Twin cities PDF

Preview

Summary

1–16, 2012 Twin Cities: Territorial and Relational Geographies of ‘Worldly’ Manchester Mark Jayne, Philip Hubbard and David Bell [Paper first received, August 2010; in final form, March 2012] Abstract This paper contributes to recent interest in city twinning by urban theorists. It begins with a rev...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Twin cities Phil Hubbard

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Jayne, Mark , Hubbard, Phil and Bell, David(2011) 'Worlding a cit y: T winning and urban t heory', C… Phil Hubbard

'Cit y Diplomacy' and T winning: Lessons from t he UK, China and Globally Benjamin Leffel Towards a Polit ical Geography of Territ orial Cooperat ion Transnat ional Regions and Cit y Net works in P… Emmanuelle Boulineau

1–16, 2012

Twin Cities: Territorial and Relational Geographies of ‘Worldly’ Manchester Mark Jayne, Philip Hubbard and David Bell [Paper first received, August 2010; in final form, March 2012]

Abstract This paper contributes to recent interest in city twinning by urban theorists. It begins with a review of writing from across the social sciences which describes the institutional context and content of twinning programmes, as well as work which theorises how care and hospitality are key elements of twinning practices. Ethnographic research is then presented from the City of Manchester (UK) in order to consider the ways in which twinning is constituted through circuits, networks and webs of co-operation and competition involved in the transfer of policy and knowledge which can be strategic, uneven and at times ambivalent. In doing so, it is argued that the conflicts, tensions and contradictions bound up with twinning have much to offer theoretical and empirical understanding of territorial and relational urban politics. The paper concludes with theoretical, methodological and policy relevant insights.

Introduction In seeking to advance understanding of city twinning, this paper discusses circuits, networks and webs of co-operation and competition through which urban policy and knowledge are constituted and are transferred from city to city via the work of public- and private-sector e´lites and

community groups (Clarke, 2009a, 2009b; Grosspietsch, 2009; Jayne et al., 2010). Twinning is a widespread practice that has proliferated around the world with citizens usually made aware of international partnerships though civic visitation, educational exchanges and cultural co-operation. In the

Mark Jayne is in the School of Environment and Development, Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: mark.jayne@ manchester.ac.uk. Philip Hubbard is in the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Gillingham Building, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4AG, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. David Bell is in the School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. 0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online Ó 2012 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098012450480

2

MARK JAYNE ET AL.

UK alone, 1399 cities, towns and villages have entered into 2535 twinning partnerships (in 90 countries around the world), which Clarke (2008a, 2008b) suggests represents an example of ‘globalisation of care’ which ‘produce proximities’ as part of urban ‘statecraft’ involved in a ‘new politics of scale’ and ‘localism’ and through the activities of ‘bottom–up’ social movements. In this paper, we highlight how attention to twinning can contribute to broader research agendas associated with uncovering ‘actually existing neo-liberalisation’ (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Peck, 2004) and more specifically in interrogating the relational and territorial practices and processes bound up with urban knowledge and policy transfer (Ward, 2006; McCann, 2010; McCann and Ward, 2010). In particular, we are interested in the extent to which twinning works to bind city networks (Leitner and Sheppard, 2002; Taylor, 2004; Massey, 2007) in order to enhance flows of global mobility through acts of reciprocity and exchange (Urry, 2007) and the ways in which twinning exists in (and through) cities via flows of knowledge and policy transfer which vary in terms of degrees of speed and intensity (Doel and Hubbard, 2002). Moreover, the fact that twinning involves exchanges of ideas, people, goods, food, products, art and so on reminds us of the need ‘‘to multiply the readings of the city’’ (Lefebvre, 1995, p. 159) and here we also examine how the heterogeneity of twinning practices can be seen contribute to geographical conceptualisations which stress the agency of cities (Massey, 2007; Amin and Thrift, 2004). However, alongside consideration of ‘relational’ urban theory, we are also interested in the ways in which twinning is differentially and discursively constructed through the territoriality of cities. For example, although supportive of relational thinking and its goals towards ‘‘an open-ended

mobile, networked and actor centred geographic becoming’’ (Jones, 2009, p. 497), Jones also argues that there is a need to pay attention to how relationality is constructed, anchored and mobilised in and through territorial defined political, socioeconomic and cultural strategies (Jones, 2009, p. 494).

