A new player on the world stage: the city

The world is becoming increasingly crowded. We are witnessing the globalisation of states. Alongside this, there is the globalisation of private powers, such as Big Tech. Finally, there is the globalisation of cities. Consequently, states are no longer the sole protagonists in globalisation. They are joined by private powers and local entities, which previously operated solely at a national level.

The city in a global context

Until the middle of the last century, the issue of the city had remained within the national sphere. To appreciate this, one need only reread a passage from Elias Canetti’s “Massa e potere” (1960), Milan, Adelphi, 1981, pp. 210–211: “Italy may serve as an example of how difficult it is for a nation to conceive of itself when its cities are populated by great memories and its present is deliberately conflated with those memories. Until Italy had achieved its unity, everything was very clear to people: the fragmented body would be reunited; it would feel and behave as a single organism as soon as the enemy rabble had been driven out… But at that very moment it became clear that it was not possible to leave a city like Rome alive without danger.”

The weakening of the state stems in turn from two trends: the establishment of quasi-imperial supranational powers and the rise of large, global private powers – the ‘Big Tech’ companies.

The migration revolution can be quantified by the number of people living outside their country of origin: there are 304 million of them, a figure almost as large as the population of the United States. Their presence raises a host of problems, starting with so-called multiculturalism.

The urban revolution can be summed up in a few figures: 58 per cent of the world’s population lives in urban areas. Therefore, 6 out of every 10 of the Earth’s 8.3 billion inhabitants live in cities. To appreciate the speed of this phenomenon, one must consider that in 1950 the percentage was less than 30 per cent; thus, in less than eighty years, the number of people living in urban centres has doubled. It has also been estimated that by 2050, around 67–68 per cent – that is, 7 out of every 10 people on the planet – will be living in cities. This necessitates addressing major issues such as housing, traffic, pollution and the visibility of inequalities. There is some highly significant historical research on this issue relating to Italy, such as Lando Bortolotti’s book on "The History of Housing Policy in Italy", published by Editori Riuniti in 1978, and the volume edited by Carlo Carozzi and Alberto Mioni on "Italy in the Making: The Urban Development of the National Territory", published by De Donato in 1980.

The scale and emerging challenges facing cities

Within the urban system, it is also worth noting the increase in scale. The number of cities with over 100,000 inhabitants is around 4,000–5,000; the number of cities with over one million inhabitants is around 600; there are approximately 50,000 urban areas; and the number of capital cities is 200–250. By way of comparison, there are 193 states. The development of cities has also given rise to various associations, notably ‘United Cities and Local Governments’, which has existed since 2004 and brings together 240,000 cities.

Cities face further challenges. The first is that of urban tourism, which has given rise to the phenomenon of ‘overtourism’. It has been estimated that there are 1.4 billion visitor arrivals in every country each year, a significant proportion of which are to major cities: 65 million in New York, 40 million in Paris and 30 million in both Rome and London. This has a significant impact on house prices.

The second significant phenomenon is that of global cities, which act as magnets for talent and investment and compete with one another: it has been estimated that there are 33 megacities, 19 of which are in Asia. The American sociologist Saskia Sassen has studied this phenomenon, and the Institute of International Political Studies published a special report on it on 1 May 2026.

The third important factor is the organisation of local government in large cities. In Italy, voter apathy is no less pronounced here than in national elections, but it is more serious because cities are traditionally regarded as being closer to the citizen. The number of voters fell by 18 percentage points between 1993 and 2024 – in just over thirty years – from 80 per cent to 62 per cent of those eligible to vote.

This completely overturns the traditional perspective through which the phenomenon of the city has been analysed. According to the principles of ‘self-government’, as described in nineteenth-century England, the city enabled its inhabitants to govern the country from their own doorsteps. The aim was thus to emphasise the existence of public authorities close to the citizens. Instead, today’s large cities face the same problems as the State. To appreciate the gulf between the current situation and the recent past, one need only re-read Carlo Cattaneo’s defence of small municipalities against uniformity and agglomeration, as set out in "Sulla legge comunale e provinciale" (1864): “Size is not life”; ‘It is a mistake to think that the effectiveness of municipal life must be enhanced by merging several municipalities into a single one...’ (in C. Cattaneo, Selected Works, Volume IV, Turin, Einaudi, 1972, p. 407).

The global city

The concept of the global city was developed by the sociologist Saskia Sassen ("The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo", Princeton University Press, 1991). According to Sassen, a global city is not defined primarily by its population, but by its capacity to direct and coordinate the global economy. It serves as a hub for the headquarters of multinational corporations, major financial institutions, stock exchanges and advanced services, acting as a key node in the flows of capital, information and innovation. This interpretation builds upon and develops the ‘World City Hypothesis’ put forward by the geographer John Friedmann (The World City Hypothesis, in "Development and Change", vol. 17, no. 1, 1986, pp. 69–83), according to which certain cities perform command functions within the global capitalist economy and organise international economic relations. The sociologist Manuel Castells (The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996) also argues that global cities constitute the main hubs of network society, in which economic power derives from the ability to control the flows of information, knowledge, technology and capital rather than from mere control of territory. Among the most significant examples of global cities are New York, London and Tokyo, which Sassen regards as the three main command centres of the world economy, now joined by Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Paris.

