This world map slices up the globe into two egg-shaped pieces and, for some reason, a kidney-shaped one. It purports to show the world’s three panregions (*), and the world cities with which they interact. In all, there are nine of these “regional world cities”: two “panregional centres”, three “major regional centres” and four “minor regional centres”.
The American panregion is divided into northern and southern halves, but both are dominated by northern cities: New York and Miami respectively.
The Euro-Afro-Middle-Eastern one (note: find snappier name for this panregion) is more complex, with a Francophone African subregion within Africa, and the Middle East seemingly straddling Africa and Europe. London has the biggest reach of all the regional world cities in this zone, interacting with Europe, the Middle East and Africa. But not with Francophone Africa, which is the sole domain of Paris. Johannesburg and Brussels are minor players, tentatively tentaculating into their respective continents.
The Asia-Oceania panregion is divided into four subregions: North East and South East Asia, Japan and Oceania. Singapore and Hong Kong are mirror images of each other, extending their influence into both subregions on their side of the north-south axis. Tokio is the main hub of the small Japanese zone.
The acronym GaWC refers to the Globalisation and World Cities Research Network (based at the Geography Department of Loughborough University in the UK), a network focused on studying the interaction between world cities (which obviously encompasses the study of globalisation).
A world city is a city with a global impact – and thus not necessarily synonymous with a megacity. Which is why Brussels (app. 1 million inhabitants, but lots of Eurocrats and lobbyists among them) is one, but much more populous cities like Lagos, Mexico City or Pyongyang aren’t.
“Global impact” naturally is a highly subjective term. Since 1998, the GaWC at Loughborough has tried to define and refine a set of criteria that world cities have to correspond to. I am guessing this map dates from the GaWC’s early days. More recent updates, in 2004 and 2008, have produced sophisticated rankings and subsets of world cities that go beyond just the nine of them on this map.
Nevertheless, in the 2008 update, London and New York are still listed as the only two world cities in the top, “Alpha++” category. The Alpha+ category is made up of Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore and Tokyo (also on this map), but also Sydney, Shanghai and Beijing. All the way down the list are “Gamma-” cities such as Edinburgh, Tallinn, San Diego, Calgary and Doha.
Many thanks to blgfk for sending in this map, taken here. More info on the GaWC on this page at Loughborough University.
* Since there’s three of them instead of two, it would be silly to call them hemispheres.
Great diagram. No chance anyone’s prepared historical versions of this, is there? I’d love to see the world in 1775, 1587, or 1491.
Comment by Bill — May 14, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Very silly, and English centric. London is not, by far, one of the two most important centres in the world.
Comment by Alex — May 14, 2009 @ 12:40 am
How much influence does Singapore have in Australia?
Comment by Sean — May 14, 2009 @ 1:50 am
Yeah, these are way too simplified, even for a simple representation of the world. North America, especially, is missing some very influential centres, like Toronto for its immigration and connections to the greater globe, and Los Angeles for its influence on North American culture.
Comment by David McClelland — May 14, 2009 @ 2:43 am
Your archives still cover up half the map, but I can’t get to the full map by clicking on the map any more.
Comment by bingley — May 14, 2009 @ 3:24 am
Most notable omission is south Asia with 20% of world population. Not that it has big influence, but the map could show who influences them.
Comment by Eric — May 14, 2009 @ 3:59 am
The map forgot Los Angeles (arrows to and fro Central America and East Asia) and Mumbai (arrows to and fro Europe, America, the Middle East, and East Asia).
Comment by Ms. Jen — May 14, 2009 @ 4:47 am
Miami?!!?!?
Comment by WJM — May 14, 2009 @ 5:07 am
Man I miss living in Hong Kong :(
Comment by Lenny — May 14, 2009 @ 5:31 am
Miami a ‘major regional center’? Ridiculous. The creator of the map seems to think that Cuba == Latin America.
Bombay and Moscow would fit nicely as minor regional centers in the non-rendered portion of the map, on the other hand.
Comment by lol — May 14, 2009 @ 6:16 am
Moscow influencing the whole CIS is definitely missing.
