Urban Studies, Vol. 39, No.

13, 2377– 2394, 2002

Exploratory Analysis of the World City Network

P. J. Taylor, G. Catalano and D. R. F. Walker

[Paper Ž rst received, November 2001; in Ž nal form, April 2002]

Summary. Drawing on previous speciŽ cation and measurement of the world city network, this
paper develops an exploratory research design using principal components analyses. Multiple
solutions are used to explore the structure of a matrix deŽ ned by 123 cities and 100 global service
Ž rms in which the cells indicate the value of the Ž rm’s ofŽ ce in that city. Principal components
analysis produces clusters of cities based upon similar proŽ les of service Ž rms. Using 13 separate
analyses, the main Ž nding is a prime structure consisting of Outer cities, US cities, PaciŽ c Asian
cities, Euro-German cities and Old Commonwealth cities. Other secondary structures are also
found. The end-result is a new geography of globalisation as indicated by conŽ gurations of the
world city network.

This is the Ž nal paper in a trilogy of argu- speciŽ cation has been lacking. By identify-
ments that cumulatively work towards a ge- ing the world city network as an interlocking
ography of globalisation. The geography network with three levels—network, nodes
being constructed is a network conŽ guration; (cities) and sub-nodes (global service
the objects of concern are prime nodes in the Ž rms)—a speciŽ cation has been derived in
contemporary world economy, the cities. The which the Ž rms are the major creators of the
basic argument follows Sassen (1991) and world city network. Firms ‘interlock’ cities
Castells (1996) in the identiŽ cation of a through their ofŽ ce networks that are per-
world city network within a global space of force world-wide to service global corpora-
 ows. Based upon the enabling technologies tions with a branded seamless service. The
of combining computers with communica- speciŽ cation consists of a basic city– Ž rm
tions, world cities have taken the traditional matrix of ‘service values’ provided by each
service role of cities into a global scale of Ž rm in each city from which are derived
operation to provide a ‘skeletal’ structure for intercity matrices of interlocking connec-
globalisation. It is a description of this struc- tions.
ture that is presented in this third paper. The second paper in the series (Taylor et
The Ž rst paper in the series (Taylor, 2001) al., 2001) describes how we have opera-
provides a precise speciŽ cation of the world tionalised the speciŽ cation through measure-
city network. Although there has been much ment of the world city network for the year
reference in the literature to concepts such 2000. Although there has been reference to
as ‘global network of cities’, actual much quantitative data in the literature, this
P. J. Taylor and D. R. F. Walker are in the Department of Geography, Loughboroug h University, Loughborough , LE11 3TU, UK.
Fax: 01509 223 930. E-mail: p.j.taylor@lboro.ac.u k and d.r.f.walker@lboro.ac.uk . G. Catalano is in the Dipartimento di Sociologi a
e Scienza Politica, Università degli Studi della Calabria, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy. Fax: 0039 0984 492 598. E-mail:
gilda.catalano@unical.it . This research was carried out as part of the ESRC project “World City Network Formation in a Space of
Flows” (R000223210) .

0042-098 0 Print/1360-063 X On-line/02/132377 – 18 Ó 2002 The Editors of Urban Studies

