 | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||
| | | |||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||
ABSTRACTS THEME THREE - Urban Geography
Governing a World City - Institutional Networks in South London This paper examines how the evolving institutional networks in South London are dealing with the strategic objectives of the newfound governance structures of London. In particular, the need to balance the tensions between maintaining the Capital as a competitive world city and the fundamental need for a sustainable future. Just in terms of Gross Domestic Product, London, on average, contributes forty percent more to the national economy than any other region. Per head the GDP generated is twice that of most other regions in the UK and 30% of all Fortune 500 have headquarters in London. It is the critical driving within the UK economy. In 1999 the Greater London Authority Act, created the Mayor and the London Assembly, which now constitute a new and unique form of strategic citywide government for London: The Greater London Authority (GLA). The Mayor and the Assembly assumed their main responsibilities on Monday 3 July 2000. The responsibilities of the GLA cover preparing plans on issues from transport to the environment, and from culture to land use. The Mayor, Ken Livingstone, directs the GLA and sets budgets for the GLA, Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police and London's fire services. As such he is also responsible for producing London's Economic Development Strategy and Spatial Development Strategy. For twenty years London has lacked any strategic planning, which has resulted in, not only very polarised patterns of development, but also an inability of the 'market model' to meet supply in virtually all sectors, housing, transport, labour and services. The demands on the Capital for the next 15 to 20 years are immense and the new governance structures have just outlined the strategic choices that need to be made to meet these demands. The first is to attempt to rein back its economic growth and projected increase in population by reintroducing or reinforcing policies of dispersal. The second choice, and that recommended by the Mayor, is to accept the processes of economic growth, re-centralisation and population increase and create an adequate infrastructure for the city to achieve sustainable development. On what basis these strategic choices have been generated needs to be examined and whether or not they are the only and correct strategic choices, remains to be questioned. In addition, as with any type of governance and decision making process it is very much a question of perspective, based upon geographical scale and boundary issues. Therefore this paper also reveals the tensions that have been generated by the creation of new sub-regions within London as part of the new governance structures. This is particularly highlighted by the actions of the new institutional networks in South London that have emerged to respond to this newly centralized decision making process. The fundamental problem is that the GLA, and its planning process, does not appear to be challenging unsustainable global trends and the sub regional areas are merely attempting to flex their individual territorial power in order to be included, whilst elected local authorities are attempting to maintain public service provision. As a result, the underlying principles of sustainability are becoming even more marginalized, except when they are invoked as a means of gaining territorial advantage, prohibiting participation across spatial scales, which further reduces active and diverse involvement.
Development occurs through an interdependent set of processes, exploiting, excluding and dividing people, however as this paper reveals an interdependent sustainable solution has not been created and the new governance structures in London and the networks in its sub regions are more than likely to exacerbate the problems of unsustainable development.
The process of concentration of human capital is clearly reinforced by inter-regional migration in Finland. The spatial mismatch between positions and skilled labour force is increasing and the concentration of human capital can easily be seen in the distribution of dual career families home locations that favors few growing city areas. At the individual level job access is the result of the location of the residence in relation to locations of employment opportunities and the commuting tolerance of individuals. Wives do have power equally with men in the decision making processes of families but still the career of men seems to be prioriced.
Job and residential search behaviour are simultaneously analysed at the Finnish local labour market area level based to the query data of educated family members in two earner families. The purpose is to determine the locational factors that have the most importance while combining the family and working lives and also to analyse how family migration or workplace changes effects to the worktrip length, direction and career possibilities of the wage-earners of the same household. The job search process is analysed in relation to the size and structure of local labour market areas, and to the distance between home and workplaces. The paper examines the effects of job and residential search behaviour to the working career and family wellbeing based to the search theoretical framework. Migration and urban development processes in the post-Soviet countries differ considerably from the processes during the Soviet period. Social and economic crises during the transition caused new problems and migration features. Internal migration in the 1990s has involved the following new trends: 1) If in earlier years people most commonly moved from rural areas to cities, then since 1990 the direction has changed. Migration has led to more arrivals than departures in rural areas, although the positive internal migration balance cannot compensate for population decreases that have occurred as the result of natural movement. 2) Between 1990 and 1996 the Riga agglomeration did not see an increase in population as the result of internal migration, because more people left the metropolitan region for other parts of Latvia than arrive from other areas. Beginning in 1997, however, the migration balance became positive again, especially in areas that are near the city. 3) Since 1990, Riga itself has lost residents each year to internal migration. The most intensive flow of migration has been between Riga and the city's greater metropolitan area. If the number of people arriving from the metropolitan area to Riga proper did not change much at all between 1993 and 2000, then the number of people departing from the city for other parts of the metropolitan area increased. During all of the 1990s Riga had a negative migration balance with cities and towns of all levels, expect group of district centers. 4) During all of the 1990s Riga had a negative migration balance with the Eastern part of Latvia. Research shows that people who have moved to those districts have taken over denationalized properties and elderly returned to places of previous residence. 5) The "city-to-city" migration flow has not changed much over time, representing some 30% of the total volume of migration. Urban migration pattern reproduce existing urban structure with high concentration of migration flows in capital. Latvia has a monocentric system of population, with the capital city of Riga dominant in the structure. Around the city there is a large metropolitan area, with some 1 million residents in the core area and 1.19 million people in the entire metropolitan area. This means that nearly one-half of the country's population is concentrated in approximately 15% of the territory. Riga is not only the largest city in the Baltic States, but also an important European-level metropolis in the Baltic Sea Region. It has a wide range of economic, cultural, political, administrative, educational, scientific and research functions to perform, and it provides a number of services, including some that are highly specialised. Migration trends show that suburbs are developing, especially around Riga. Despite the fact that its population has declined in the 1990s, Riga remains a city of intensive economic activity. This belies the generally accepted hypothesis that a positive migration balance is an indicator of economic growth. This phenomenon can be explained through the fact there is no longer a need for as intensive a concentration of labor as was the case during the over- industrialized Soviet period, because the structure of the national economy has changed greatly. On the other hand, the availability of a wide range of jobs and the development of new and dynamic sectors of the economy create a growing demand for qualified workers, and this could serve to increase migration flows. Additional data about population mobility in the Riga metropolitan area have led to the conclusion that the process has very much been affected by socioeconomic change in Latvia. There have been more rapid economic transformation processes in Riga and its environs than in other parts of Latvia. New and dynamic sectors of the economy are emerging, and this is evidenced by the fact that 60% of the country's foreign investment has gone to the Riga area. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for highly qualified workers and specialists, and the fact that they have been found is proven by the increase in the flow of daily commuting. At the same time, however, there is something else which is affecting changes in the lifestyle of a specific group in the population. The suburbanization processes which are common in Western countries are also are taking place in Latvia. Small villages of private homes are popping up on large city peripheries (especially Riga), and some people are building individual homes in the beautiful areas around the city.
The role of the national level cities, including Riga, is even more important when it comes to international migration. Analysis of migration data shows that 78% of all immigrants to Latvia's cities have settled in the national cities, while among all emigrants from cities, 81% comes from the national cities. The share for Riga is 46% and 50% respectively.
|
|