Towards that end, we present ethnographic research from the City of Manchester (UK), including 16 in-depth interviews undertaken with local authority officers, councillors and community groups involved in Manchester’s twinning activities. Nine indepth interviews were also undertaken with representatives from Manchester’s twin partner cities of Rehovot (Israel), Chemnitz (Germany), Cordoba (Spain), Faisalabad (Pakistan), Bilwi (Nicaragua), St Petersburg (Russia), Wuhan (China), Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and Osaka (Japan). All of these interviews were undertaken in English with city representatives who are fluent speakers experienced in conversing as part of their twinning work. The interviews were transcribed and subjected to systematic multistage qualitative analysis (Baxter and Eyles, 1997), including two levels of coding: ‘in vivo’ codes drawing on terms used by the respondents and ‘constructed’ codes developed by the researchers. The codes from interviewees’ accounts were compared in order to generate dominant and counter themes (Strauss, 1987). The quotes have been annonymised and are verbatim with any editing highlighted.

Urban Studies and Twinning The relatively small amount of academic attention paid to twinning has focused on ceremonies and rituals (food, fetes, music), the promotion of trade and technical

CITY TWINNING

co-operation, effective communication and work cultures, and interpersonal relations as key elements of successful twinning (see for example, Ewen and Hebbert, 2007; Saunier and Ewen, 2008; Cremer et al., 2001; Furmankiewicz, 2007; Baldersheim, 2002; Vion, 2002, 2007; Papagarufali, 2005). Others have considered geographies and histories of twinning, including the political and economic drivers of twinning as well as seeking to unravel the nature of social and cultural networks created by government bodies, social and citizens groups (Clarke, 2009a, 2009b; Grosspietsch, 2009; Jayne et al., 2010). However, the author that undoubtedly best characterises both the limitations and potentialities of the majority of research into city twinning is Wilbur Zelinsky who argued that the study of twinning offers vital insights into the ‘‘transnationalisation of society and culture’’ and who describes twinning as a potential ‘‘entering wedge’’ to allow theorists to begin unpack ‘‘the vast subject of globalising society’’ (Zelinsky, 1991, p. 2). In seeking to capture the complexity of twinning Zelinsky (1991, p. 4) stresses that ‘‘genuine reciprocity of effort and benefit, with neither community profiting at the expense of the other’’ is a key tenet of twinning, adding that many city-to-city or citizen-to-citizen relationships are underpinned by ideological connections and/or humanitarian programmes which are often at odds with official supranational, national or city political agendas and policies. In focusing on a ‘transnationalisation of society and culture’ Zelinsky (1991) thus offers a tantalising glimpse of the way in which studying city twinning can contribute to the advancement of urban theory. Questions asked by Zelinsky include: what sorts of people are involved in twinning, to what extent and in what ways? Who is not involved and why? What are the measurable economic and political results of twinning

3

in the short and long term? What is the impact of twinning on the community and individuals? How have attitudes and perceptions changed because of twinning activities? How has consciousness of distant people and places been raised? How does twinning compare with other movements/ connections—tourism, church missions, religious pilgrimages, trade fairs, labour migration, telecommunications, college students’ movements, commercial dealings, non-government organisations and other networks? Unfortunately, however, the majority of research questions asked by Zelinsky have been left unanswered. Indeed, the empirically focused approach of Zelinsky ultimately set a precedent where researchers continually point to the importance of the topic, offering rich and detailed case study material from around the world but ultimately fail to make a case for just what theoretical work it is that studying city twinning achieves (Cremer et al., 2001; Baldersheim, 2002; Vion, 2002; Jain, 2004; Ewen and Hibbert, 2007; Saunier and Ewen, 2008; Furmankiewicz, 2007). In contrast, Nick Clarke (2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 20090b) has developed a critical account showing how, in the UK since 1945, twinning must be understood as part of ‘new localism’ and a ‘new politics of scale’ bound up with the emergence of neoliberal governance. Clarke (2009a) locates twinning activities as transsovereign politics associated with ‘urban entrepreneurialism’, related to shifts from government to governance bound up with capitalist restructuring—both upwards to the supranational scale and downwards to the regional, urban and local scales. Clarke argues that twinning must be theorised as an outcome of state-spatial restructuring and points to issues such as ‘municipal foreign policy’, ‘community development’ and ‘local government restructuring’ as examples of how twinning has now become

