Suchergebnisse

Since the classic work of Castells (1972), the 'urban question' has been a focal point for debate among critical urban researchers. Against the background of contemporary debates on globalization and urban restructuring, this article argues that the urban question is currently being redefined as a scale question. The first part of the essay reconstructs the diverse scalar assumptions that were implicit within earlier rounds ofdebate on the urban question and argues that, since the early 1990s, urban researchers have confronted questions of scale with an unprecedented methodological self‐reflexivity. Under contemporary conditions of 'glocalization' scholars are systematically rethinking the relations between urban spaces and supraurban processes of capital accumulation, political regulation and social struggle. The second part of the article explores the urban question as a scale question through the lens of Henri Lefebvre's writings on space, scale and state power. The author argues that three aspectsof Lefebvre's work are particularly relevant to the task of reconceptualizing the urban question as a scale question in the current period: (1) his notion of an 'implosion‐explosion' of urbanization; (2) his theorization of state spatiality; and (3) his analysis of the politics of scale. The urban remains a fundamental arena of capitalist spatiality, but its social, political and economic dynamics hinge increasingly upon its relations to a wide range of supraurban geographical scales. Lefebvre's approach to sociospatialtheory provides a particularly useful source of methodological insights for decoding the scalar dimensions of the urban question in the current era of global, national and local restructuring.Depuis le travail classique de Castells (1972) 'la question urbaine' a été un point central de débat pour la recherche urbain critique. Dans le contexte des débats contemporains sur la globalisation et la restructuration urbaine, cet article soutient quela question urbaine est actuellement redéfinie comme une question dééchelle. La premiére partie de l'essai reconstruit les différents postulats concernant les échelles quiétaient implicites dans les générations précédentes des débats sur la question urbaine. Depuis le début des anne??es quatre‐vingt‐dix les chercheurs urbains ont fait face aux questions d'eéchelle avec un méthodologie réflexive sans précédent. Dans les conditionscontemporaines de 'glocalisation', la recherche urbaine repense systématiquement les relations entre les espaces urbains et les processus supra‐urbains d'accumulation du capital, de réglementation politique et de luttes sociales. La seconde partie de l'article explore la question urbaine comme une question d'échelle á travers les écrits d'Henri Lefebvre sur l'espace, l'échelle et le pouvoir de l'état. L'auteur maintient que trois aspects du travail de Lefebvre sont particuliérement pertinents á la reconceptualisation de la question urbaine comme une question d'échelle dans la période actuelle: (1) sa notion 'd'implosion‐explosion' de l'urbanisation; (2) sa théorie de l'espace étatique; et (3) son analyse des politiques d'échelle. L'urbanisme reste un champ fondamental á l'espace capitaliste mais sa dynamique sociale, politique et économique repose de plus en plus sur ses relations avec un grand nombre d'échelles géographiques supra‐urbaines.L'approche de Lefebvre sur la théorie socio‐spatiale offre une source particuliérement utile d'aperçus méthodologiques pour déchiffrer les dimensions de l'échelle de la question urbaine dans l'ére actuelle de restructuration globale, nationale et locale.

Examines the changing relationship between global cities & territorial states in contemporary Europe & outlines some of its implications for the geography of world capitalism in the late 20th century. Most accounts of global cities are based on a zero-sum conception of spatial scale that leads to an emphasis on the declining power of the territorial state: as the global scale expands, the state scale contracts. By contrast, globalization is viewed here as a highly contradictory reconfiguration of superimposed spatial scales, including those on which the territorial state is organized. The state scale is not being eroded, but rearticulated & reterritorialized in relation to both sub- & suprastate scales. The resultant, rescaled configuration of state territorial organization is provisionally labeled a "glocal" state. As nodes of accumulation, global cities are sites of post-Fordist forms of global industrialization; as coordinates of state territorial power, global cities are local-regional levels within a larger, reterritorialized matrix of increasingly "glocalized" state institutions. State rescaling is a major accumulation strategy through which these transformed glocal territorial states attempt to promote the global competitive advantage of their major urban regions. Global city formation & state rescaling are therefore dialectically intertwined moments of a single dynamic of global capitalist restructuring. It is argued that new theories & representations of spatial scale & its social production are needed to grasp the rapidly changing political geography of late-20th-century capitalism. 2 Figures, 162 References. Adapted from the source document.

Drawing upon Lefebvre's theory of state space, this essay interprets currently unfolding transformations of state form as a reconfiguration of the spatial scales on which state power is deployed. Various transformations of regional and urban planning policies in the FRG since the early 1970s indicate the state's crucial role in the production and restructuring of social space in an era of intensified globalization. The major role ofregional and local state institutions as both agents and sites of capitalist restructuring suggests that contemporary territorial states are not being eroded or dissolved in the face of globalization but re-scaled and reterritorialized.