Different cities in different welfare states

Abstract

There is a tendency in the recent social science literature on cities to assume that global economic restructuring creates similar urban development in all industrialised or post-industrial countries. There are different trajectories for different categories of cities such as ‘global cities’, ‘regional centres’, or ‘dying former industrial centres’, which are explained by their different positions in the global economy. At the same time the similarities between the cities of different countries and the differences between the similar cities of different countries have received less attention. It is the basic assumption in this chapter that national institutions, particularly the welfare state, have shaped and will continue to shape the development of cities. The trajectories of the different categories of cities are assumed to be different within different welfare states. Thus, there is not only international convergence in urban development processes, but there is also significant divergence across different welfare states. Three major themes related to the basic assumption about the impact of the welfare state on the city are discussed. The first is related to the social and spatial history of cities and the impact of the welfare state on the process of urbanisation. It is argued that cities that developed before the expansion of the welfare state are different from cities that developed parallel to the development of the welfare state. The second theme is related to social and political structures within the cities and to the impact of the welfare state on the shaping of interests, political actors and partnerships in cities.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.