Comment by Lars — May 14, 2009 @ 7:00 am
There is a 2008 version of their “Alpha cities” available:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/images/alpha2008c.jpg
A more extensive table with Alpha + Beta cities:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/images/world2008t.jpg
Comment by Dodo — May 14, 2009 @ 8:06 am
I have seen Europe, Middle East, and Africa called EMEA collectively. Simple and easy to say.
Oh, and “Miami’s on the scene just in case you didn’t know it” ;-)
Comment by Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm — May 14, 2009 @ 8:23 am
wonder what impact Miami has on Brasil…
this is the usual anglic hubris: only Tokyo and Paris are non english speaking cities on the map.
I understand that Cold War is no more, but maybe Moscow still has some heavy impact on east europe and asia…
Comment by Bob Milan — May 14, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Published 6 May 1999, which puts Mumbai, Moscow and other named cities in a different position than today.
For context see :
http://info.lut.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb9.html
EMEA is indeed common, with a varying (business) definition of Middle East.
Comment by haveacupoftea — May 14, 2009 @ 9:20 am
In which fictional universe does London have an independent foreign policy?
(And that’s leaving entirely to one side the fact that the UK is in no way, shape or form “im Herzen Europas,” Tory Bliar’s pretentions notwithstanding.)
- Jake
Comment by JakeS — May 14, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Actually, this map makes a fair amount of sense. Providing, of course, that it’s a map of money.
Comment by Terry — May 14, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Re: 17
Exactly! This seems to be more a map of financial hubs more than anything else (although you would STILL wonder where Shanghai, Chicago and Frankfurt are…).
Don’t take your lessons on geostrategic importance from a row of rotten eggs.
Comment by Kochevnik — May 14, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Yeah it’s admittedly Anglocentric. But economically it may very well map the lingering effects of the world system of trade set up by the semi-autonomous English trading companies and enforced by the British navy during the 18th and 19th centuries. I think it’s telling that the two major players in the east Asia and Oceana region are old British trading outposts. That map would look much different but for Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar and Wellington’s at Waterloo. It would probably look a hell of a lot different had Hitler used his eastern Army to seize and hold the oilfields of Iraq and Iran rather than invade Russia also. Interesting.
Comment by Sticky B — May 14, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
And I meant to add: I think they’ve grossly misjudged the importance of Miami in the Americas. I can’t imagine that Miami exerts more influence, either economic, cultural, or any other way over latin America than does either Houston or Los Angeles.
Comment by Sticky B — May 14, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
[...] Panregions: London a regional world city? Another cracker from Strange Maps – this time a map that is as fascinating as it is controversial. It will certainly wind [...]
Pingback by Global Panregions: London a regional world city? « Quaerentia — May 14, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
[...] connection with her new novel, Regenesis, which is a sequel to her 1988 novel, Cyteen. Good news!)382 – Two Eggs and a Kidney: Regional World Cities (Strange Maps is a blog I’ve been reading for quite a while now; check it out if you’re unfamiliar [...]
Pingback by Dunner's: Links for 14 May 2009 — May 14, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Extremely anglo-centric and quite dated vision of the world. London is a major regional actor in Europe but more relevant than Berlin or Paris. Also, it absolutely ignores Madrid as a Major cultural and economical Hub between Latin America and Europe.
Comment by Petrus01 — May 14, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
It would be interesting to see what the ranking criteria are…
It is anglocentric, to be sure. But the world _is_ anglophonocentric these days.
OTOH, it looks as though they have overlooked the Middle East entirely. Maybe there is no one city that is “influential” on their terms, but there is huge influence out of the Middle East: the oil money and Islamic militancy.
I don’t see how one can rank Miami ahead of Los Angeles. Miami has more connection to South America and the Caribbean than L.A. (which is more Mexico-linked, I think). But the world influence of Hollywood is enormous. (One reason I sort of agree with the prominence of Hong Kong in this scheme is the massive influence of Hong Kong cinema.)
Paris is an important city not only in la Francophonie but also in other language spheres. There used to be “Chez Paree” nightclubs all over America; Paris still dominates fashion and cooking.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — May 14, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Seeing London given the significance it was immediately told me I was dealing with something created in the UK. It reminds me of all those old English histories of “Europe” which consisted of the history of English-French wars.