‘Megacities’

‘Megacities’, on the other hand, are defined on the basis of their population size. According to the United Nations (World Urbanisation Prospects, Department of Economic and Social Affairs), a ‘megacity’ is an urban agglomeration with over 10 million inhabitants. Their growth is primarily due to urbanisation and internal migration from rural areas to large urban centres. The geographer Peter Hall (Cities in Civilization, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1998) highlights how large cities have always been centres of economic and cultural innovation, but notes that today’s “megacities” are of unprecedented scale and pose new challenges in terms of land-use planning, infrastructure and services. The main ‘megacities’ include Delhi, Shanghai, Mumbai, São Paulo, Mexico City and Dhaka. Many of them are experiencing extremely rapid growth, which brings with it problems such as traffic congestion, pollution, the spread of informal settlements, social inequalities and pressure on environmental resources.

Capital cities: the example of Rome

The capital city presents a different set of challenges. It is home to both a local authority – the municipality – and a national authority – the State – with its central offices. The relationship between the capital and the country serves to define the extent of centralisation – not only administrative centralisation, but also private and economic centralisation. For this reason, it is important to determine what proportion of the national GDP is attributable to the capital city and its region (as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD). The figure for Rome/Lazio (11 per cent) is particularly low compared with other major European capitals. This reflects a historical feature of the Italian economy: it is highly polycentric, with major production centres spread across the country rather than concentrated in the capital. Indeed, Milan is the country’s main financial and industrial centre; Turin continues to play a significant role in the manufacturing and automotive industries; Bologna, Padua, Verona and numerous cities in the north contribute significantly to national output. For this reason, the capital’s economic weight is lower than that seen in France or the United Kingdom, where the majority of managerial, financial and administrative functions are concentrated in a single metropolitan area. A comparison reveals that Paris accounts for roughly three times the share of national GDP generated by Rome (30 per cent versus 11 per cent); London accounts for more than double Rome’s share (23 per cent); Madrid accounts for almost double (20 per cent). This is one of the most commonly used indicators to demonstrate that Italy is one of the most decentralised economies in Europe, whilst France and the United Kingdom exhibit a high degree of economic concentration in their respective capitals. When it comes to capital cities, two opposing errors must be avoided: excessive concentration, or dispersion, such as that lamented by Pietro Colletta in "Storia del reame di Napoli" (1834), according to whom Charles of Bourbon established and built ‘all that is beautiful, grand and magnificent’ ‘around the city’ (for example, Caserta and Portici).

Administrative geography

Unfortunately, research into these issues is underdeveloped. Indeed, administration has remained the subject of legal and political science research, whilst geographers have devoted little attention to the study of administrative geography. For this reason, it is important to read an extract from a book published half a century ago, written by a French geographer and devoted to capital cities: that of Michel-Jean Bertrand (my translation).

Michel-Jean Bertrand,"Géographie de l’administration", Paris, Éditions M.-Th. Génin, 1974, pp. 486–490.

“In countries with a long-standing national tradition, such as those in Europe, public administrations have, over the course of an often turbulent history, become established in specific, distinctive neighbourhoods of the capital. This is the result of an empirical development, driven by pressures in which world wars played a decisive role. In Paris, more so than in London, government departments are geographically spread across residential neighbourhoods, from the Faubourg Saint-Germain to Passy, from the Louvre to the Étoile and as far as the Porte Dauphine. In Rome, in the enthusiasm that followed the unification of Italy, the administrative bodies occupied, as far as possible, the ancient papal palaces and constructed new office buildings, in accordance with the possibilities offered by the outskirts of the historic centre, near the Aurelian Walls, and subsequently as far as the EUR district. The limits to this dispersal are those imposed by the specific requirements of official decorum: the architectural and social context ensures the external prestige to which every civil servant is bound. The residential neighbourhoods of the city centre, arranged along wide, perspective-enhancing avenues and around famous monuments (including the royal residences), constitute their preferred setting. In Rome, too, this dispersal has accompanied the construction of such complexes: first around the Quirinal, then in the Mussolini district to the north, subsequently in the EUR district and, today, probably towards the east, from Pietralata to Centocelle. When the ministerial district formed spontaneously, it brought together the activities of public administration with luxury residences, generally occupied by the social classes that hold power, and who participate in or sympathise with it.

