Global Demography: Global City PDF

Group 6 Members: 1. ADAZA, Marco Angelo L. 4. DIMCO, Benjamin B. 2. BACARAMAN, Ana Farhana G. 5. RATILLA, Mary Joy R. 3. CAÑETE, Czarina Antoinette A. 6. TAYLARAN, Jeric C....

Group 6 Members: 1. ADAZA, Marco Angelo L. 4. DIMCO, Benjamin B. 2. BACARAMAN, Ana Farhana G. 5. RATILLA, Mary Joy R. 3. CAÑETE, Czarina Antoinette A. 6. TAYLARAN, Jeric C. Global Demography: Global City Learning Objectives: 1. Defining the Global City 2. Relate the contemporary global issues and local problems and 3. Explain how local context affects global ideas and vice versa. 4. Demonstrate critical thinking in comprehending contemporary issues and problems of modernity. Introduction The global structure is reflected upon the cities itself. Global and local are merging, forming global cities. These cities represent the interconnection and interrelation of nations in constant exchanging of resources. This chapter provides discussions on the relationship of the global and local. This chapter discusses the image of progress that cities portray and the contrasting poverty within it. Sections of the Unit: 1. Global Cities Global cities are strategic for new types of operations 2. Different Societies appropriate the materials of modernity differently 3. Global Issues, Local Perspectives 4.Globalization and Urban Problems Defining the Global City Globalization manifests spatially in cities, seen in the movement of foreign investments and capital, and the construction of skyscrapers and infrastructure that facilitate these exchanges. As jobs are generated by the economic flow, urban centers become engines of economic activity. Saskia Sassen coined the term global city in the 1990s, using economic factors as the primary indicator. She identified three key cities: New York, London, and Tokyo—all of which serve as hubs for global finance and capitalism. These cities host the world's top stock exchanges, where investors trade in multinational corporations. However, as globalization has evolved, the definition of a global city has expanded beyond wealth alone. For example: San Francisco is now home to global tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Los Angeles has a significant cultural impact globally through its entertainment industry (Hollywood). Global Cities are Strategic for New Types of Operations Global cities, Sassen advises, produce goods in the form of technological innovations, financial products, and consulting services (legal, accounting, advertising, and so on). These service industries are highly intensive users of telecommunications technologies and are therefore integrated into business networks that stretch across national borders. They are also part of the postindustrial or "service" economies of the developed world, in that their main products are knowledge, innovation, technical expertise, and cultural goods. Sassen argues in The Global City (1991, revised 2001) that the emergence of a global market for financial and specialized services gives global cities a "command and control function” over economic globalization. This is because the headquarters of many major transnational companies are located in global cities. Consultant Firms are also "over-represented in these urban hubs. These Companies make the decisions that direct global flows of money and knowledge, and that can cause economic activity to expand or contract in other regions. Global cities are supported by multifunctional infrastructure. Central business districts provide employment clusters where the employees of local, national, and multinational firms interact. Influential universities and research facilities also contribute to the production of knowledge and innovation, which are central to information-based economies. Sassen's research shows that global cities are sites where the human activities behind the processes of globalization are performed and their consequences dispersed through the socio economic networks of the global economy. While global cities are not free from poverty and other forms of social inequality, they are nevertheless cosmopolitan sites of diverse economic and social opportunities. Indicators For Globality 1. Economic Power Sassen remains correct in saying that economic power largely determines which cities are global. Example, New York may have the largest stock market in the world but Tokyo houses the most number of corporate headquarters (613) company headquarters as against 217 in New York, its closest competitor). Shanghai may have a smaller stock market compared to New York and Tokyo, but plays a critical role in the global economic supply chain ever since China has become the manufacturing center of the world. Shanghai has the world's busiest container port, moving over 33 million container units in 2013. 2. Economic Opportunities Economic opportunities in a global city make it attractive to talents from across the world. Since the 1970s, many of the top IT programmers and engineers from Asia have moved to the San Francisco Bay Area to become some of the key figures in Silicon Valley's technology boom. London remains a preferred destination for many Filipinos with nursing degrees. 3. Economic Competitiveness To measure the economic competitiveness of a city, The Economist Intelligence Unit has added other criteria like market size, purchasing power of citizens, size of the middle class, and potential for growth. Based on these criteria, "tiny" Singapore is considered Asia's most competitive city because of its strong market, efficient and incorruptible government, and livability. It also houses the regional offices of many major global corporations. 