Comment by Konrad Talmont-Kaminski — May 14, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
This is not a new diagram. Anyone familiar with peter Taylor’s work on World Cities and their functional regions of control and influence would recognize this. I do share some of the concerns of the posters above, that there are other variables that may be missing from Taylor’s analysis that are important today. Still, he has a strong legacy in this sort of resarch.
Comment by Darren Purcell — May 14, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
this is silly.
hello – shanghai? taipei?
20% of switzerland’s population is foreign born. the city i live in, the rate is closer to 50%.
vienna is a modern mix of all the countries of the old hapsburg empire.
amsterdam is more diverse than brussels.
this is useless. if you really want to see an interesting map of europe, show the eurovision voting bloc map instead.
Comment by Matt — May 14, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
California is an international economy and Long Beach is one of the largest international shipping ports. That doesn’t give the area some status?
Comment by BigD145 — May 15, 2009 @ 12:14 am
[...] Two Eggs and a Kidney: Regional World Cities | Strange Maps [...]
Pingback by Links Digest - 5/14/09 — May 15, 2009 @ 1:59 am
These maps are always interesting, not least because it sets me thinking. Can this be right? And of course, it is not, it is simplified – too much maybe. The two most glaring omissions are Moscow and New Dehli, and to a certain degree Beijing. Moscow for its influence on energy and the post soviet space and Dehli for the indian subcontinent.
Comment by Pål Julius Skogholt — May 15, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Perhaps this map really depicts air-routes, especially air-freight. I know that most air-freight to Latin America passes through Miami. And I would guess that London holds most of the air-routes into Africa and the MidEast. Still, that’s not what the cartographers are claiming to represent here.
Comment by Solomon Rose — May 15, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Putting Miami as Latinamerica’s main city is too simplistic. While it is true that Miami is a regional center with great influence over the Caribbean, Central America and the Andean Region (where I am from), you cannot say the same for Mexico, Brazil (together more than half the population of Latinamerica) and the Southern Cone.
I think a more accurate regional analysis should have Miami for those subregions, Los Angeles for Mexico and Central America, and Sao Paulo for Brazil and the Southern Cone.
Plus, as Petrus01 said, Madrid has also importance for Latinamerica; it’s its gate to Europe.
Comment by José Carlos — May 15, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
I have a feeling this is a mixture of trading importance and political importance. London Heathrow airport alone is the busiest airport in Europe, handeling 1.3 million tonnes of freight and 62.4 million passengers in 2008. Add to that the influence London (UK) has in the EU, NATO, UN and Brittish Commonwealth and there is a huge amount of influence globally from that one city. The political power of Brussles is seen across Europe, while Paris is not only among the 3 largest trading centres in Europe, but also highly influential in NW Africa. Tokyo, the world’s most populous city is also a major trading and economic hub of Asia, along with Hong Kong and Singapore. New York Harbor is the biggest import port in America, while Miami has great influence in the Carribean, both politically and economically, and Johannesburg influences Africa through the AU. However, Madrid, LA, Moscow, New Dehli, Shanghai, Seoul, Dubai, LA and Sao Paulo shouls also be on this map.
Comment by Alex — May 15, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Seems to be rather the geography of the Shadock’s world…or the Gibus’one may be ?
And the Shadocks pumped, pumped…
Comment by lp — May 15, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
When BofA established a Latin America Caribbean Division it was HQ’d in Latin America because the communications between any two places in LACD and Miami were better than the communications between those two places directly. And this was before Miami had such a great Hispanic population.
While the world, much to its detriment, may no longer be ruled by the Anglosphere, it is still a world created by the Anglosphere, And no one has taken it from the Anglosphere, the Anglosphere has merely relinquished control. And it is odd how those who have come to share the reins speak its language.
As for Moscow, Lagos with snow. When the oil’s gone, so is the influence. That’s what happens whn one stoops to conquer.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — May 16, 2009 @ 12:50 am
Should have said HQ’d in Miami.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — May 16, 2009 @ 12:51 am
“While the world, much to its detriment, may no longer be ruled by the Anglosphere…”
Oh wow. Rarely does one see this level of arrogance anymore.
