Post-globalization, super-urbanization and prospects of social development
The paper presents an attempt to reconceptualize social development and to measure its level for societies facing the post-globalization as globalizing networks and flows are paradoxically localized in super-urban areas. The economic and social divide between the group of the largest cities and the rest of the world supports the idea that globalization has resulted not in the ‘world society’ or ‘worldwide sociality’ but rather in networked enclaves of globality where people experience borderless, multicultural, and mobile social life in the regime of augmented modernity. In the post-globalization age, the ‘core’ of socioeconomic order is dispersed into networks of enclaves of augmented modernity contrasting with exhausted modernity outside them. The nations’ prospects of social development depend on number, size, and influence of cosmopolitan super-urban areas attracting and generating transnational material, human, and symbolic flows. The super-urbanization index is elaborated to measure nations’ prospects under post-globalization conditions. Traditional indices of standard of living and quality of life have to be augmented in the new theoretical model and system of empirical indicators of social development under post-globalization conditions.
Information for citation: Ivanov, D. V. (2020), “Post-globalization, superurbanization and prospects of social development”, Research Result. Sociology and management, 6(1), 72-79. DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2020-6-1-0-6
Figures
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Appadurai, A. (1990), “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy”, in Featherstone, M. (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity, SAGE, London, UK.
Arrighi, G. (2001), “Global Capitalism and the Persistence of the North – South Divide”, Science & Society, 65 (4), 469-476.
Ivanov, D. (2016), “New Forms of Inequality and the structures of Glam-Capitalism”, Social Evolution & History, 15 (2), 25-49.
McKinsey Global Institute (2012), Urban America: US Cities in the Global Economy.
McKinsey Global Institute (2011), Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities.
Rosstat – Federal Agency of the State Statistics (2017), Regions of Russia. Social and Economic Indicators, Rosstat, Moscow, available at: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/doc_2017/region/reg-pok17.pdf (Accessed 17 February 2020)
Sassen, S. (2005), “The Global City: Introducing a Concept”, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 11 (2), 27-43.
The Brookings Institution (2012), Global Metro monitor: Slowdown, Recovery, Metropolitan Policy Program.
The Brookings Institution (2018), Global Metro monitor 2018, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings.
United Nations (2016), Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Report 2016, UN-Habitat, Nairobi.
United Nations (2014), World Urbanization Prospects, UN DESA, New York, USA.
United Nations (2019), World Urbanization Prospects 2018: Highlights, UN DESA, New York, USA.
Wallerstein, I. (2004), World-System Analysis: An Introduction, Duke University Press, Durham.
This paper is based on the research supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Project 18-18-00132).