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
DOI: 10.1080/004209802200002701 3
2378
has normally been used to rank cities in
importance without any attempt to consider
connections between cities. We tackle this
empirical deŽ cit in three stages. First, we
have gathered information on the sizes and
extra-locational functions of ofŽ ces of 100
global service Ž rms across 316 cities. Sec-
ondly, this multifarious information is con-
verted into ‘service values’—the importance
of a city within a Ž rm’s ofŽ ce network—
ranging from 0 to 5. Thirdly, these data are
used to derive measures of inter-locking con-
nectivity between cities providing an index
of global network connectivity for comparing
the positions of cities within the world city
network.
In this third paper, we take these data and
begin analysis of the world city network. The
data we use include all 100 Ž rms and the 123
highest connected cities. We do not use all
cities because the data matrix becomes in-
creasingly sparse (i.e. most Ž rms score 0 (no
presence) in a city) with smaller connectivi-
ties and thus becomes increasingly unsuitable
for analysis. The 123 cities included all have
a global connectivity of at least one-Ž fth that
of the most connected city (London). Obvi-
ously, this is an arbitrary cut-off point; it has
been chosen because it still provides us with
a large number of cities that are distributed
across all parts of the settled world. To re-
prise the “GaWC 100” Ž rms: these are ad-
vanced producer service Ž rms (18
accountancy, 15 advertising, 23 banking/
Ž nance, 11 insurance, 16 law and 17 man-
agement consultancy) that have ofŽ ces in at
least 15 different cities and with presences in
each of northern America, western Europe
and PaciŽ c Asia. The latter requirement is to
ensure that we deal with not just large Ž rms
with many ofŽ ces but that, in addition, they
have global locational strategies. The multi-
variate approach we use to analyse this
123 3 100 data matrix is principal compo-
nents analysis.1
In addition to the empirical aim of describ-
ing the basic conŽ guration of the world city
network, this paper has a methodological
purpose. We adopt an exploratory approach
to the data analysis using a series of principal
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.
components analyses producing multiple so-
lutions. Confronted with a data matrix as
large as this one, we do not expect to Ž nd
simple deŽ nitive patterns and therefore the
starting-point should be an exploration to
Ž nd different patterns within the complexity
of the data. The Ž rst section below explains
why principal components analysis is an
ideal exploratory tool. The remainder of the
paper then follows a route through the data
matrix in which we focus on three stopping-
off points. The second section looks at a
2-component solution as ‘the Ž rst cut’; the
third section proposes a 5-component sol-
ution as the ‘prime structure’ in the data; and
the fourth section considers solutions ‘below’
the primary structure with particular attention
given to a 10-component solution. In the
conclusion, we address both purposes of the
paper: methodologically, we consider the
meaning of our exploration metaphor; and,
empirically, we speculate on the nature of the
globalisation processes that could have cre-
ated the conŽ gurations revealed by our
analyses.
Beyond Parsimony: Principal Components
Analysis as a Tool of Data Exploration
Exploratory data analysis is usually limited
to univariate or bivariate situations where
patterns of data can be visually displayed.
Obviously, such an approach is not directly
possible in a large multivariate context. Sim-
ple visual presentations of the data remain an
aim, but their production has to be indirect
following a deal of data manipulation.
Principal components analysis is one of
the factor-analytical family of multivariate
techniques. These techniques are used to
deŽ ne the pattern of independent sources of
variation in a data matrix. As such, they are
a popular means of producing parsimonious
description of large and complex sets of data.
In a previous paper, we have used this parsi-
mony argument for the use of this approach
(Taylor and Walker, 2001). A good indi-
cation that this has become a standard argu-
ment for using a factor analysis is that, in
SPSS, the family of techniques is reached by
 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK
clicking on the ‘Data Reduction’ button.
However, in the classic social science text on
factor analysis by Rummel (1970), a much
wider range of uses is discussed. He
identiŽ es 10 different ‘design goals’ for these
techniques (Figure 8– 1, p. 182), one of
which is to ‘explore’. This is the approach
we adopt here but, unfortunately, exploratory
analysis is not followed up at all in his
otherwise-comprehensive text. We attempt
an initial rectiŽ cation of this oversight here.
Most statistical analyses, whether multi-
variate or not, are designed to provide an
answer to a question. Answers range from
averages (of frequency distributions) to gra-
dients (of scatter plots) to clustering hier-
archies (from data matrices) and, in every
case, the research is carefully arranged to
provide a ‘best-Ž t’ answer to a research ques-
tion. 2 It is this idea of requiring a deŽ nitive
answer that we elude in the research design
we develop. The factor-analytical family of
techniques has always been vulnerable to
criticism from those looking for the one and
only answer in their data. Researchers carry-
ing out factor analyses Ž nd themselves hav-
ing to make more ‘subjective’ decisions than
is normal for a quantitative analysis. This is
because the method involves several
“sources of uncertainty” (Rummel, 1970,
p. 349). Prominent among these is the num-
ber of factors to extract and rotate.3 Choosing
different numbers of factors produces differ-
ent results—alternative answers to the same
question—and there is no agreed way to
decide how many are required. Rummel
(1970, p. 349) translates this uncertainty into
“the Factor Number Problem” and devotes a
whole chapter on how to decide ‘the best
number of factors’ (pp. 351, 367). Unable to
