Polycentric networks

In Europe, cities are fairly close to one another but in different countries such as the so-called “Pentagon” cities, Birmingham, Paris, Milan, Hamburg, and Amsterdam, have with globalization become more connected through the information that nations share with one another. This close proximity led European Union ministers of planning to propose a “central policy objective of polycentrism” in Potsdam, in 1999. Polycentric networks typically coordinate services between cities and nations and directly affect a city's economy and output. Four distinct areas of services have been identified as core elements of the policy, including:

“Finance and business: banking and insurance, commercial business services such as law, accountancy, advertising, and public relations, and design services including architecture, civil engineering, industrial design, and fashion.

Power and influence (or command and control): National government, supranational organizations like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and headquarters of major organizations such as transnational corporations.

Creative and cultural industries: Live performing arts (theatre, opera, ballet, concerts), museums, galleries and exhibitions, print and electronic media.

Tourism: business and leisure tourism, including hotels, restaurants, bars, entertainment, and transportation services.

Polycentric networks can be seen in transportation services in Europe, as Pain et al explain. Their analysis of transportation routes made clear that more connected cities saw more flights in and out. The same can be said about rail transportation, as well. Europe's fairly small landmass means that travel is quick, and many travelers take direct routes to their destination. Without this connectivity between different regions, cross-border travel would not be as easy and or seamless.

The American context lacks international relations aspects. A study by the University of Vermont compared Baltimore and Seattle’s environmental policies. The study found support for the connection that successful natural resource management efforts typically rely on high amounts of collaboration between organizational networks, depending on the organizational structures but the University of Vermont study found a higher synergy when organizations work together.

The study outlined three main resources vital to the success of inter-organizational networks: Information/knowledge, finance, and human (staff, volunteers). The study specifically looked at how these networks work and flow in Baltimore and Seattle, two cities on opposite ends of the US, chosen because their populations are relatively similar and so is their land area. This study used snowball sampling to develop a list of organizations working with natural resource management and broke these organizations down by organizational attributes, relationships, and geographical scope of work. to examine how these two cities' different policies ultimately affect the greater metropolis.

Polycentric urban regions are often defined as collections of historically distinct and both administratively and politically independent cities located in close proximity and well connected through infrastructure.[1] However, the literature on polycentric urban regions is still limited and rather unconsolidated,[2] so diverse concepts exist but are largely synonymous with a polycentric urban region.[3] Meijer notes that increasing interest has sparked politicians and urban planners to follow the trend, and this is apparent in the very synergetic European international cities.

Rural polycentric networks are nearly non-existent. Urban polycentric networks draw heavily on economic network theories.[3] The assumption is that “individual cities in these collections of distinct but proximally-located cities relate to each other in a synergetic way, making the whole network of cities more than the sum of its parts”.[3] Interest in urban polycentric regions has increased dramatically in the last decade.[3] Meijers says that even with the greater interest in these networks, much more research is needed.[3]

Polycentric networks have different spatial characteristics, reflecting a micro, meso, or macro-level of polycentric networks in a given region.

• micro-level: intra-urban or intra-regional aspects within a certain city region. The emphasis at this level is “urban functional and economic complementarities” which make “cooperation and improved links” major engines of regional economic performance and “promote integrated spatial development strategies for city clusters”

• meso level: inter-metropolitan issues within a delimited area. The emphasis at this level is very similar to the micro-level, but at the meso level cities begin to specialize

• Macro-level: inter-metropolitan issues on a European or global scale. At the European (macro) level polycentricism is considered to be “a useful alternative model to enhance regional development more evenly across the European territory”.

These different levels allow flexible and convertible networks for spatial planning in complex regions and systems.

In metropolitan areas, the scale and intensity of collaboration is a key determinant of whether or not polycentric networks function properly. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have given researchers a unique opportunity to study the scale and intensity of collaboration in these areas. Researchers from the University of Vermont and the University of La Verne, using a 2009 Government Accountability Office survey of all 381 MPOs, found a direct link between the scale of the MPO and the performance seen. The study concluded that more intense MPO collaboration across both vertical and horizontal stakeholders generated a greater sense of good performance. The study found that MPOs who focused more on vertical collaboration (between the state and higher-up agencies) saw a decrease in their perceived performance. The study looked at 15 indicators including condition of transportation network, mobility for disadvantaged populations, air quality, highway congestion, public participation, extent of coordination and stakeholder involvement, satisfaction among general public, satisfaction among local stakeholders, compliance with federal and state rules, transportation systems security, accessibility, reliability, and safety, travel demand model accuracy and project implementation.

The implications of this study have yet to be confirmed, but Asim Zia et al. believe challenges will arise for nation-states once they are displaced as central actors in their regions. Once these more integrated organizations begin to act for themselves, they believe a new outlook on global governance will emerge.

The future for polycentric networks lies in sustainability efforts around the globe. Perry Pei-Ju Yang conducted research in Singapore around cities' push for greater sustainability. With globalization and the separation of land come split ecosystems and habitat changes to build infrastructure for human development.[4] A big issue for sustainability is how to minimize human environmental impact but continue to thrive as a species.[4]

Yang’s research explored Singapore through time. Starting in 1986, by 1994 and in 2002 it became clear that much of the growth in Singapore revolved around areas of industrial development, even though these areas were spread out all throughout the island.[4] Yang noted that most of this growth revolved around rapid mass transit (MRT), which connects areas of the island.[4] The general shift seen in Singapore can be seen as the impact of polycentric networks throughout the island with the implementation of rezoning policies.[4] From 1986 to 1994, much rezoning occurred due to changes in land use policy in Singapore.[4] The transformation of Singapore can be used as a marker for future growth. Yang found that transit and raw materials are central to growth in rapidly developing areas.[4] and argued that Singapore is a good example of a polycentric urban form, but may not be strong enough to establish an urban sustainability model.[4]

• Economics of networks
• Supply chain collaboration