hubs include Singapore and Hong Kong, challenged by such ambitious developments as Shanghai and other Chinese logistics hubs as well as Dubai Logistics City in the United Arab Emirates, envisioned to be the world’s first integrated multi-modal logistics platform for air, sea, and road services (Jacoby and Yang 2008). A special form of service city, which combines logistics, exhibitions, and hospitality is the so-called MICE city, which provides a range of meeting, incentive, convention, and exhibition (MICE) functions, offered mainly to business people and to professional and international organisations. Well-known MICE cities include Paris, Vienna, Barcelona, and Berlin in Europe, and Singapore, Seoul, and Hong Kong in Asia (see Table 6). Although some 80 percent of inbound arrivals to cities are tourists, MICE travel is increasingly important for cities, not only because of the higher per capita expenditure of MICE travellers, but also because of its huge promotional impact (Bremner 2007). TABLE 6. INTERNATIONAL MEETING CITIES: NUMBER OF MEETINGS PER CITY. Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 15 a City No. of meetingsa Vienna Barcelona Paris Berlin Singapore Copenhagen Stockholm Amsterdam Lisbon Beijing Buenos Aires Seoul Budapest Madrid Prague 160 135 131 129 119 103 102 98 98 96 90 90 87 87 86 The ICCA ranking covers meetings organised by international associations which take place on a regular basis and which rotate between a minimum of three countries. Source: ICCA 2010. 244 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 Cities of consumption and culture. Tourism, shopping, and entertainment are conventional elements of service city as illustrated in fashion capitals like Paris and Milan, sports cities such as Melbourne, Sydney, Vancouver, Manchester, and Dubai Sports City, shopping cities like Düsseldorf and Hong Kong, quick wedding destinations like Las Vegas and New York and the like. Economically, the most important type of city in this field is a tourist city, which is also vital for many post-industrial cities, even if tourism is often associated with low value-adding services provided by renowned historical and cultural sites or coastal destinations. Yet, as tourism itself is a broad phenomenon, including beach tourism, shopping, and conference travel, the list of major tourist cities is dominated by well-known global cities and metropolitan areas, including London, Bangkok, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, New York City, Dubai, Rome, Seoul, Barcelona, Dublin, Bahrain, Shanghai, Toronto, Kuala Lumpur, Istanbul, Madrid, Amsterdam, Mecca, and Prague (Bremner 2007). Another important consumption-related indicator is shopping. According to the World Shopping Capitals 2011 survey carried out by the Centre for Retail Research in 2010, London was found to be the world’s shopping capital in terms of the actual retail market, followed by other cities from the apex of the global urban hierarchy, Tokyo, Paris, and New York (see Table 7). The most TABLE 7. SHOPPING CAPITALS BY FOOD AND NON-FOOD SALES. City Ranking Sales (billion euros) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 108.49 106.44 91.96 78.15 33.94 29.27 29.09 28.81 28.00 25.27 24.01 19.94 19.22 18.74 18.52 15.24 14.77 14.15 10.24 9.91 7.67 2.60 734.44 33.38 London Tokyo Paris New York Los Angeles Hong Kong Dubai Sydney Singapore Barcelona Milan Manchester Madrid Berlin Rome Amsterdam Moscow Copenhagen Oslo Stockholm Rio de Janeiro Johannesburg Totals Statistical mean Source: Centre for Retail Research (2011). GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 245 popular global shopping destinations for overseas tourists are London, Singapore, New York, Dubai, Paris, Hong Kong, and Rome (Centre for Retail Research 2011). Interestingly, welfare services are also slowly attracting increasing attention among urban developers because of the continuing increase in the demand for services related to health, well-being, and self-development. An interesting expression of this trend is a healthcare town, which is based on the increased regional and global demand for medical services—a trend that evolved from cosmetic surgery to alternative and conventional medicine (Woodman 2010). One of the general factors here is the liveability of the city, as this can be used as an indicator of a precondition for a city profile in which well-being and health have a significant role. Usually, middle-sized cities in wealthy countries with a relatively low population density have been favoured in liveability rankings (The Economist 2011). Lastly, history, arts, culture, and creativity may help to generate income and jobs. This is highlighted in the concept of creative city, which reflects the transition towards a higher trajectory of