provide a solution to the problem, he con-
cludes by admitting that the end-result of his
discussion has been to make the reader feel
“more confused” (p. 367) than before!
We take a different track; rather than un-
certainty being a problem, we look at it
positively. Creating many alternative results
provides a means for exploring a set of data.
Instead of searching for the ‘best number’,
we consider all relevant numbers of factors.
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
2379
This ‘multiple-number’ design allows for
comparison of results over a range of levels
of ‘data reduction’. In this way, we uncover
different sources of independent variation at
different levels, but we also see the similari-
ties in patterns over different levels. The
latter indicates the robustness of some factor
patterns. Of course, this approach does not
mean that we treat all solutions as being of
equal relevance: exploration is all about eval-
uating the salience of different results using
different numbers of factors. We know of no
use of factor analysis in this exploratory
manner so that the analyses below are pre-
sented tentatively as a methodological inno-
vation for understanding large data matrices.
The actual research design consists of 13
principal components analyses of the
100 3 123 city– Ž rm data matrix. The number
of components extracted ranges from 2 to 14
wherein every solution has all components
with at least one loading (interpretable as the
correlation between a component and a vari-
able) above 0.4. All these results are based
upon varimax rotation to provide distinctive
patterns of variation. The cities are treated as
the ‘variables’ (i.e. Q-mode analysis) so that
the sources of variation delineated are clus-
ters of cities correlated in terms of similari-
ties in their proŽ les of service values across
Ž rms. Our analytical route through the matrix
is from most to least data reduction.
The First Cut: Dichotomising the Data
The simplest principal components analysis
consists of rotating two components to Ž nd
the most basic sources of variation in the
data. This is to dichotomise the data into two
broad clusters of cities with distinctively dif-
ferent proŽ les of Ž rms. In fact, because we
only allocate cities to components where
they have a loading of above 0.4, this pro-
duces a third group of unallocated cities.
This exercise produces a Ž rst component of
66 cities and a second component of 38
cities, leaving 19 cities unallocated.
The speciŽ c results of the two-component
analysis are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
2380 P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.
Table 1. Cities allocated to two components
I. Outer wannabes
Istanbul, Athens, Cairo,
0.7 1 Montevideo, SoŽ a, Beirut,
Prague
Dubai, Bucharest, Mumbai,
Karachi, Tel Aviv, Budapest,
0.6– 0.69 Casablanca, Nairobi, Manila,
Zagreb, Warsaw, Lisbon,
Santiago, Quito, Moscow, Taipei
Panama City, Kuwait, Calcutta,
Jakarta, Bangalore, Chennai,
Caracas, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur,
0.5– 0.59 Lima, Vienna, Kiev,
Johannesburg, Auckland*,
Jeddah, Madrid, Amsterdam,
Nicosia, Helsinki, Copenhagen,
Dublin, Ho Chi Minh City
Lagos, Milan, Port Louis,
Hamburg, Bogota, Hong Kong,
Shanghai, Bratislava, Beijing,
0.4– 0.49 Buenos Aires, Guangzhou, Paris,
Bangkok, Oslo, New Delhi,
Geneva, Brussels, Stuttgart,
Manama, Riyadh, São Paulo
Notes: Cities are ranked by loadings in each category.
*indicates second-highest loading for a city.
Cities unallocated to two components: Antwerp, Berlin, Chicago, Cologne, Dusseldorf,
Frankfurt, London, Luxembourg, Mexico City, Munich, Nassau, New York, Singapore,
Stockholm, Sydney, Tokyo, Zurich.
It is instructive to begin with the unallocated
cities. Although a rather motley crew cover-
ing all parts of the world, there is one notable
feature of this group: it encompasses many
major world cities. As well as London, New
York and Tokyo, this group of 19 cities
includes Chicago, Frankfurt, Singapore, Syd-
ney and Zurich. Even where major cities are
allocated to the components, these are in the
lowest category of loading (Hong Kong,
Paris and Brussels in Component I; Toronto,
Los Angeles and Washington in Component
II). In complete contrast, the upper reaches of
both components are replete with the rela-
tively minor cities within our 123. We inter-
pret both components as clusters of what are
sometimes termed ‘wannabe world cities’
(Short et al., 2000)—important cities in their
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
II. Inner wannabes
St Louis, Indianapolis
Charlotte, Kansas City, Atlanta,
Seattle, Vancouver, Perth,
Pittsburgh, Brisbane, Denver,
Manchester, Adelaide
Portland, Houston, Philadelphia,
Boston, Dallas, Minneapolis,
Cleveland, Montreal, Melbourne,
Birmingham, Cape Town,
San Diego, Auckland, Barcelona,
Calgary
San Francisco, Toronto, Detroit,
Los Angeles, Miami, Lyons,
Rome, Washington, Rio de
Janeiro, Abu Dhabi, Rotterdam,
Wellington, Hamilton
own right, but outside the usual roster desig-
nated in world or global terms. Their generic
name derives from the fact that such cities
invariably have policies helping them to
strive for world city status.
Labelling these two wannabe categories is
quite straightforward. Component I is made
up of cities from what used to be called the
Third World plus eastern European cities and
some more peripherally located cities in
western Europe, notably in the far south
(Mediterranean and Iberian cities) and far
north (Scandinavian cities)—hence the des-
ignation Outer Wannabes.4 Contrariwise,
Component II is dominated by relatively mi-
nor US cities plus the ‘second cities’ in
western European countries (Manchester and
Birmingham—both claim UK second-city
 Figure 1. Two clusters of cities. Note: This cartogram places cities in their approximate relative geographical positions. Key: AB Abu Dhabi; AD Adelaide;
AK Auckland; AM Amsterdam; AS Athens; AT Atlanta; AN Antwerp; BA Buenos Aires; BB Brisbane; BC Barcelona; BD Budapest; BG Bogota; BJ Beijing;
BK Bangkok; BL Berlin; BM Birmingham; BN Bangalore; BR Brussels; BS Boston; BT Beirut; BU Bucharest; BV Bratislava; CA Cairo; CC Calcutta; CG

