The Future of City Networking: a guide for urban practitioners
by Nadia Soultanova — Head of Urban Network at Urban Impact Ventures
The global stage has traditionally been occupied by nation-states and international organizations. In the last decade a new player — the city, took a central role.
Several global agenda documents emphasize the key role of cities and urban environments in solving the most urgent planetary and societal problems. Cities are at the center of global sustainability agreements such as the UN Sustainable Developments Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the New Urban Agenda.
The work of long-established city networks largely contributed to cities gaining legitimacy and recognition as international actors. The new status of cities in its turn led to an explosive proliferation in the number of new city networks.
Currently, there are over 300 active city networks globally. A disproportionate number of them are based in Europe, many are EU-led. (1)
The resulting ecosystem can be hard to navigate for outsiders but also for local governments.
As a former urban practitioner, I’ve often struggled to decipher which networks to approach for membership or collaboration and was bewildered in the face of the numerous urban initiatives that I came across through the years. Joining a network was rarely done with a clear and realistic expectation of what is to be gained.
I believe that, for many cities, the decisions on which networks to join have been predominantly opportunistic, rather than a result of following a mid-term or long-term strategic internationalization plan.
“Given today’s large quantity of city networks, we are faced with a situation in which many cities participate in multiple networks and in which a range of networks deal with similar issues. The downside of this proliferation of activities is that it can result in an overproduction of reunions (e.g. congresses, seminars, meetings, etc.) and outputs (e.g. declarations, charters, policy papers, etc.) that are not always coherent in their messages and goals.” (2)
The proliferation of city networks can easily lead to disorientation, network fatigue, and loss of momentum for city networking. To counter this, city governments should consider a more structured approach to networking.
First, cities should plan networking efforts based upon an agreed internationalization strategy. Cities that do not have such a strategy, be it formal or informal, need to work on imagining the place of their city in the national, regional, and global arena. Is the city a global, national, or regional leader in some thematic area, and what networks best fit its long-term goals?
Second, cities' internationalization goals should go beyond the goal of political representation or, in some cases, even “participation for participation’s sake”. A strong focus on goals like scaling of successful projects and urban tech companies, especially in the realm of sustainability, should be a universal target.
Third, cities should adopt a more democratic and “loose” approach to networking to allow for less top-down control of decisions and information sharing. This includes things like introducing a culture of networking at all levels, and travel budgets, to name but a few.
A few important things to consider
What is a city network?
A city network is the formal voluntary organization of cities and urban stakeholders across regional or national borders. City networks provide key services like advocacy in front of international organizations or national governments, knowledge exchange, and promotion of transnational projects, among others.
The brief history of city networks
Collaboration between cities has, of course, existed for a very long time. The first formal city networks appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, but the trend has been proliferating since the mid-20th century.
There were two periods that marked a distinctive growth in the number of new city networks created and two general types of networks:
- The first was between the 1980s and 1990s, almost entirely in Europe, led by a number of EU initiatives establishing the Union’s regional policy for economic and social cohesion and the introduction of structural and cohesion funds, the creation of the Committee of the Regions, and networks like Eurocities. (2)
- The second period that started at the beginning of the 21st century is global in scope and came with the recognition of urbanization as a planetary phenomenon, leading to the declaration of the urban age and the 21st century as “the urban century”. (2)
Networks of the first generation are exclusively public membership networks. They are political, centralized, formal, and have a one-tier organizational structure. They have a broad agenda and a focus on collaborating with transnational organizations.
Networks of the second generation are characterized by diverse missions and goals, multi-actor member composition, and decentralized organizational structures. Some networks were initiated by international organizations, others were the result of city initiatives, and some originated as citizen-led movements. The second-period networks are more inclusive and open to stakeholders outside of the city government. Bringing together public and private actors with a shared interest in urban issues has been explicitly stated as a primary goal, together with knowledge exchange, the creation of shared knowledge pools between cities, and the implementation of a specific project.
A recent emerging form of city networking is the ad hoc strategic alliances between cities. They are formed as cities mobilize against “specific policies imposed by higher levels of government (e.g. the Sanctuary Cities movement in the United States, which opposes Trump’s migration policy)” or as a proactive reaction to a specific problem. Such alliances are proving an effective way to upscale local problems and concerns and demand solutions from the national government or the international community. (2)
Networks led and backed by private individuals or most often philanthropic organizations have also appeared in the last decade and a half and have since gained popularity. The C40, backed by Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the 100 Cities backed by the Rockefeller Foundation are the best-known examples. Such networks operate “very considerable financial and human resources” which gives them a significant advantage over traditional networks and causes a disruptive effect.
“But what has disrupted the ecosystem of networks is not the private nature of the leadership of these networks or platforms. It is their capacity to mobilise cities, to influence the public policies they promote, to mobilise resources, to project themselves onto the global scene and to communicate their results.” (2)
Some urban practitioners and traditional network representatives have expressed concerns about aspects of the “private-led” city networks, mainly the feel of elite membership clubs for global megacities, the exclusion of secondary cities, and the emphasis on city brand-building. According to those critics, questions remain on whether philanthropy-backed networks in their current form would manage to fully integrate and contribute to the larger ecosystem.
