Our original piece has a stronger focus on the economic than the political or governance issues implicated in urban entrepreneurialism. Ultimately, it is also more focused on an interest in land and land value capture than the financialization that might be thought to be consequent upon them. Without denying an element of relationality in urban entrepreneurial affairs, it is also conservative in its ostensibly scalar reading of urban entrepreneurialism. If these are criticisms that can be levelled at our piece, they also raise as many questions as they answer.
AcutoM (2020) Whatever happened to urban governance?Dialogues in Human Geography10(3): 336–340.
2.
AlexanderSGleesonB (2018) Degrowth in the Suburbs: A Radical Urban Imaginary. Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan.
3.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2010) Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28(5): 803–818.
4.
BrennerN (1998) Between fixity and motion: accumulation, territorial organization and the historical geography of spatial scales. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space16(4): 459–481.
5.
BulkeleyHCastán BrotoV (2013) Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer38(3): 361–375.
6.
HallTHubbardP (1996) The entrepreneurial city: New urban politics, new urban geographies?Progress in Human Geography20(2): 153–174.
7.
HarveyD (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography71: 3–17.
8.
HeS (2020) Urban entrepreneurialism 2.0? Financialization, cross-scale dynamics, and post-political governance. Dialogues in Human Geography10(3): 322–325.
9.
JonasAEG (2006) Pro scale: further reflections on the ‘scale debate’ in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers31: 399–406.
10.
JonasAEG (2020) The new urban managerialism in geopolitical context. Dialogues in Human Geography10(3): 330–335.
11.
MiaoJT (2018) Parallelism and evolution in transnational policy transfer networks: the case of Sino-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP). Regional Studies52: 1191–1200.
12.
MiaoJTMaclennanD (2019) The rhetoric–reality gap of cities’ success: learning from the practice of Scottish cities. Regional Studies53(12): 1761–1771.
13.
MiaoJTPhelpsNA (2019) The intrapreneurial state: Singapore’s emergence in the smart and sustainable urban solutions field. Territory, Politics, Governance7: 316–335.
14.
PhelpsNA (2010) Suburbs for nations? Some interdisciplinary connections on the suburban economy. Cities27: 68–76.
15.
PhelpsNA (2012) The growth machine stops?Urban Politics and the Making and Remaking of an Edge city. Urban Affairs Review48(5): 670–700.
16.
PhelpsNA (2017) Interplaces: An Economic Geography of the Inter-Urban and International Economies. Oxford: OUP.
17.
PhelpsNAMiaoJT (2020) Varieties of urban entrepreneurialism. Dialogues in Human Geography10(3): 304–321. DOI: 10.1177/2043820619890438
18.
WolmanH (2008) Comparing local government systems across countries: conceptual and methodological challenges to building a field of comparative local government studies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26: 87–103.
19.
WoodAM (1998) Making sense of urban entrepreneurialism. Scottish Geographical Magazine114: 120–123.
20.
WuF (2020) The state acts through the market: ‘state entrepreneurialism’ beyond varieties of urban entrepreneurialism. Dialogues in Human Geography10(3): 326–329.