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
Calgary; CH Chicago; CL Charlotte; CN Chennai; CO Cologne; CP Copenhagen; CR Caracas; CS Casablanca; CT Cape Town; CV Cleveland; DA Dallas;
EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK

DB Dublin; DS Dusseldorf; DT Detroit; DU Dubai; DV Denver; FR Frankfurt; GN Geneva; GZ Guangzhou; HB Hamburg; HC Ho Chi Minh City; HK Hong
Kong; HL Helsinki; HM Hamilton (Bermuda); HS Houston; IN Indianapolis; IS Istanbul; JB Johannesburg; JD Jeddah; JK Jakarta; KC Kansas City; KL Kuala
Lumpur; KR Karachi; KU Kuwait; KV Kiev; LA Los Angeles; LB Lisbon; LG Lagos; LM Lima; LN London; LX Luxembourg; LY Lyons; MB Mumbai;
MC Manchester; MD Madrid; ME Melbourne; MI Miami; ML Milan; MM Manama; MN Manila; MP Minneapolis; MS Moscow; MT Montreal; MU Munich;
MV Montevideo; MX Mexico City; NC Nicosia; ND New Delhi; NR Nairobi; NS Nassau; NY New York; OS Oslo; PA Paris; PB Pittsburgh; PD Portland;
PE Perth; PH Philadelphia; PL Port Louis; PN Panama City; PR Prague; QU Quito; RJ Rio de Janeiro; RM Rome; RT Rotterdam; RY Riyadh; SA Santiago;
SD San Diego; SE Seattle; SF San Francisco; SG Singapore; SH Shanghai; SK Stockholm; SL St Louis; SO SoŽ a; SP São Paulo; ST Stuttgart; SU Seoul; SY
Sydney; TA Tel Aviv; TK Tokyo; TP Taipei; TR Toronto; VI Vienna; VN Vancouver; WC Washington DC; WL Wellington; WS Warsaw; ZG Zagreb; ZU
2381

Zurich.
 2382

Table 2. Cities allocated to Ž ve components (loadings above 0.4)