4

MARK JAYNE ET AL.

indicative of contemporary urban ‘fast policy’, interurban networking as well as a marginalisation of ‘bottom–up’ localism that has historically been a key feature of twinning programmes. Following Zelinsky, Clarke (2009b) highlights that twinning has been used to extend care across space, emphasising moral motivations and a spirit of equality and reciprocity as a means to forge political community across national boundaries. However, arguing that twinning appears to be changing in character Clark (2009b, p. 12) suggests that attempts to globalise care through twinning have been negatively affected by contemporary neo-liberal policy agendas. The popularity of tightly focused projects, the clear benefit of which must be demonstrated via the institutionalisation of monitoring, evaluation and auditing have, according to Clarke, permeated twinning partnerships with performance being measured against targets at regular intervals. Clarke suggests then that it is ‘care-in-a-hurry’ which now dominates public- and private-sector e´lite involvement in capturing the economic benefits of twinning. Clarke’s work is important in that it discusses twinning in terms of broader theoretical debates relating to networks and connections, changing modes of urban governance, institutional thickness, regime theory, ‘neo-liberalisation’ and ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ strategies of capital accumulation (Amin and Thrift, 1995; Horan and Jona,s, 1998; Geddes, 2005). However, while Clarke’s work undoubtedly represents an important advance in theoretical engagement with twinning, Jayne et al. (2010) suggest that, in drawing on regulation and state theory, Clarke’s structural political economy approach does not fully allow theoretical understanding of the complexity of political, economic, social, cultural and spatial practices and processes which constitutes city twinning. For example, Clarke’s

argument fails to acknowledge that twinning is not subject to the formal monitoring and evaluation associated with contemporary urban governance, but that success is ‘performed’ through rituals of ‘hospitality’. In this paper, therefore, we emphasise intimate moments of hospitality that are relied on to facilitate particular political and economic (although often unmeasurable) returns by affecting long-term and ‘at a distance’ outcomes which capitalise on the ‘special relationships’ between twinning partners. In doing so, we show that what Clarke (2009a) describes as ‘bottom–up localism’ characterising twinning via humanitarian and political solidarity (based on notions of relational unbounded progressive relations and connectivity) has always been constrained and structured by national and local agendas and policy.

Twinning, Entrepreneurial Urbanism and Territorial/Relational Cities: Manchester as a Worldly City In the remainder of this paper, we work at the intersection of debates about city twinning and wider discussion about relational and territorial urbanism. By focusing on the transfer of urban knowledge and policy bound up with the City of Manchester’s (UK) twinning activities we draw on Cook and Ward’s (2011) critical review of Manchester’s Olympic and Commonwealth Games bids which emerges from a longer tradition of theoretical engagement with urban policy and knowledge transfer (see for example, Harvey, 1989; Cochrane et al., 1996; Cox and Mair, 1988; Stone, 2004; Peck and Theodore, 2002; McCann, 2010). In order to reveal the underlying motivations and expectations of public- and private-sector e´lites who visit (and are visited by representatives of) other cities in

CITY TWINNING

order to amass knowledge and policy inspiration, Cook and Ward (2011, p. 2519) call for researchers to take seriously ‘‘the circuits, networks and webs in and through which urban knowledge and learning is constituted and moved around’’ and highlight the importance of rethinking ‘territoriality vis-a`-vis relationality’ in order to understand how cities as territories are constantly being assembled, disassembled and reassembled . [through] fixity in motion . [and the ways in which] cities are parts of circuits, networks and webs in and through which they compare and learn (Cook and Ward, 2011, p. 2531).

Building on previous work focused on the City of Manchester as a UK exemplar of the movement from ‘municipal socialism’ to ‘new urban politics’, Cook and Ward focus on the city’s position in trans-urban networks of learning and how these informed the Games projects and the development of the city more generally (Cook and Ward, 2011, p. 2520; also see Peck and Ward, 2002; Randell, 1995; Quilley, 1999).

