Below is a mapping (by Taylor Blake of the Martin Prosperity Institute) of the top 10 metro economies in the world by GDP at purchasing power parity. In brackets, is a country with a comparable GDP.
Tokyo is the world’s largest metro economy with ~$1.6 trillion in GDP. This is greater than the GDP of all of Canada. New York City is number 2 with ~$1.5 trillion in GDP, which is only slightly less than Canada.
The point of all of this – which Richard Florida argues here – is that the global economy is, today, powered by metropolitan areas. And yet our governance structures do not reflect this new reality.
Here’s an excerpt from Florida’s article:
“Cities really are the new power centers of the global economy—the platforms for innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. But when it comes to fiscal and political power, they remain beholden to increasingly anachronistic and backward-looking nation-states, which has become distressingly obvious with the rise of Trumpism in the United States and populism around the world.”
Florida has been arguing this for years and I’ve really gotten behind it. The above chart is a good reminder just how big and wealthy some cities have become in today’s economy.
I’ve been following and checking out Kickstarter pretty much since the beginning. But it wasn’t until last night that I backed my first project.
After doing that, I immediately started thinking about urban projects that might be able to also get crowdfunded using Kickstarter. How could it be used for city building? A Kickstarter project, after all, just has to be something with a defined scope and a clear end goal.
Not surprisingly, this has already been happening for many years now.
A great example is +Pool in New York, which is an initiative to build a publicly accessible floating pool that also filters river water. The project launched in June 2011 and by July 2011 they had raised $41,648 USD to build and test different filtration techniques.
Today, the project is still moving ahead and they are now offering up the opportunity to buy and have your name engraved on tiles within the pool. If I lived in New York, I would be all over this.
But what’s powerful here is the ability for crowd-based platforms (like Kickstarter) to both get radical new ideas off the ground and to empower local communities to affect change. Here’s a quote from PSFK:
It’s very difficult to get funding for these ‘out there’ ideas that regular systems might not support. Creators have to take risks and be imaginative, as well as put their ideas out there and let the public decide. There are no traditional guidelines on crowd-sourced platforms—they’re much more meritocratic. You can think in big scope and that changes what gets made and who can access it. Anybody with a couple of doubles can voice what they want to be built, and in that way we see the entire community having a huge say in the design world.
And when I see projects and platforms like this, I can’t help but wonder if (when) city building is going to become even more decentralized.
Last night I was also at an event – being put on by Ryerson University’s City Building Institute – called Bridging Divides: What Can Cities Do? And one of the suggestions that came up was that Toronto needs more local and granular community councils (there are currently 4) in order to bridge some of the divides that are happening in our city.
But in a world where it’s possible for each and every person in a city to not only have a say but to quickly say it from their smartphones, why can’t we go even more local? Instead of 4, 10, or 90 community councils, why can’t we have everyone more engaged?
I think we’re headed in that direction.
Earlier this month a team consisting of Benjamin Barber (who is author of If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities), Richard Florida (who is Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute here at the University of Toronto), and Don Tapscott (who is a leading authority on innovation) released a research report advocating for a global network of cities that they’re calling a “Global Parliament for Mayors.”
Here’s a snippet from the press release:
“Nation-states work together through multi-lateral agreements and global institutions in an effort to solve global problems. But states have limitations, and their cooperative efforts in our new era of interdependence and globalization are increasingly insufficient and even ineffective and outmoded,” say the three prominent researchers. A Global Parliament of Mayors represents a new type of governance network – one with enormous potential.
“Our proposed parliament would operate as a global urban network with a vibrant online community that collaborates on key issues 365 days a year,” they say. “Multi-stakeholder governance has come of age and is now fully independent from control by any government, or governmental organizations like the UN.”
And if you dive into their report, you’ll find the following 5 reasons for why they believe a Global Parliament for Mayors (GPM) makes sense:
Global migration to cities. Most people live in cities, so it makes sense to concentrate problem-solving capabilities there.
Urban predisposition for problem-solving. Cities are entrepreneurial, close to the people and richly connected to a wide variety of stakeholders. They have a history of cooperation and pragmatic problem-solving.
A need for experimentation with new governance models. Traditional models of state-based global governance have struggled to advance effective solutions to many global problems, so there is an urgent need to experiment with new models. The GPM is the most promising.
Digital networks. Online collaboration technology makes it possible to operate a largely virtual parliament that would not only be more cost-effective, but more transparent, inclusive and productive.
Digital citizens. There is a large, educated and motivated population of digital citizens that could be tapped to improve urban governance.
In principle, I agree with the direction. And I feel that way because of the two major shifts outlined above: More people are living in cities (a trend that all urbanists talk about ad nauseam) and digital networks are having a disruptive effect on the way we run companies and live our lives.
I’ve talked before about how the internet is causing a decentralization of value creation (see Airbnb, YouTube, and so on) and so I think it only makes sense that our governance structures will inevitably go through a similar transformation.
The governance models that we are living with today were put in place during a time when the world was a different place. At one point, nation-states were the de facto way to effectively organize ourselves on a global stage – probably because there wasn’t any other reasonable alternative.
But today, we are connected and interdependent in entirely new ways. And so the opportunity in front of us is to create a governance structure that leverages the progress and innovation that’s happening in cities, everywhere.
If cities are our most important economic unit, then mayors are arguably some of our most important leaders. So it behooves us to figure out how to give them the frameworks and forums to best do their job.