I II III IV V
Outer cities US cities PaciŽ c Asian cities Euro-German cities Old Commonwealth cities

784 Tel Aviv 769 St Louis 740 Taipei 782 Berlin 716 Perth
767 SoŽ a 703 Cleveland 726 Tokyo 768 Munich 715 Adelaide
753 Kuwait 725 Bangkok 703 Hamburg
730 Helsinki 703 Jakarta
730 Quito
724 Beirut
696 Casablanca 680 Dallas 664 Beijing 697 Cologne 687 Brisbane
681 Athens 664 Kansas City 658 Manila 660 Stuttgart 657 Hamilton
670 Nairobi 650 Pittsburgh 633 Seoul 616 Birmingham
666 Montevideo 650 Indianapolis 630 Kuala Lumpur
664 Jeddah 634 Portland 607 Hong Kong
660 Bucharest 633 Atlanta
645 Cairo 631 Seattle
642 Lagos 623 Charlotte
629 Panama 622 Denver
P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.

624 Lima 620 Detroit

608 Vienna 607 Philadelphia
599 Dubai 560 Boston 598 Guangzhou 593 Frankfurt 547 Manchester
595 Copenhagen 557 San Diego 593 Shanghai 569 Paris 504 Nassau
595 Oslo 524 Washington 560 Ho Chi Min City 530 Budapest 501 Vancouver
592 Zagreb 524 Minneapolis 516 Istanbul 530 Dusseldorf 501 Nicosia

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
590 Karachi 502 San Francisco 511 Mumbai 519 Warsaw
586 Chennai 500 Houston 500 Singapore 511 Milan
584 Bangalore 508 Luxembourg
572 Istanbul
570 Lisbon
553 Bratislava
535 Kiev
534 Nicosia
533 Calcutta
 495 Riyadh 499 Melbourne 455 São Paulo 482 Antwerp 457 Abu Dhabi
492 Prague 473 Los Angeles 443 Caracas 460 Prague 453 Montreal
468 Auckland 462 Vancouver 416 New Delhi 452 Rome 442 Auckland
461 Moscow 437 Chicago 405 Santiago 437 Lyons 441 Calgary
457 Johannesburg 425 Miami 433 Amsterdam 426 London
452 Cape Town 410 Montreal 402 Moscow 423 Dubai
448 Manila 409 Toronto 410 Port Louis
446 Budapest 408 Dublin
427 Mumbai 402 Wellington
424 Warsaw
421 Port Louis
418 Santiago