Comparing Cook and Ward’s findings with our own research into Manchester’s twinning partnerships highlights a number of important key similarities as well as significant points of departure that, when read together help to illuminate the contested and complicated nature of territorial and relational urban politics. Before engaging in this dialogue it is important to note that public-sector actors from Manchester City Council and other partner organisations were well rehearsed in their responses during interviews—the City does not have ‘twinning’ or ‘twin city’ relationships, but instead enters into

5

‘friendship agreements’. As discussed by Jayne et al. (2010), the motivation behind the choice of this labelling can clearly be seen to be bound up with a concern to avoid historical associations of twinning dominated by civic and symbolic activities and associated public and popular (territorial) concerns over ‘junketing’ in contrast to the acknowledgement of the (relational) entrepreneurial benefits of making connections with the rest of the world. Moreover, of Manchester’s nine ‘friendship agreements’, only four were deemed by public- and private-sector respondents to be ‘active’— Wuhan, St Petersburg, Chemnitz and Cordoba—with the latter two being characterised as of minor importance. In contrast, community and other social groups maintained active programmes and activities (although to varying degrees) with seven cities—Wuhan, St Petersburg, Chemnitz, Cordoba, Rehovot, Faisalabad and Bilwi— sometimes as part of ‘official’ programmes but more often than not working outside the formal public- and private-sector engagement with those cities. With this important point of definition in mind, in the remainder of the paper we introduce empirical research which seeks to explain a number of interconnected stories bound up with territorial and relational urbanism which relate to the conflicts, tensions and contradictions underpinning Manchester’s strategic, uneven and at times ambivalent engagement in co-operative and competitive ‘friendship agreements’. When is a Junket Not a Junket? Strategic, Uneven and Ambivalent City Twinning

First then, research into Manchester’s ‘twinning’ relationships highlights the importance of ‘fact-finding trips’ and ‘visits’ as part of the scheduled programme of active friendships agreements. Cook and Ward (2011) suggest, however, that despite being

6

MARK JAYNE ET AL.

‘‘a common feature of contemporary urban governance, relatively little is known about the role they have played in . the shift towards entrepreneurial urbanism’’ (p. 2523), showing how, for Manchester’s Olympic and Commonwealth Games bids, the primary focus for ‘globetrotting’ trips was to lobby rather than to learn . [and that trips] confirmed . rather than taught (Cook and Ward, 2011, p. 2525 and p. 2527).

Such findings ring true in our research on twinning, with both public- and privatesector e´lite actors also suggesting that, while it is important to see, of more importance is to be seen So on the one hand I think they learned more from us than perhaps we learned from them but on the other hand it was a two-way relationship, because we saw some of the very innovative regeneration programmes that they were running but they really kept us on our toes . you know, talking to them . I mean the main thing is, is that, you know, Manchester has got ‘about’ in the positive sense . not just symbolic, but being there, and being seen to have weight. So when we do interact, particularly with the two strongest cities [Wuhan and St Petersburg] ... What we are saying is taken very seriously (senior Manchester City Council officer).

In contrast, Manchester’s twinning partners were much happier to point to just what it was they had learned from visiting the city I would like to mention the Manchester experience in strategic planning and the vision of Manchester city’s development. For example, Manchester has succeeded very well and in the promotion of creative industries and how to apply them to the life of the city, to the wellbeing of its population . We have seen that it depends on several reasons, of course,

business heads and skills that can correspond with the interests of the private companies (local authority representative, St Petersburg).

The research findings also emphasise how public- and private-sector actors focus on the development of face-to-face personal relationships amongst ‘movers and shakers’ (Peck, 1995)—interactions seen as vital to facilitating access to ‘difficult to reach’ circuits, networks and webs of co-operation The Chamber of Commerce will take companies over to trade with China, we haven’t successfully got any of them to invest in Wuhan yet. But we’ve managed to get some of the Wuhan companies to set up here in the Manchester Science Park . Having said that, the civic thing is vitally important to Chinese relationships . They love their leaders and they love their mayors. And, and one thing that is very valuable to us in Manchester is to have succeeded in persuading the Chinese to locate a Consul General here . Mr Gong, he can open doors for us back in China as well an...