Global Sustainability Agreements put cities in the center
The biggest achievement of the early city networks was the recognition of local governments as full-fledged international governance actors. Global agendas started to address the urban, territorial, and the democratic autonomy of municipalities relative to the nation-state — sometimes called “new municipalism” — increased.
The Sustainable transformation further accelerated the leadership status of cities and urban areas.
The inclusion of an urban perspective as a stand-alone goal in the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Sustainable Development Goal 11) is perhaps the best known example. It also resulted in the need for increased dialogue between local governments and international organizations and the creation of new city networks as channels for that dialogue.
The Paris Agreement — The landmark global agreement, largely focuses on the role of national governments to act on climate change adaptation and mitigation goals. However, the national plans for emission reductions include many sectors directly related to cities and urban development (i.e. transport, energy, waste).
Major city networks
Here is a non-exhaustive list of existing city networks that might be of interest to urban officials in Europe. Most will be familiar, but it might be useful to arrange them by their type and where they stand in the historic evolution of city networks.
City networks can be classified according to
- the type of founding actors: ex. EU-led, UN-led
- membership composition by type: only local government versus a wider set of urban stakeholders
- geographical reach: regional focus vs. global networks
- focus: thematic focus versus generalist
- origin of the resources: ex. philanthropic contributions versus governments versus fees.
- mission and output: ex. political advocacy and representation, knowledge transfer, etc.
Source: Agustí Fernández de Losada and Hannah Abdullah (coord.). Rethinking the ecosystem of international city networks, Challenges, and opportunities. 2019
List of City Networks
United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) — a global network acting as a platform for international municipalism. Founded in 2004, it was conceived as an “umbrella organization” for cities, local and regional governments and now represents over 240,000 cities, metropolises and regions, and 175+ national local government associations from 140 countries. The network is committed to representing, defending, and amplifying the voices of local and regional governments, and UCLG has turned into a reference point for the various United Nations (UN) agencies.
Metropolis —headquartered in Barcelona, Spain, Metropolis is the world organization of the major metropolises with over one million inhabitants providing global leadership and advocacy, as well as capacity building and tools.
Eurocities — is a network of 200+ large cities in Europe, representing 130 M residents, that has become a key actor in territorial policy-making in Europe.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives ICLEI — Created in 1990, ICLEI is a global network of 2500+ local and regional governments in 125+ countries, committed to sustainable urban development.
Cities Alliance — is a global partnership of organizations from different sectors, created in 1999 to fight urban poverty and support cities to deliver sustainable development.
Creative Cities Network — a single-issue network, created by UNESCO in 2004 to promote cooperation among cities that have identified creativity as a strategic factor for sustainable urban development.
Polis — a regional thematic network founded in 1989, Polis is the leading network of European cities and regions working together to develop innovative technologies and policies for local transport and sustainable mobility through the deployment of innovative transport solutions.
Civitas — is one of the flagship programs helping the European Commission achieve its ambitious mobility and transport goals, and in turn those in the European Green Deal. Since its launch in 2002, CIVITAS has advanced research and innovation in sustainable urban mobility and enabled local authorities to develop, test, and roll out measures via a range of projects.
MedCities — was established in 1991 in Barcelona when 16 cities formed a network with the purpose, initially, of supporting environmental protection from a local perspective. Now a fully independent organization it brings together 67 local authorities from the Mediterranean region.
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group — is a global, private-backed thematic network with a public-private governance structure. It emerged in 2005 as a mayor-led initiative and soon secured significant backing from the Clinton Climate Initiative and later, Bloomberg philanthropies. C40 brings together 96 large cities — the network is only open for cities with populations of over 3M — from 50+ countries. C40helps mayors design, and implement the policies that most effectively address climate change mitigation and adaptation.
100 Resilient Cities (100RC) — consists of member cities and Chief Resilience Officers from the 100 Resilient Cities program, pioneered by The Rockefeller Foundation in 2013, as part of its Global Centennial Initiative.
Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (GTF) was set up in 2013 to bring the perspectives of local and regional governments to the SDGs, climate change agenda, and New Urban Agenda in particular. The Global Taskforce convenes elected local and regional leaders from around the world in the World Assembly of Local and Regional Governments, making local and regional governments the only UN non-state stakeholder to have a mechanism to develop and coordinate inputs into all policy processes.
The future of city networks
With the proliferation of the number of city networks, skepticism and network fatigue are on the rise. Networks might start finding it difficult to secure a continuous meaningful level of engagement from members, endangering some of the achievements so far.
Undoubtedly, cities need to remain an active players in global and national policy-making and should preserve the first generation networks that were so successful in achieving this goal. However, new, more complex issues that urban areas are now facing require a diversity of solutions.
A practical approach, specific goals, lighter governance structures, open membership, and a new level of connectedness might be what the future city networks should strive for.
Cities need to re-adjust the way they cooperate and develop more flexible and less hierarchical networks. The evolution from formal local government networks to networked cities is already on the way and it needs to continue.
Read my article on city networks’ role in scaling urban tech here.
References and further reading:
(1) Acuto M, Leffel B. Understanding the global ecosystem of city networks. Urban Studies. 2021;58(9):1758–1774. doi:10.1177/0042098020929261
(2) Agustí Fernández de Losada and Hannah Abdullah (coord.). Rethinking the ecosystem of international city networks, Challenges, and opportunities. 2019; 109p.