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK
2383
2384
status, Barcelona, Lyons, Rome and Rotter-
dam) and second cities in selected associated
countries (Montreal, Melbourne, Cape Town,
Rio de Janeiro and Abu Dhabi). Clearly,
these are Inner Wannabes. This basic geo-
graphical dichotomy is clearly seen in Figure
1 where the Ž rst component straddles most of
the world and the second component is con-
centrated in the ‘old core’, to use world-
systems terminology. These are two distinc-
tive policy worlds. For Outer Wannabes,
rising up the ranks of world cities is primar-
ily a ‘development’ issue, attracting global
capital to become more central in the world
city network. For Inner Wannabes, rising in
world city status is about changing the nature
of national city hierarchies in order to come
out of the shadow of a dominant local world
city. We have previously suggested that New
York casts its ‘world city shadow’ over all
other US cities (Beaverstock et al., 2000) and
clearly London plays a similar role in the UK
(Taylor, 1997).
What does a clustering of cities into a
principal component mean in terms of these
data? The components are derived from the
pattern of correlations between cities. Thus,
two cities loading high on the same compo-
nent will share similarities in the service
Ž rms each house and in the ‘service values’
those Ž rms give to each city. Hence, compo-
nents are clusters of cities with similar
proŽ les of service provision across Ž rms.
The two components in this Ž rst cut therefore
identify one cluster of cities with service
Ž rms relatively well represented beyond the
‘old core’ and another cluster with service
Ž rms relatively more concentrated within the
‘old core’ itself. However, such a simple
division does not easily encompass the more
important world cities. Remember that all
Ž rms in the data have global strategies: those
with an ‘old core’ bias will still need to have
ofŽ ces in the more important ‘outer world
cities’; and, those with a bias outside the ‘old
core’ will still have ofŽ ces in the more im-
portant ‘inner world cities’. In addition, these
clusters of cities can be interpreted as indica-
tors of sub-networks based upon  ows (of
information, of data, of orders) within Ž rms’
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.
ofŽ ce networks. Given that Ž rms pursue
‘seamless service’ for their clients, intraŽ rm
connections should be larger than interŽ rm
connections within sectors. In short, principal
components as clusters of cities describe
conŽ gurations of the world city network.
Finally it should be noted that, in a usual
factor analysis research design, these two-
component results would normally be over-
looked since in large complex data-sets it is
highly unlikely that the ‘best’ solution would
have only two dimensions. However, in our
exploratory mode we have uncovered an in-
teresting ‘Ž rst cut’ of the data which, as we
shall see, will continue to have resonance in
later analyses. Furthermore, this use of a
principal components dichotomy is more
 exible in nature than alternative approaches
to dividing the cities into two main groups.
The multivariate design that is usually used
to dichotomise a large data-set is the Ž rst
step in a hierarchical division analysis. But
such divisions into two groups are highly
rigid in two senses. First, all cases are allo-
cated in a strict taxonomic manner; in con-
trast our result provides ‘fuzzy groups’ with
both some overlap and recognition of non-
membership. Secondly, once the hierarchical
division continues through further steps in
the analysis, cases remain in their initial half
of the data so that the initial dichotomy limits
the composition of groups at all subsequent
hierarchical levels. This will not be the case
with our exploratory factor analysis research
design because each analysis at each level is
an independent principal components analy-
sis, unin uenced by any previous analysis.
The Primary Structure in the Data
Although we look at 13 different principal
components analyses, we have made the
point that this does not mean that all are
considered to be of equal salience in under-
standing the data. In this section, we focus on
the 5-component solution which we consider
to be the most interesting of all the solutions.
We interpret it as revealing the primary
structure of the data for the following two
reasons. First, it produces a reasonably bal-
 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK
anced pattern of components in numerical
terms (Table 2). Each component has at least
5 cities with high loadings (over 0.6) and
each has a sizeable total of cities in its cluster
(the two smallest components, IV and V,
have 18 and 17 cities respectively). There are
no such distinct and large components in
solutions with more than 5 components. For
instance, the extra component in the 6-
component solution has no loadings over 0.6
and 7 of its 10 cities have loadings below
0.5. Secondly, the 5-component solution pro-
duces a structure that is very easily inter-
preted. Thus, as well as the numerical
balance, these results provide a clear geo-
graphical meaning to the way in which our
world of cities is divided. Clearly, we are not
proscribing further components with new
patterns of cities—these will be goals for
further exploration—but we are saying that
this particular solution appears to evince
what may reasonably be called a primary
structure of the data. Hence we will consider
these results in greatest detail.
To aid in interpreting the components in
Table 2, Table 3 has been constructed by
cross-tabulating the 5-component solution
with the 2-component solution. Where a city
appears in two columns in Table 2, it is
distributed in Table 3 on the basis of its
highest loading. Table 3 shows that Compo-
nents I and II in the 5-component solution
are directly derived from the Ž rst-cut sol-
ution: 36 out of 39 and 22 of 23 cities
transfer directly across solutions. Inspection
of these cities in Table 2 reveals that the new
Component I is the Outer Wannabes shorn of
PaciŽ c Asian cities; we call it simply Outer
Cities here. The new Component II is the
Table 3. Cross-tabulation of cities for two and Ž ve components
I II
I 36 0 17
II 1 22
Not allocated 2 1
Totals 39 23
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
2385
Inner Wannabes shorn of non-US cities; we
call it simply US Cities. Figure 2 shows their
new contrasting geographies: Component II
is the most concentrated cluster of cities;
Component I is the opposite spread across
the world everywhere except in the three
main globalisation arenas of northern Amer-
ica, western Europe and PaciŽ c Asia. The
latter region is represented by Component III
as PaciŽ c Asian Cities in Table 2.5 Nearly all
of these cities were originally part of the
Outer Wannabe cluster (Table 3): PaciŽ c
Asian Cities represent a split from the Outer
Wannabes. This analytical emergence paral-
lels the historical emergence of this region
out of the ‘Third World’ to produce contem-
porary globalisation. But it is more than this.
In the 5-component solution, there is a re-
ordering of cities so that the region’s major
cities are more prominent: Tokyo and Singa-
pore are added from unallocated cities and
Hong Kong rises two levels in loadings in
comparison with the 2-component analysis.
The result is a second concentrated cluster in
Figure 2.
The Ž nal two components in Table 2 are
fresh creations. Component IV brings to-
gether European cities headed in particular
by German cities. It combines eastern Euro-
pean cities that were Outer Wannabes with
German cities and other western European
cities that were not allocated in the 2-
component solution. We have labelled this
Euro-German Cities. In Figure 2, this is the
third concentrated cluster. Component V is
different in having a world-wide distribution
in Figure 2. Straddling Australia, Britain
and Canada, Component V is labelled Old
Commonwealth Cities (Table 2).6 Although
III IV V Not allocated Totals
7 1 4 66
0 2 10 3 38
2 7 1 4 19
19 16 13 13 123
2386 P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.