Comment by A modern major-general — May 16, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Lots of anglophone-haters, wishing THEIR LANGUAGE had most recently taken over the world instead of English, posting here.
But more to the point, I like the map in spite of the seeming oversimplification. The GaWC’s more recent maps have become nothing more than a collection of dots with only raw location to denote their relationships to each other. With this map you can actually see who affects what.
As for the absence of Moscow, if I remember right Moscow had yet to regain its bearings by 1998. This they have done in the past ten years, since this map was made. More interesting is the seeming absence of Los Angeles, western center of the American Hispanic world.
Comment by Don H. — May 16, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Miami doesn’t dominate Latin America as a world city in my view.
Hong Kong has little influence in India. I think Bombay has a fair claim to be a world city in the making.
Moscow has always been an inward-looking city.
What is a world city?
I’d say:
1. A large city that reflects the world in the make up of its people – so not mono-racial or monocultural.
2. A city that has strong trading links with the rest of the world.
3. A city that is a cultural centre and strongly influences world culture.
Los Angeles should be on there for sure.
In reality I think probably only London, Paris, New York and Los Angeles really make the grade.
Tokyo would be there but its make up reflects Japanese insularity.
Comment by marisbo — May 16, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
In my opinion the influential role attributed to Miami in Latin America seems to be restricted to Central America and not the whole southern subcontinent. Madrid, instead, would take that position. It is the equivalent to Paris with Francophone Africa. I think Spanish trade links with Latin America are not much weaker than USA ones. Let´s not mention the cultural ties, which make the Atlantic a tiny herring pond. The influence travels both ways.
Comment by Piscarciano — May 16, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
What about Houston, or Vancouver Canada?
Comment by Steve — May 16, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
wow, do they think all the south americans are immigrants going to US on a boat?
Miami don’t have almost any impact in the South Cone or Brazil…
LA, São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City… are cities more important in America.
Comment by Navorski — May 17, 2009 @ 12:47 am
On Miami, there are actually a lot of argentines there now. Recent arrivals.
Someone else said as a map of money moving it is more realistic. Leaving South Asia out is pretty stupid, and London has very strong links there. Madrid should be on the list: there is a lot of money invested in South America, and a lot of people as well.
But all in all a fairly useless diagram.
Comment by charlie — May 17, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
“Lots of anglophone-haters, wishing THEIR LANGUAGE had most recently taken over the world instead of English, posting here.”
So pointing out obvious omissions in this map is “anglophone-hating”?
Comment by A modern major-general — May 17, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
I’m an anglophone, and this “map” is bunk.
Comment by WJM — May 17, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Interesting maps, but it’s hard to discuss them since we don’t know what they represent, really :-) Seems to me they represent a very subjective view of the world. Which doesn’t mean that it’s competely untrue.
Comment by Florence — May 18, 2009 @ 10:24 am
It would be nice to see the figures the maps are based on. E.g. business hqs, stock exchange turnovers, etc. Diagrams without figures aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
Comment by Jan Wiklund — May 18, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Anything from Loughborugh University is fine by me;-)
Comment by lordhutton — May 18, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Miami as a regional center for Latin America? That’s a superficial and prejudicial perception. Miami has zero influence in Brazil and the southern countries of South America, that have together more than half of latin american population and two thirds of the money. In that region the center is Sao Paulo, with some roles played by Buenos Aires and Rio. Miami? Please! Wake up for the 21st Century, the ship left long time ago, and americans and europeans in general are still in the harbour.
