Does World City Network Research Need Eigenvectors?

Abstract

In a 2011 paper, I introduced the conceptual distinction between positions of centrality and power in world city networks and offered a new measure—now called alter-based centrality—designed to quantify the network positions of cities. Here, I respond to some conceptual and mathematical critiques of those ideas raised by Boyd et al. (2013) in their Comment on Neal (2011). On the conceptual side, I clarify the definitions of centrality and power, the relevance of exchange power in world city networks and the appropriate depth of network measures in this context. On the mathematical side, I clarify the relationship between alter-based centrality and other measures, and explore the limitations of two alternatives: eigenvector and beta centrality. This Reply concludes by noting that each measure has its own strengths and weaknesses, but that researchers should aim to use measures that are no more complex than necessary.

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 — 46 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.