Figure 2. Five clusters of cities. Note: For key, see Figure 1.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
 Table 4. Highest loadings of unallocated cities to Ž ve components

I II III IV V
Outer cities US cities PaciŽ c Asia cities Euro-German cities Old Commonwealth cities

Bogota [0.39] Rio de Janeiro [0.38] Sydney [0.37] Geneva [0.37] Rotterdam [0.30]
Madrid [0.37] Barcelona [0.38] Brussels [0.36]
Buenos Aires [0.35] Zurich [0.23]
New York [0.30]
Mexico City [0.29]

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK
2387
2388 P. J. TAYLOR ET AL .

not geographically concentrated, this is the world, but the distinctive clusters of US
clearly a distinct politico-cultural cluster of Cities, PaciŽ c Asian Cities and Old Com-
cities. monwealth Cities combine wannabe and ma-
In the 5-component solution there are 12 jor world cities in coherent regional and
cities still not allocated and there are another politico-cultural inner conŽ gurations. This
13 cities that are allocated to two different diagram is our representation of the primary
components. In Table 4, the unattached 12 structure of the data.
are listed under the component on which they To begin to understand the processes be-
load highest. By deŽ nition, these are rela- hind the production of this structure, we need
tively small loadings so that interpretation is to consider the Ž rms, who are, in this
subsequently limited. Certainly, the new allo- speciŽ cation of the world city network, its
cations to Components III (PaciŽ c Asia) and creators. We do this by computing the com-
IV (Euro-German) seem sensible, but this is ponent scores for the 100 Ž rms. Like load-
not the case for the other three components. ings, scores indicate importance (of cases
In fact, the most notable feature of this table rather than variables) with respect to a given
is the conŽ rmation of how ‘un-American’ component. Relatively high scores (we use a
New York is: it is more like the minor outer threshold of 1.5) are shown in Table 6. These
cities than its fellow-national cities! The set results are as distinctive as the loadings we
of 13 doubly-loaded cities, which we call have previously interpreted. Outer Cities are
hybrid cities, is more interesting. These are associated solely with accountancy and ad-
shown in Table 5 where all but one hybrid vertising Ž rms—precisely the sectors in
city features the Outer cluster. Hybrid cities which Ž rms have the widest range of ofŽ ces.
are in between being part of the amorphous US Cities are associated with several sectors
collection of relatively minor cities and being but the Ž rms have two characteristics: large
part of a more distinctive cluster. This rela- size and US headquarters. PaciŽ c Asian and
tion is shown diagrammatically in Figure 3 Euro-German Cities are similarly associated
where the wannabe Outer Cities encompass with ‘regional’ headquartered Ž rms, in
Tokyo and German cities respectively, but
the emphasis is very much on one sector,
Table 5. Hybrid cities (cities with two loadings banking/Ž nance. The Old Commonwealth
above 0.4) with Ž ve components Cities are associated with a range of sectors,
like US Cities, in this case with London
City I. Outer III. PaciŽ c Asia headquartered Ž rms—notably in insurance
Istanbul 0.57 0.52
and accountancy—being prominent. This all
Mumbai 0.43 0.51 suggests that contemporary globalisation has
Manila 0.45 0.66 a structure resulting from geographical
Santiago 0.42 0.41 (physical and politico-cultural) diffusion
from the prime globalisation arenas (northern
IV. Euro-German
Prague 0.49 0.46
America, western Europe and PaciŽ c Asia)
Moscow 0.46 0.40 and that these regional (and politico-cultural)
Budapest 0.45 0.53 imprints remain very evident. The expansion
Warsaw 0.42 0.52 of successful Ž rms in Tokyo, London, the
US (largely New York) and Germany
V. Old Commonwealth
Dubai 0.60 0.42
(largely Frankfurt) has outgrown local, re-
Nicosia 0.53 0.50 gional and cultural boundaries to coalesce in
Auckland 0.47 0.44 contemporary globalisation. Beyond these
Port Louis 0.42 0.41 imprints there is a veneer of a more even
globalisation produced by Ž rms in the two
II. USA
Vancouver 0.46 0.50
sectors that globalised early and widely. It is
accountancy and advertising Ž rms, in par-