urban development and is often a part of a wider progressive agenda combining it with the ideas of smart growth and sustainable city (Miyamoto 2007; Scott 2006). The formation of creative cities is a global phenomenon and has various expressions in different parts of the world. In the American context, for example, large cities with high status in creativity ranking, according to Richard Florida (2002, 2005), include San Francisco, Austin, San Diego, Boston, Seattle, Chapel Hill, Houston, Washington, New York, Dallas, and Minneapolis, i.e., areas that are well known for their success in various high-tech fields. Examples of creative city developments in larger cities are the City of Yokohama in Japan, Sydney in Australia, and Toronto and Vancouver in Canada, in which the creative city concept has been integrated in their urban planning, branding, and development strategies. Even if cultural services as an industry are not seen as high value-adding business as such, this is one of the emerging urban development trends, not least because it gives a fairly coherent view of how to respond to the need to restructure a local community that is losing manufacturing industries and is often in immediate need of considering how to utilise local culture in the development of the service sector and how to convert old factory buildings or warehouses into cultural centres and deserted harbours into entertainment zones (Landry 2008; Mommaas 2004; Scott 2006) (see Table 8). Cities in the Global Urban Hierarchy Cities’ positions and principal roles in the global division of labour form a global urban hierarchy. It can thus be used as a rough indicator of success in global intercity competition. In academic research special attention has for long been paid to the top of the urban hierarchy, i.e., global cities with a wide range of attraction factors and capabilities in globally oriented business services (Abrahamson 2004; Castells 1999; Friedmann 2005; Miyamoto 2007; Sassen 1991/2001). The most powerful nodes of global flows of values—New York, London, and Tokyo—are in unique positions in the global urban hierarchy and form a special case for urban attractiveness, which is based on head offices, financial services, and international business services, but are strong also in such areas as MICE, shopping, and cultural services. In terms of attraction, there are also several other multidimensional global cities, which have strengths in several post-industrial functions, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai. This group also includes cities such as Seoul, Shanghai, Chicago, San Francisco, Sydney, and Vancouver, to name some well-known multi-profile cases. In terms of attractiveness, the third category is cities with a narrower base of attractiveness, exemplified 246 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 TABLE 8. TOP 10 GLOBAL CITIES FOR CULTURAL EXPERIENCE.a City London Paris New York Tokyo Moscow Los Angeles San Francisco Berlin Buenos Aires Chicago 2010 Rank 2010 Scoreb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7.6 6.3 5.5 5.4 4.9 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 a Cultural experience is scored on the basis of six factors: museums, visual and performing arts, major sporting events a city hosts, international travellers, diverse culinary establishments, and sister city relationships. b Values are calculated on a scale 0 to 10. Source data: A.T. Kearney Global Cities Index 2010. Source: Global Sherpa (2011). by such cases as San Jose as a high-tech centre, Milan as a city of fashion, Zurich as a financial centre, Vienna as a MICE city, and the like. The most widely cited world city rankings based on business services were made by Beaverstock, Smith, and Taylor (1999), who ended up with the following global view of the hierarchy of world cities: A. Alpha world cities (full service world cities) 1. London, Paris, New York, Tokyo 2. Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore B. Beta world cities (major world cities) 3. San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich 4. Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, Sao Paulo 5. Moscow, Seoul C. Gamma world cities (minor world cities) 6. Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Düsseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington, DC 7. Bangkok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw 8. Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Buenos Aires, Budapest, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai In general, capital cities are likely to have more of the characteristics of a global city. It is also a rule that it is difficult for more than one or two cities per country to be included in the top ranks of global cities. For example, London and Paris belong to the highest rank of global cities, but no other UK or French cities succeed in this ranking. There are exceptions to this rule, however, as some large GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 247 economies such as the U.S., China, and Germany place more than one city on the list. The U.S. has the strongest position with several cities in the rank of global cities (Global Sherpa 2011). Another rule is that the higher position in the ranking of global cities, the less strategic role the mindshare type city branding has. The image of the city is always important, but active city branding is particularly critical for those emerging cities struggling to gain recognition as global players. Cities’ positions regarding the global division of labour change over time, and attraction is one of the key determinants in such a global transformation because of the interdependence and mobility that characterises our times. A large proportion of high-tech jobs have for long been moving from high-tech regions of developed countries to the emerging economies of India and China and to many other developing countries (Kresl and Fry 2005). There is also a trend for offshoring services and white-collar work (Collins and Brainard 2006; Markusen 2005). Such trends have boosted the development of many Asian urban centres, such as Seoul, Taipei, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Bangalore, and the like, which can be expected to improve their positions in the global urban hierarchy as the hubs of the world’s fastest growing economic region. Remarks on Social Risks and Tensions There are inherent social risks and tensions in attraction-oriented urban development. One of the fundamental social issues is who ultimately reaps the benefits of attraction-oriented development. Are attraction-oriented strategies too costly and do they benefit MNCs, global meritocracy, and local elites rather than local residents? An expression of such a tension is visible in Toronto, a creative city par excellence, whose development policy has been challenged by activists of “creative class struggle” movement (http://creativeclassstruggle.wordpress.com/). In general, the attraction-oriented approach has a tendency to lift development processes away from the grassroots level realities, which may cause problems in the long run by bringing destructive elements to local economy, creating exclusive enclaves to a city, and relying on risky large-scale investments. The case of Osaka’s development policy in the 1980s and 1990s aptly illustrates the realisation of such risks, as largescale investments in business locations were made in the context of an excessively optimistic growth image, insufficient risk assessment, and minimal involvement of educational institutions in creating innovation milieu, thus leading to a massive urban policy failure (Anttiroiko 2009a; Kamo 2000). The key dimensions of such a potential trap of attraction-oriented policy are depicted in Figure 2. In the ideal sense, city branding is an integrative process with consensual and inclusive work methods seeking legitimate solutions based on dialogue between developers and citizens and taking into account the need to balance between diversification and specialisation. Yet, in real life, it is easy for any city government to adopt a rational planning and development model that produces professionally constructed, yet potentially biased strategies. In such a case, there is a risk of lacking the utilisation of local potential, being inclined to short-sighted policy and “attraction hysteria” among urban developers, and designing high-cost attraction strategies, which rely too much on footloose firms’ location decisions. To avoid this, there should be enough balancing between social and economic elements in city branding, as illustrated in Figure 2. Conclusions The global competition of cities is ultimately about their attractiveness, which determines what kind of resources each city is able to attract from the global flows of capital, know-how, goods, and services, and what kind of products and services it may successfully offer to global markets. Faced 248 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 Local society: lack of concern of inclusiveness Attractionoriented policy Local government: attraction hysteria and narrow-minded developmentalism Economic city branding as potentially destructive element of urban development Local economy: attention to location decisions of footloose firms Corrective measures: - Social inclusion - Integrated policies - Development dialogue - Smart growth - Economic diversification - Sustainable development FIGURE 2. THREE DIMENSIONS OF AN ATTRACTION ORIENTED POLICY TRAP. with such a challenge, cities may utilise economic city branding as a tool to