This comment argues that postcolonial critiques of the Global Cities literature need to articulate more robust analytical frameworks for empirical research of globalized urbanism. It supports the call for comparative frameworks that focus on how key ‘genetic’ features of cities mutate within different geographical configurations, conditions and processes to evolve into ‘global’ cities.
FriedmannJ (1986) The world city hypothesis. Development and Change17(1): 69–83.
6.
RobinsonJ (2002) Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research26(3): 531–554.
7.
RobinsonJ (2015) Thinking cities through elsewhere. Progress in Human Geography40(1): 3–29.
8.
RoyA (2009) The 21st-century metropolis: new geographies of theory. Regional Studies43(6): 819–830.
9.
SassenS (2001) Global cities and global city-regions: a comparison. In: ScottAJ (ed) Global City-regions: Trends, Theory, Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.78–95.
10.
ScottAJStorperM (2015) The nature of cities: the scope and limits of urban theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research39(1): 1–15.
11.
van MeeterenMDerudderBBassensD (2016) Can the straw man speak? An engagement with postcolonial critiques of ‘global cities research’. Dialogues in Human Geography (XX). DOI:10.1177/2043820616675984.
12.
World Bank (2009) World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington: World Bank.
