It’s overstated that borders are irrelevant; referencing
Scott: cities are signing treaties (Kyoto) and forming embassies in other
nations. In our system, cities function at the mercy of states, reinforced by tax
code. Should cities retain their taxes--what affects would that have on
suburbanization, resource use and poverty (devastating federal power &
rural areas)? Does multinational capital flow weaken national borders? Don’t we
require state regulations against abuse of those powers? Multinational blocs
appear solely economic and weak: the EU’s recent existential battle based on
nation-state economics illustrates. The United States were a confederation of
independent nation-states under a historically weak central government. That
changed, and city-regions are powerful economic and political players (New York,
LA, Chicago foremost). Our economies are independent from others, however,
highly interdependent. However, interdependence isn’t indivisibility. Strong
trade linkages can’t ignore intraregional supply and demand, nor the political
realities of nation-states. Notwithstanding agglomeration, the ongoing shifts
in diffused producers and wiki-sizing have yet to be fully realized. Recently
Yahoo forced all remote employees back to their central offices--these are
parallel debates. Based on their actions,
few business leaders and city managers understand the functions/benefits of
agglomeration. I’m not sure I do.
No comments:
Post a Comment