attract values from the space of flows through economic city profiling. The city profile model presented in this article, with eight post-industrial economic city profiles, provides one framework for considering the economic branding options for post-industrial cities. On the basis of empirical observations, the cities that belong to the apex of the urban hierarchy, i.e., full service global cities, are in a rank of their own, including cities like New York, London, and Tokyo. Their “brand” is built upon their factual high status and a wide variety of post-industrial functions. In the second rank of global cities with multidimensional profiles, ranging from business services to high-tech and to logistics and tourism, we can identify cities and city-states like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai. In their case, strategic city branding is an important tool in keeping them attractive in the knowledge-based global economy. For more specialised lower rank cities, branding is even more important as they must gain, increase, or maintain their visibility in selected areas as global players, as Zurich in the banking industry, Charlotte in North Carolina as a financial centre and a headquarter city, Milan as a global fashion capital, and Vienna as a MICE city. In this respect, their city branding effort may appear to follow traditional mindshare branding. The risk is that a narrow economic profile will increase vulnerability and creates path dependency from which it may be difficult to break away. Economic city branding is no panacea for cities’ problems in coping with globalisation challenge, but it helps to utilise local economic potential in the attraction-oriented intercity competition by focussing branding efforts on attracting values from the global value flows with a targeted view to business sectors or industry groups. REFERENCES Abrahamson, M. 2004. Global cities. New York: Oxford University Press. Agnes, P. 2000. The “end of geography” in financial services? Local embeddedness and territorialization in the interest rate swaps industry. Economic Geography 76: 347–366. Allard, S. 2006. A starting foul in the study of the race to the bottom. Social Science Quarterly 87(4): 782–790. Anholt, S. 2007. Competitive identity: The new brand management of nations, cities and regions. Houndmills: Palgrave. Anttiroiko, A.-V. 2004. Editorial: Global competition of high-tech centres. International Journal of Technology Management 28(3/4/5/6): 289–323. GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 249 ———. 2009a. Making of an Asia-Pacific high-technology hub: Reflections on the large-scale business site development projects of Osaka City and Osaka Prefecture. Regional Studies 43(5): 759–769. ———. 2009b. Urban responses to global intercity competition. In Globalisation: Challenges to research and governance, ed. J. Kultalahti, I. Karppi, O. Kultalahti, and E. Todisco, 257–279. Helsinki: East-West Books. Anttiroiko, A.-V., and A. Kasvio. 2005. Informational cities and global restructuring. In e-City. Analysing efforts to generate local dynamism in the city of tampere, ed. A. Kasvio, and A.-V. Anttiroiko, 19–40. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Arvis, J.-F., M. Mustra, L. Ojala, B. Shepherd, and D. Saslavsky. 2010. Connecting to compete. Trade logistics in the global economy. The logistics performance index and its indicators. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTLF/Resources/LPI2010_for_web.pdf (accessed July 25, 2011). Aurigi, A. 2005. Making the digital city. The early shaping of urban internet space. Aldershot: Ashgate. Beaverstock, J., R. Smith, and P. Taylor. 1999. A roster of world cities. Cities (London, England) 16(6): 445–458. Belisle, J.-F. 2009. The 10 most hi-tech cities in the world. April 21, 2009. http://jfbelisle.com/2009/04/the-10-most-hi-techcities-in-the-world/ (accessed July 25, 2011). Bell, D. 1973. The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books. Bellaso, J. 2010. The city branding of Barcelona: A success story. In City branding: Theory and cases, ed. K. Dinnie, 118–123. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bendel, P. 2010. Branding New York city—The saga of “I Love New York. In City branding: Theory and cases, ed. K. Dinnie, 179–183. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bloom, M., and M. Grant 2011. Valuing headquarters (HQs): Analysis of the role, value and benefit of HQs in global value chains. In Global Value Chains: Impacts and Implications. Trade Policy Research 2011, 211–240. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. http://www.international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/assets/pdfs/research/TPR_2011_GVC/ 10_Bloom_and_Grant_e_FINAL.pdf (accessed July 7, 2012). Brecher, J., and T. Costello. 