4. Center of Authority Global cities are also centers of authority. Washing D.C. may not be as wealthy as New York, but it is the seat of American state power. People around the world know it major landmarks: a. White House b. Capitol Building (Congress) c. Supreme Court d. Lincoln Memorial e. Washington Monument Similarly, compared with Sydney and Melbourne, Canberra is a sleepy town and thus is not as attractive to tourists. But as Australia's political capital, it is home to the country's top politicians, bureaucrats, and policy advisors. 5. Political Influence The cities that house major international organizations may also be considered centers of political influence. The headquarters of the United Nations is in New York, and that of the European Union is in Brussels. An influential political city near the Philippines is Jakarta, which is not just the capital of Indonesia, but also the location of the main headquarters of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN). Powerful political hubs exert influence on their own countries as well as on international affairs. The European Central Bank, which oversees the Euro (the European Union's currency), is based in Frankfurt. A decision made in that city can, therefore, affect the political economy of an entire continent and beyond. 6. Center of Higher Learning and Culture. Finally, global cities are centers of higher learning and culture. A city's intellectual influence is seen through the influence of its publishing industry. Many of the books that people read are published in places like New York, London, or Paris. The New York Times carries the name of New York City, but it is far from being a local newspaper. People read it not just across America, but also all over the world. One of the reasons for the many tourists visiting Boston is because they want to see Harvard University, the world's top university. Many Asian teenagers are moving to cities in Australia because of the leading English- Language universities there. Education is currently Australia's third largest export, just behind coal and iron ore, and significantly ahead of tourism. In 2015, the Australian government reported that it made as much as 19.2 billion Australian dollars (roughly 14 billion US dollars) from education alone. Globalization is transforming industrial cities and giving rise to "global cities," which are: 1. Command posts for the direction and policies driving the global economy. 2. Key locations for service industries, including financial and legal firms. 3. Sites of knowledge production and innovation for new industries and sectors. 4. Markets in which the products of new industries are bought and sold. Different Societies Appropriate the Materials of Modernity Differently Arjun Appadurai ( Indian social anthropologist and sociologist) remarked on these key thoughts regarding globalization in every society. A. To him, the conventional view of globalization as a form of cultural imperialism fails to reflect the reality of the changes globalization a.) Suggests that different societies appropriate the materials of modernity differently. 1.) One must consider the autonomy of every society. b.) The result of globalization doesn't connote a uniform process; rather, nations are more positively focused toward other facets of globalization than others. 1.) Depending on a range of factors, an individual may consider the state of the economy, political stability, and strength of cultural identity. B. The key to understanding globalization is the human imagination. a.) He argues that rather than living in face-to-face communities, we live within imagined ones that are global in extent. 1.) Applying sociological imagination, one can view how societies exist in the modern world in their own unique ways. b.) Individuals may then need to conceptualize their imagination about globalization across societies through five fluid dimensions. C. Coined the five fluid dimensions he called "scapes"—ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, and ideoscapes. a.) Ethnoscapes: describes the flow of people around the globe. 1.) immigrant communities 2.) political exiles 3.) tourists 4.) guest workers 5.) economic migrants 6.) other groups b.) Ideoscapes: made up of images that are “often directly political,” either state-produced and intended to bolster the dominant ideology, or created by counter ideological movements “oriented to capturing state power or a piece of it.  1.) A state built through concepts such as “national heritage,” countered by social and political movements that promote the rights of minority groups and freedom of speech. c.) Mediascapes: production and distribution of information and images through newspapers, magazines, TV, and film, as well as digital technologies. d.) Technoscapes represent the rapid dissemination of technology and knowledge about it across borders. 1.) BPOs: many service industries in American countries base their customer-care call centers in the Philippines. 