Comment by Marco Bonalume — May 19, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
According to GaWC Research Bulletin, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html, the order is this (Miami is very low on the scale, scoring 4):
The GaWC inventory of world cities
Cities are ordered in terms of world city-ness with values ranging from 1- 12
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
5: Bangkok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw
4: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Buenos Aires, Budapest, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai
D. EVIDENCE OF WORLD CITY FORMATION
Di Relatively strong evidence
3: Athens, Auckland, Dublin, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Lyon, Mumbai, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Tel Aviv, Vienna
Dii Some evidence
2: Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Birmingham, Bogota, Bratislava, Brisbane, Bucharest, Cairo, Cleveland, Cologne, Detroit, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kiev, Lima, Lisbon, Manchester, Montevideo, Oslo, Rotterdam, Riyadh, Seattle, Stuttgart, The Hague, Vancouver
Diii Minimal evidence
1: Adelaide, Antwerp, Arhus, Baltimore, Bangalore, Bologna, Brazilia, Calgary, Cape Town, Colombo, Columbus, Dresden, Edinburgh, Genoa, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Kansas City, Leeds, Lille, Marseille, Richmond, St Petersburg, Tashkent, Tehran, Tijuana, Turin, Utrecht, Wellington
Comment by Jan Wiklund — May 19, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
@Kochevnik(post #18)
I agree with everything you wrote. Where are Beijing, Berlin, Moscow, and Chicago? By the way, most midwesterners want absolutely nothing to do with New York. Chicago
I would like to add that the British still believe they have “empire,” and that this map was drawn from an outdated British world view, circa 1946.
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — May 19, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Whoops, a clarification: Most people living in the Midwest AND in the West want absolutely nothing to do with New York.
Imagine that the cold war has started, and then look at these maps again. I often wonder why the British world view is stuck in 1946.
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — May 19, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Remarkable how Anglospheric this is.
The Anglosphere created the international economic order, and the cities it either still occupies (London, NYC) or founded (Hong Kong, Singapore) still dominate their regions.
Comment by Lexington Green — May 20, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Yes this really is just a map of financial flows, and reflects the 90’s-00’s tendency of some British academics to equate ‘number of stockbrokers’ with ’success’. Any predictions on how the map will look in 3-4 years time?
@BourgoisesPig-
“the British still believe they have “empire”"
I like this, ‘empire’ as an indefinable quality. As in, “Say what you like about Americans, but you can’t deny they’ve got empire”.
Also- When did you last meet a British person? 1970?
Comment by Baptist Nunn — May 20, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
If Miami operates as a service centre for Caribbean tax havens (?), I should think that might be the reason why it’s so highly rated.
Comment by Baptist Nunn — May 21, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Interesting. I never thought of it that way. Not sure of the choices of areas, but the representation’s interesting.
Comment by Gabe — May 22, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
Britain may wish it still had an empire, but the reality is that we recognise that is has gone, and so look to creating strong economic ties with countries both in the commonwealth, and without it in order to maintain its global prowess. Also, while the Cold War is over, for now, anyone doubting that there is still a clear division of East and West should look at any voting pattern for the Eurovision Song Contest 2000-2008 (2009 changes, but impossible to tell if this is just an anomoly). Russia always scores highly from countries in Eastern Europe.
Comment by Alex — May 24, 2009 @ 9:41 am
@Baptist Nunn (post #54)
The American “empire” may vanish – just as soon as the Chinese realize that they are holding trillions of dollars in worthless US treasuries…… Trade war, anyone?
Say goodbye to what is left of the British empire. The Brits will have to lose the Pound and the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth remains, it will become a European Commonwealth, and not a British one. These things are necessary in order for Britain become fully subordinate to the European Union.
Interesting how English has become a “traffic language” for world trade. It is not used as a declaration of affinity nor as a sign of allegiance to any single country……. Global economy, indeed!
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — May 26, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Britain doesn’t want to become subordinate to the EU. In fact, the ongoing MPs expenses scandal means that the likleyhood of anti-EU parties like UKIP and No EU, Yes Democracy gaining seats is growing.
Comment by Alex — May 31, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
I started this discussion also in my Blog http://www.worldcities.it/
Check it out!
ciao
-A
Comment by Andrea — August 29, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
I have to agree with previous posters that there is a much stronger case for Los Angeles as opposed to Miami.
As for South Asia, if this imagined map is from an Anglo-phone viewpoint, then there should be an additional arrow from London to South Asia. The same could be said for Oceania (London-Oceania, instead of Singapore).
Comment by Avenue — September 7, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
I agree with everything you wrote. Where are Beijing, Berlin, Moscow, and Chicago? By the way, most midwesterners want absolutely nothing to do with New York. Chicago
I would like to add that the British still believe they have “empire,” and that this map was drawn from an outdated British world view, circa 1242
Comment by dberi — September 18, 2009 @ 1:50 pm