1994. Global village or global pillage. Economic reconstruction from the bottom up. Boston, Mass.: South End Press. Bremner, C. 2007. Top 150 City destinations: London leads the way. Euromonitor International. Analyst Insight, Oct 2007. http://blog.euromonitor.com/2007/10/top-150-city-destinations-london-leads-the -way.html (accessed September 22, 2014). Bryson, J., P. Daniels, and B. Warf. 2004. Service worlds: People, organizations and technologies. London: Routledge. Carrillo, F., ed. 2006. Knowledge cities: Approaches, experiences, and perspectives. Burlington: Elsevier/ Butterworth-Heinemann. Castells, M. 1999. The rise of the network society. The information age. Economy, society and culture, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ———. 2001. The information city, the network economy, and the network society. In People, cities and the new information economy, ed. A. Kasvio, V. Laitalainen, H. Salonen, and P. Mero, 22–37. Helsinki: Palmenia-kustannus. Castells, M., and P. Hall. 1994. Technopoles of the world: The making of 21st century industrial complexes. London: Routledge. CBRE. 2011. Business footprints: Global office locations 2011. Los Angeles: CB Richard Ellis Global Research and Consulting (GRC). http://www.cbre.eu/portal/pls/portal/res_rep.show_report?report_id=582 (accessed September 22, 2014). Centre for Retail Research. 2011. World Shopping Capitals 2011 survey—Which city is the biggest shopper? Centre for Retail Research. http://www.retailresearch.org/worldshoppingcapitals.php (accessed July 23, 2011). Chapple, K., A. Markusen, G. Schrock, D. Yamamoto, and P. Yu. 2004. Gauging metropolitan “high-tech” and “i-tech” activity. Economic Development Quarterly 18(1): 10–29. Chien, S.-S. 2008. Local responses to globalization in China: A territorial restructuring process perspective. Pacific Economic Review 13(4): 492–517. Clark, G., and D. Wójcik. 2007. The geography of finance corporate governance in the global marketplace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, T., ed. 2004. City as an entertainment machine. New York: Elsevier. Collins, S., and L. Brainard. 2006. Brookings trade forum 2005: Offshoring white-collar work. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Collis, D., D. Young, and M. Goold. 2007. The size, structure, and performance of corporate headquarters. Strategic Management Journal 28(4): 383–405. 250 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 Cook, J. 2009. Seattle ranks fifth in report of nation’s top high-tech cities. TechFlash, May 11, 2009. http:// www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/05/Seattle_ranks_fifth_in_report_of_nations_top_high-tech _cities__44733292.html (accessed July 25, 2011). Cortright, J., and H. Mayer. 2001. High tech specialization: A comparison of high technology centers, Survey Series. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. January 2001. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/ 2001/1/01%20high%20tech%20regions%20cortright/specialization.pdf (accessed September 22, 2014). Crowley, K., and A. Choudhury. 2012. Made-in-London scandals risk city reputation as money center. Bloomberg. http:// www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-05/made-in-london-scandals-risk-city-s-reputation-as-finance-center.html (accessed July 9, 2012). de Chernatony, L., and M. McDonald. 1992. Creating powerful brands. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Davis, J., and J. Henderson. 2004. The agglomeration of corporate headquarters. Working Paper, January 9, 2004. Brown University. http://www.econ.brown.edu/faculty/henderson/papers/agglomeration_of_headquarters51303.pdf (accessed July 7, 2011). Diacon, T., and T. Klier. 2003. Where the headquarters are—Evidence from large public companies 1990–2000. FRB of Chicago Working Paper No. 2003-35, December 2003. Dinnie, K., ed. 2010. City branding: Theory and cases. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Dixon, A. 2011. The geography of finance: form and functions. Geography Compass 5: 851–862. Douglass, M. 2002. From global intercity competition to cooperation for liveable cities and economic resilience in Pacific Asia. Environment and Urbanization 14(1): 53–68. Downey, J., and J. McGuigan, eds. 1999. Technocities. London: Sage. Fisher, R. 2007. The dog that does not bark but packs a big bite: Services in the U.S. economy. Remarks before the U.S.–China Business Council, the Coalition of Service Industries and the American Council of Life Insurers. Washington, DC. May 14, 2007. http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2007/fs070514.cfm (accessed June 20, 2009). Florida, R. 2002. The rise of the creative class. Why cities without gays and rock bands are losing the economic development race. Washington Monthly, May 2002. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html (accessed July 29, 2011). ———. 2005. Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge. Friedmann, J. 2005. The world city hypothesis. From Development and Change (1986). Reprinted in The urban sociology reader, ed. J. Lin, and C. Mele, 223–229. Abingdon: Routledge. García, B. 2004. Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European cities: Lessons from experience, prospects for the future. Local Economy 19(4): 312–326. Global Sherpa. 2011. World’s most global cities. By Jason Walters—January 21, 2011. Posted in: Cities, Cities and Countries, Globalization. http://www.globalsherpa.org/best-world-city-list (accessed September 22, 2014). Greenberg, M. 2008. Branding New York: How a city in crisis was sold to the world. New York and London: Routledge. Hanssens, H., B. Derudder, and F. Witlox. 2012. Managing organizational and geographical complexity: The “positionality” of advanced producer services in the globalizing economies of metropolitan regions. Erdkunde 66(1): 45–55. Harvey, D. 1989. From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, Series B 71(1): 3–17. Heng, L. 2003. Shenzhen pits Shanghai for China’s financial center. People’s Daily. Last updated: Tuesday, March 18, 2003. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200303/18/eng20030318_113517.shtml (accessed July 25, 2011). Hospers, G.-J. 2008. Governance in innovative cities and the importance of branding. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice 10(2–3): 224–234. Icon. 2007. Tech capitals of the world. The Age, June 18, 2007. http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/tech-capitals-ofthe-world/2007/06/16/1181414598292.html (accessed July 25, 2011). ICCA. 2010. ICCA publishes country and city rankings 2009. U.S.A. and Vienna still most popular association meeting destinations. 18 May 2010. News and Publications> Archives. http://www.iccaworld.com/newsarchives/ archivedetails.cfm?id=2175 (accessed July 23, 2011). Jacoby, D., and C.P. Yang. 2008. Asia’s logistics hubs. World Trade, WT100, March 2, 2008. http://www .worldtradewt100.com/articles/asia-s-logistics-hubs?v=preview (accessed September 22, 2014). Kamo, T. 2000. An aftermath of globalisation? East Asian economic turmoil and Japanese cities adrift. Urban Studies 37(12): 2145–2165. GLOBAL INTERCITY COMPETITION 251 Kavaratzis, M. 2004. From city marketing to city branding: Towards a theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Branding 1(1): 58–73. ———. 2008. From city marketing to city branding: An interdisciplinary analysis with reference to Amsterdam, Budapest and Athens. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen. Kavaratzis, M., and G. Ashworth. 2005. City branding: An effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96(5): 506–514. ———. 2008. Place marketing: How did we get here and where are we going? Journal of Place Management and Development 1(2): 150–165. Kim, Y.K., and P.-E. Kim. 2010. Seoul city branding: The case of Seoul’s international brand communication. In City branding: Theory and cases, ed. K. Dinnie, 190–198. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. King, B., and M. Keating. 2005. The top 50 logistics-friendly cities in the U.S., 2005. Material Handling and Logistics, Oct 10, 2005. http://mhlnews.com/global/outlog_story_7495/ (accessed July 25, 2011). Koh, B. 2011. Brand Singapore: How nation branding built Asia’s leading global city. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. Kolko, J. 2007. Agglomeration and co-agglomeration of services industries. MPRA Paper No. 3362, posted 07. November 2007. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3362/1/MPRA_paper_3362.pdf (accessed July 7, 2012). Komninos, N. 2002. Intelligent cities. Innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces. London and New York: Spon Press. Konishi, H. 2000. Formation of hub cities: Transportation cost advantage and population agglomeration. Journal of Urban Economics 48(1): 1–28. Kotkin, J. 2009. Tracking business services: Best and worst cities for high-paying jobs. New Geography, 07/13/2009. http://www.newgeography.com/content/00903-tracking-business-services-best-and-worst-cities-for-high-paying-jobs. Kresl, P., and E. Fry. 2005. The urban response to internationalization. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Landry, C. 2008. The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators, 2nd ed. London: Earthscan. Law, C. 2002. Urban tourism: The visitor economy and the growth of large cities. London: Continuum. Logan, J. 1999. Competing for urban growth: Growth coalitions around the globe. Futura 18(3): 64–75. Logan, J., and H. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press. Markusen, J. 2005. Modeling the offshoring of white-collar services: From comparative advantage to the new theories of trade and FDI. NBER Working Paper No. 11827. December 2005. JEL No. F2. http://nber15.nber.org/papers/w11827.pdf (accessed June 22, 2009). Marshall, T., ed. 2004. Transforming Barcelona. London: Routledge. Martinelli, F., and F. Moulaert. 1993. The location of advanced producer services firms: Theory and illustrations. Geographische Zeitschrift 81(1/2): 1–17. Miles, S., and M. Miles. 2004. Consuming cities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Miyamoto, K. 2007. Globalization and urban policy. Journal of Policy Science 1: 61–79. Mommaas, H. 2004. Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: Towards the remapping of urban cultural policy. Urban Studies 41(3): 507–532. Parkerson, B., and J. Saunders. 2004. City branding: Can goods and services branding models be used to brand cities? Place Branding 1(3): 242–264. Pasquinelli, C. 2010. The limits of place branding for local development: The case of Tuscany and the Arnovalley brand. Local Economy 25(7): 558–572. Rawolle, S., and R. Lingard. 2010. The mediatization of the knowledge based economy: An Australian field based account. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research 35(3): 269–286. Reszat, B. 2002. Centres of finance, centres of imagination: On collective memory and cultural identity in European financial market places. GaWC Research Bulletin 92. 20th August 2002. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb92.html (accessed July 7, 2012). Rubalcaba, L., and R. Carrido. 2006. Urban concentration of European business services and the role of regional policies. In Knowledge cities: Approaches, experiences and perspectives, ed. F. Carrillo, 205–222. Burlington: Elsevier/ButterworthHeinemann. Salman, S. 2008. Brand of gold. Society Guardian, Wednesday 1 October 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/ 01/city.urban.branding (accessed July 10, 2011). Sassen, S. 1991/2001. Global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ———. 2006. Cities in a world economy, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. 252 GROWTH AND CHANGE, JUNE 2015 Savitch, H., and P. Kantor. 2003. Urban strategies for a global era. A cross-national comparison. American Behavioral Scientist 46(8): 1002–1033. Scott, A. 2006. Creative cities: Conceptual issues and policy questions. Journal of Urban Affairs 28(1): 1–17. Sellers, J. 2002. Governing from below. Urban regions and the global economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Smith, N. 2002. New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 34(3): 427–450. Steele, C. 2009. A short list of top logistics locations. Which locations are ready to handle your next logistics facility? Area Development (LDW: Logistics, Distribution and Warehousing 2009). http://www.areadevelopment.com/specialPub/ ldw09/top-logistics-locations002.shtml (accessed July 27, 2011). Strauss-Kahn, V., and X. Vives. 2009. Why and where do headquarters move? Regional Science and Urban Economics 39(2): 168–186. Tasci, A., and W. Gartner. 2007. Destination image and its functional relationships. Journal of Travel Research 45: 413–425. Taylor, P., and G. Csomós. 2011. Cities as control and command centres: Analysis and interpretation. GaWC Research Bulletin 381. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb381.html (accessed July 23, 2011). The Economist. 2011. Where the livin’ is easiest. Liveability ranking. Feb 21, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/ 21016172 (accessed July 27, 2011). Tomazin, F. 2008. Ranking on uni’s a bonus for city. The Age, May 26, 2008. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/ 25/1211653848663.html (accessed July 27, 2011). UN-HABITAT. 2004. The State of the World’s Cities 2004/2005. Globalization and Urban Culture. United Nations Human Settlement Programme. London: Earthscan. ———. 2008. The State of the World’s Cities 2008/2009. Harmonious Cities.United Nations Human Settlement Programme. London: Earthscan. van Gelder, S., and M. Allan. 2006. City branding. How cities compete in the 21st century. Placebrands. Wanner, H., X. LeClef, and H. Shimizu. 2004. Global headquarters on the move: From administrators to facilitators. Arthur D. Little. Prism 2: 63–78. http://www.adlittle.com/downloads/tx_adlprism/prism_2_2004_global_headquarters.pdf (accessed July 7, 2012). Woodman, J. 2010. The top 10 medical travel destinations. International Living, June 1, 2010. http://internationalliving.com/ 2010/06/the-top-10-medical-travel-destinations/ (accessed July 28, 2011). Yeandle, M. 2011. The Global Financial Centres Index 9. Long Financial. Financial Centre Futures 1–2011. http:// www.zyen.com/GFCI/GFCI%209.pdf (accessed July 20, 2011).