2. Indian software engineers are often recruited by US companies. e.) Finanscapes: instantaneous transfer of financial investment capital around the globe in the fast-moving world of currency markets, stock exchanges, and commodity speculations. f.) By conceptualizing these dimensions, Appadurai was able to infer globalization as a multilayered, fluid, irregular process—and one that is characterized by ongoing change. Global Issues and Local Perspectives Globalization leads to the widespread exchange of ideas, cultural practices, and products across the world. This process brings global products, values, and tastes into contact with local traditions, creating new, hybrid forms. These global influences don’t simply replace local customs but often blend with them, resulting in a unique mix of global and local cultures. To better understand how this blending occurs, we can examine the relationships between four key areas: 1. Individual selves – how people see themselves in the world. 2. Nation-state – the role of countries in shaping culture. 3. World system of societies – the interconnectedness of societies on a global scale. 4. A notion of common humanity – the shared experiences and values that connect people across borders. This framework allows us to explore how global forces shape personal identity and how individuals respond to these influences in different ways. Sociologist Roland Robertson introduced the concept of global unicity, which refers to the creation of a shared global culture through cultural exchange. However, Robertson argues that this doesn’t mean we are all moving toward one single global culture. Instead, globalization fosters a global culture that is diverse, where different cultures coexist and influence each other. One key concept in this process is glocalization. This term refers to the way global products and ideas are adapted by local communities to fit their specific cultural contexts. Global forms are modified by local needs, values, and traditions, becoming "localized." This idea supports Robertson's argument that globalization does not erase local cultures but instead interacts with them, creating new forms of cultural expression. Globalization and the Street Homeless in Metro Manila The rise of street homelessness in Metro Manila is part of a broader global trend where urbanization and economic restructuring have drastically altered the dynamics of cities. Since the 1980s, industrialized countries have witnessed the growth of the "new homeless," driven by economic instability and housing shortages, as documented by researchers like Baumohl (1996) and Aoki (2006). This trend extends to developing nations like the Philippines, where the "street homeless" population has surged since the late 1990s, according to Levinson (2004). In Metro Manila, the increase in street homelessness has become particularly visible, with growing numbers of individuals and families living on the streets—a phenomenon closely monitored by government officials, NGOs, and social scientists. Understanding street homelessness in Metro Manila is complicated by the challenge of definition. The term encompasses a range of groups: some live and work on the streets, while others may work during the day but return to informal settlements or precarious shelters at night. A distinction is also made between "street homeless" individuals, who lack a permanent residence, and the "squatter homeless," who live in informal housing but retain some degree of stability. These definitional nuances complicate efforts to accurately measure the street homeless population. Despite these challenges, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) estimates that between 50,000 and 70,000 street children live in Metro Manila, many of them with their families. Additional data from the Jose Fabella Center (JFC), a public shelter, shows that over 61% of the people they accommodate are individuals who live alone on the streets. Combined estimates suggest that the total street homeless population—including children—exceeds 100,000 individuals. Street homelessness is pervasive in Metro Manila’s public spaces. Homeless individuals and families can be found under bridges, on sidewalks, along the seawall, and even in traffic islands or public parks. Many push carts containing their few possessions and set up makeshift sleeping areas wherever they can. This visible presence contrasts with the rapid urban development taking place in other parts of the city, where skyscrapers and modern commercial districts dominate the landscape. One major factor contributing to this rise is Metro Manila’s rapid urbanization, which has displaced many low-income communities. A significant portion of the street homeless population consists of former squatters evicted from informal settlements. As the real estate market, fueled by both local and international investment, continues to expand, inner-city land is being redeveloped, often at the expense of low-income residents. Government policies aimed at "beautifying" the city and privatizing public land have exacerbated this issue, leading to the forced relocation of thousands. Although those displaced are offered housing in distant relocation sites, many refuse due to poor living conditions and limited job opportunities in these areas, causing them to return to the city center and live on the streets. The street homeless in Metro Manila come from diverse backgrounds. Many are individuals or families evicted from informal settlements, while others are rural migrants who came to the city seeking work but could not afford housing. Ethnic minorities and seasonal laborers also contribute to this population. Additionally, children and entire families without fixed addresses make up a significant portion of the street homeless. While this population is diverse, certain patterns in their socioeconomic conditions emerge. The majority survive through informal jobs such as vending, scavenging, car watching, and "barking" (calling passengers to public transport vehicles). These jobs require little to no capital and are accessible to people with limited education or specialized skills. However, they offer minimal job security or income stability. Some street homeless individuals engage in illegal activities, such as petty theft, drug dealing, or sex work, as a last resort for survival. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), which runs programs to bring homeless individuals to public shelters, reports that two-thirds of the street homeless population are male, ranging from infants to the elderly. Civil status also varies widely, with many single, married, or widowed. Despite these differences, economic instability and the lack of social safety nets are common threads uniting this group. Push and Pull Factors of Street Homelessness The increase in Metro Manila’s street homeless population can be explained by several key push and pull factors: Pull Factors: 1. Service Economy Opportunities: Globalization has driven the growth of the service economy, expanding informal job opportunities in businesses such as convenience stores, restaurants, and commercial establishments. These jobs provide some resources for survival, such as scrap materials or donations from passersby, making begging more viable. The informal economy in Metro Manila is vast, and many street homeless individuals find work as vendors, scavengers, or errand runners, which draws them into the city despite the lack of formal housing. 2.Informal Job Market: Street homelessness is supported by a thriving informal economy that offers employment opportunities requiring minimal capital and skills. Jobs such as car watching, sandwich vending, and cleaning provide subsistence for many, even though they offer no long-term stability. Push Factors: 1. Economic Instability: The informalization and contractualization of labor, driven by globalization, have made employment in Metro Manila increasingly insecure. Real wages have fallen, and job security has eroded, particularly for those in low-skilled sectors. Without consistent income or social safety nets, many individuals are forced into homelessness. These trends disproportionately affect those without access to education or formal job training, pushing them into street life. 2. Urban Displacement and Gentrification: Globalization has accelerated the redevelopment of Metro Manila’s urban core. As real estate values rise, inner-city land is repurposed for commercial and residential projects aimed at wealthier populations. Government policies, such as land privatization and beautification programs, have further displaced informal settlers. Those unwilling or unable to relocate to government-assigned housing end up on the streets. This has created a cycle where the most vulnerable residents are pushed out of their homes but have no safe place to go. The rising street homelessness in Metro Manila highlights the complex relationship between globalization, urbanization, and social inequality. On the one hand, Metro Manila is experiencing rapid growth and attracting significant foreign investment, transforming the city into a global hub. On the other hand, this growth has widened the gap between the rich and the poor, displacing vulnerable populations who cannot keep pace with the city’s development. While the service economy offers informal employment opportunities, it does not provide the stability or resources needed to secure permanent housing. To address this issue, Metro Manila needs a more comprehensive approach that balances urban development with social welfare programs. Affordable housing, stable employment opportunities, and targeted support for the homeless population must become priorities in city planning. Without addressing the push-and-pull factors behind homelessness, Metro Manila’s street homeless crisis will continue to grow, deepening the divide between those who benefit from globalization and those left behind by it. Conclusion Global cities are powerful places that connect the world. They lead in business, culture, and technology, drawing people and investments from all over the globe. These cities are engines of economic growth, offering new ideas and opportunities. However, this rapid growth often brings challenges. While some areas of these cities become wealthy and modern, many others face problems like poverty, homelessness, and a lack of affordable housing. In places like Metro Manila, the growth and development of the city can push people out of their homes, making them vulnerable to living on the streets. The relationship between global and local forces is important in understanding these cities. While global cities bring in new ideas and influences from around the world, they also change these ideas to fit their own cultures and traditions. This process of blending global and local is called "glocalization" and helps cities keep their identity while embracing progress. In conclusion, global cities should focus on creating a balance. They need to grow in a way that includes everyone, making sure that the benefits of progress reach all parts of the community. By addressing issues like homelessness and inequality while continuing to play a leading role in the global economy, these cities can create a future that works for everyone—where growth doesn’t leave anyone behind.