A similar layout can be found in countries where a new city is being built – a planned capital for a young state. A coherent ensemble of public buildings is arranged around a broad, perspective-driven axis, the length of which varies according to the nation’s importance, from Canberra’s tripolar boulevard to Place de l’Indépendance in Lomé, and on to Nouakchott. All around, social groups favoured by virtue of their economic status or ethnic background inhabit a spacious neighbourhood, close to the headquarters of international organisations and embassies. Sometimes, particularly when it comes to reorganising former colonial capitals, such ‘strategic’ divisions in the urban fabric are not without echoes of imperial or royal quarters – closed off and off-limits to all those who do not belong to the ruling aristocracy. However, even before they are completed, these clusters show a very clear tendency towards dispersion (within the confines of the prestigious neighbourhood), particularly when several ministries coexist within the same ordinary administrative building. The personal prestige and political importance of a minister seem linked to the individualisation of their department’s services within a single symbolic building, which makes their power visible to all. The union between national symbolic value and individual prestige is a constant factor. Although less obvious, this same union is also found in attempts to group ministries – or the scattered departments of a single ministry – in old capitals such as Paris.

The possibilities for siting depend on land-use plans and urban planning guidelines, which give rise to public projects for which the Ministry and public authorities may act as a factor capable of attracting private investment. The prestige of the State and the needs of the economy are, in principle, opposed to the siting of offices in private buildings, except in exceptional cases accepted temporarily under pressure of necessity. Thus, the Nanterre Epad had proposed to the Ministry of National Education a plot of land with a ground rent of 400 francs per square metre for the construction of a tower approximately 100 metres high. However, the conclusions of the Paris Region Master Plan and the Paris Urban Plan both favour the Bercy warehouses project, which would enable the development of the service sector in the eastern part of the capital, close to the ‘dual hub’ formed by Lyon and Austerlitz stations. The State already owns 2.6 hectares of under-utilised land in this area, and the price of the land – 1,200–1,300 francs per square metre in 1969 – although lower than that charged in the central and western districts, corresponds to a land cost similar to that of the EPAD.

Another solution would be to locate certain ministries near the ‘boulevard périphérique’, both within Paris and in the immediate suburbs: the Ministry of National Defence planned to bring together the technical departments of the Ministerial Delegation for Armaments near Boulevard Victor. This project, covering 180,000 square metres, would have affected around 5,000 people, but it does not appear that this measure can be applied across the board, as these areas are still poorly served by public transport and the ‘boulevard périphérique’ will soon become congested if the current pressure on the property market continues.

In other cases, such as the complete construction of a new national capital – for example, Brasília – each ministry tends to choose its own location within the district that it considers most in keeping with the prestigious image of its department and most advantageous for its budget. This gives rise to personal conflicts between the ministry concerned, the Ministry of Finance and the Head of State, without the city’s general interest being given proper consideration. Bringing all government departments together on a single site can ensure the desired quality of the built environment and offers advantages in small or newly formed countries, where central government services are still underdeveloped. However, when the scale of the areas is such that they form a vast, single-purpose neighbourhood, the result is lifeless spaces, incapable of providing the variety of facilities essential for urban vitality. In business districts, the poor quality and limited variety of services lead to employees leaving as soon as their working day is over: the neighbourhoods are only busy in the morning and evening, during office opening and closing times, whilst they remain empty for the rest of the day; car traffic is merely passing through. Infrastructure such as public transport is all the more costly as it serves a large number of workers for only five days a week and for limited periods corresponding to office hours.

The abandonment of traditional neighbourhoods is undesirable, both for reasons relating to architectural quality and for the social and functional balance of the city. Experience has shown that, when a void is created in the urban fabric, public initiative is rapidly replaced by the actions of speculative interests. The establishment of private offices in place of government ministries would be facilitated by their customary proximity to the business centre, with the inevitable ‘spreading like wildfire’ expansion of the ‘city’ phenomenon and the deterioration of the architectural context due to the growing consumption of space by businesses acting individually and lacking that minimum sense of the bigger picture which constitutes one of the core obligations of public administrations in safeguarding the urban environment. Public services are less exclusive than private offices in terms of their specific use; their distribution is less dense and can coexist with a residential fabric that ensures the desired urban environment, whilst also fostering commercial activity and social life (as demonstrated by the ‘village-style’ awareness-raising initiative promoted by the municipal offices responsible for community activities in the Gros-Caillou neighbourhood). Property speculation is gradually destroying this balance, driving out social housing and higher-density buildings, introducing new office space and converting properties into rental income-generating assets. Urban planning and conservation schemes are thus rendered ineffective or remain a dead letter. Under the pretext of liberalism – which manifests itself in the inaction of the legislative and executive branches in the face of pressure groups, as well as in the collusion between politics, the administration and private capitalist interests – we are witnessing the gradual degradation of single-function neighbourhoods, as described by M. Renberg in the case of the Roule neighbourhood and by the ‘Atelier parisien d’urbanisme’ in the case of the Champs-Élysées.”

According to Saskia Sassen, a global city is defined not by its population, but by its capacity to direct and coordinate the global economy. The relationship between the capital and the country serves to define the extent of centralisation, not only administrative centralisation, but also private and economic centralisation