URBAN AND REGIONAL University of RESEARCH Michigan COLLABORATIVE Working Paper www.caup.umich.edu/workingpapers Series URRC 03-08 The Enduring Importance of National Capital Cities in the Global Era 2003 Scott Campbell Urban and Regional Planning Program College of Architecture and Urban Planning University of Michigan 2000 Bonisteel Blvd. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2069 [email protected] Abstract: This paper reports on the early results of a longer comparative project on capital cities. Specifically, it examines the changing role of national capital cities in this apparent global era. Globalization theory suggests that threats to the monopoly power of nation-states and the rise of a transnational network of global economic cities are challenging the traditional centrality of national capital cities. Indeed, both the changing status of nation-states and the restructuring world economy will reshuffle the current hierarchy of world cities, shift the balance of public and private power in capitals, and alter the current dominance of capitals as the commercial and governmental gateway between domestic and international spheres. However, claims in globalization theory that a new transnational system of global cities will make national boundaries, national governments and national capitals superfluous, albeit theoretically provocative, are arguably both ahistorical and improvident. Though one does see the spatial division of political and economic labor in some modern countries, especially in federations (e.g., Washington-New York; Ottawa-Toronto; Canberra-Sydney; Brasilia-Sao Paolo), the more common pattern is still the co- location of government and commerce (e.g., London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Cairo). The emergence of global cities is intricately tied to the rise of nation-states -- and thus to the capital cities that govern them. Greater attention to the political economy of capital cities illuminates the continued interdependence between national government activity and global economics in the urbanization process. As such, "the local and the global" is a true but only partial depiction of the tensions in a capital city. Capitals also juxtapose local and national interests, as well as national versus international interests. Author’s Note: an earlier version of this paper was presented at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, April 4-8, 2000. Note: the ideas expressed in the working paper series are the sole opinion of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Urban and Regional Planning Program, University of Michigan. 2 The Study of National Capital Cities Capital cities are an easily defined but poorly understood class of cities. Often marginalized in urban research as merely administrative centers, capitals are also symbolic theaters for national ideology, a reflection of the larger national stance towards urbanism, a catalyst of national economic development, and at least historically a bridge between local culture and the "imagined community" of the nation-state. There is no theoretically precise academic literature that concisely explains the role of capital cities in the modern era. The various themes found in capitals have been fragmented and absorbed by other disciplines. The resulting literature on capital cities consists of a diverse collection of writings by architects, historians, political scientists, urban planners and sociologists — each addressing different aspects of capital cities, without creating a single, explicit theory of capital city development. Though there is a wealth of writings on the description, history and architecture of individual capital cities, a bibliographic search for theoretical writings explicitly on capital cities leads to a surprisingly short set of readings (Clark and Lepetit 1996; Cornish 1971; Eldredge 1975; Gottmann 1977; Gottmann 1983; Gottmann 1985; Taylor, Lengellé, and Andrew 1993; Vale 1992). As Rapoport notes, "...little has been written about capitals as a type, as opposed to specific capitals..." (Rapoport 1993, 31). In previous research on the urban economic development of Berlin, the need to place the German Hauptstadt in a larger theoretical context directly confronted me with this lack of capital city theory (Campbell 2000). The experience of Berlin is so exceptional that a literal generalization to other capitals would be unwise. However, exceptional cases are catalysts for rethinking theory (Campbell 1998; George 1979; Yin 1994). Berlin's bizarre history offered the unusual opportunity to observe the loss and recent recovery of the national government seat. The city's rapid, 20th Century transformation as the capital of an imperial, then a republican, then a fascist, and finally to a decentralized democratic government, demonstrated the challenge for capital cities to adapt to (or resist) broader historical revolutions. The capital city debate in 1991 between Berlin and Bonn — as well as subsequent controversies over renovation of historic buildings and architectural plans for new government buildings — revealed a broader debate over national identity (Campbell 1999). Political battles in the city highlighted the alternately collaborative and conflicting relationship between the local residents and the national power-brokers of the capital. Finally, the current economic policy of restoring Berlin to its prewar status as a world economic city is conflicting with the new competitive realities of global economic networks. From this Berlin research I identified ten broad questions that can form the future foundation of a more general capital city research agenda. (This paper addresses a subset of these larger issues.) 1. What are capital cities and how do they differ as a group from non-capitals? URRC 03-08 www.caup.umich.edu/workingpapers 3 2. How do individual capital cities differ from one another (e.g., based on city size, year of origin, function, national government structure)? 3. How has the role of capital cities changed over time in response to the historical transformation of the nation-state? 4. Is there a unique local economy of capital cities? 5. What are the origins and implications of the local political structure of capital cities (e.g., a separate capital district vs. integrated into the national political geography)? 6. What are the tensions between neighborhood, municipal, national and global interests in a capital city? 7. How does the nation-state express its identity through the capital city (in particular through its architecture)? 8. What is the impact of the location of capital cities and of political efforts to relocate capital cities (such as in Brazil, Australia, Germany, Malaysia and Japan)? 9. What is the relationship between capital cities and global cities? 10. What are the broader implications (generalizations) of capital city research? The Uniqueness of Capital Cities: How are capital cities different from non-capitals? "The capital is by definition a seat of power and a place of decision-making processes that affect the lives and the future of the nation ruled, and that may influence trends and events beyond its borders. Capitals differ from other cities: the capital function secures strong and lasting centrality; it calls for a special hosting environment to provide what is required for the safe and efficient performance of the functions of government and decision-making characteristics of the place." (Gottmann and Harper 1990, 63) By simple definition, national capital cities are the seat of the national government within the country. This role can vary widely across different capital cities, but in general capitals are unique from other cities because they provide a special site for the concentration, administration and representation of political power. Which of these three roles is preeminent for the capital depends on the observer. For the political scientist, the capital is the seat of power and administration. For the economist, it is the location of a disproportionate share of public sector employment. (For the macro- economist, it is often where trade, industrial and monetary policy is made.) For the architect, it is the URRC 03-08 www.caup.umich.edu/workingpapers 4 lucrative site of representative buildings, monuments and parks.1 If the consequence of being a capital was limited to housing a disproportionately large concentration of government employees, then one would be tempted to see a capital city as simply a typical city with a lot of public sector administrative buildings. A capital would therefore be no more different from a manufacturing city as the latter is different from a commercial city, and so on. However, this specific function of capital cities not only leads to a distinctive labor market, but also to dramatically different municipal structures, land use patterns, local economic base, architectures, tourism, local cultures and political identities. One sees these complex differences, for example, in the very different material and cultural experience of New York City and Washington. These differences extend far beyond the obvious functional contrast between Wall Street and Capitol Hill to shape different municipal politics, high and low cultures, and the residential neighborhoods (compare Greenwich Village to Georgetown). Capitals are thus both directly and indirectly different from other cities. One manifestation is that the capital city is usually larger, more subsidized, or more bombastic than the rest of the nation's cities. National governments treat