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK 2389

Figure 3. The primary structure of the world city network.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
 2390

Table 6. Firms with the highest scores on Ž ve components (Ž rms are ranked by scores in each cell)

I II III IV V
Outer cities US cities PaciŽ c Asian cities Euro-German cities Old Commonwealth cities

Ogilvy & Mather Moores Rowland SANWA DEUTSCHE BANK CGNU

McCann-Erickson Chubb Group DAI-ICHI KANGYO Horwath International
J Walter Thompson Towers Perrin CITIGROUP PKF International
2.0– 2.9 FCB KPMG HSBC HLB International
BDO International CREDIT SUISE FB Royal & SunAlliance
IBM FUJI BANK
CITIGROUP

Deloitte Touche Toh. Reliance Group Hold. FUJI BANK COMMERZBANK IGAF
D’Arcy Masius B & B CHASE H & Q Young & Rubicon BAYERISCHE LG RSM International
Young & Rubicon Andersen Consulting BNP PARIBUS HLB International Lloyd’s
KPMG J Walter Thompson J P MORGAN RSM International AGN Int.
P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Watson Wyatt BARCLAYS McKinsey & Co

1.5– 1.9 BBDO Worldwide Arthur Andersen WESTLB
Grant Thornton Int. TMP Worldwide AGN International
Ernst & Young RSM International ABN-AMRO
Allianz Group
Winterthur
Linklaters Alliance

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
DRESDNER BANK
Fudicial Int.

Key: Accountancy, Advertising, BANKING/FINANCE, Insurance, Law, Management Consultancy

 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK
ticular, that have made the world city net-
work more than an enhanced trilateral re-
gional conŽ guration. But the primary
structure remains founded on the three
globalisation arenas with just the Old Com-
monwealth Cities providing a slightly differ-
ent historical twist to the story.
Below the Prime: Secondary Structures
In this section, we have chosen to focus
initially upon the 10-component solution to
illustrate further clusters of cities that we
shall term secondary structures in the data
(Table 7). This solution shows clearly three
new city clusters and also illustrates the de-
generation into very weak components as the
number of components increases. In addition,
it supports the previous identiŽ cation of a
primary structure—as is revealed by a simple
comparison between Table 2 and the Ž rst Ž ve
components in Table 7. Both sets of Ž ve
components are very similar and in Table 7
the importance of components immediately
drops after Component V. Although this
shows the primary structure to be robust, the
two sets of Ž ve components are not exactly
the same. As well as a different order of
extraction (IV and V are transposed between
solutions), two of the prime factors alter
slightly with extraction of secondary struc-
tures. This re ects the autonomous nature of
different analyses in this exploratory strategy
and reminds us that the primary structure we
have identiŽ ed deŽ nes the most important,
relatively robust components, but it should
not be interpreted as the ‘correct’ answer
from the ‘right’ analysis. This will become
clear as we interpret secondary structures by
taking each new component in turn.
Component VI has no high loadings but
nevertheless includes 10 cities in Table 7.
Since the cities are relatively important
world cities and 7 are from North and South
America, we label this component Larger
Americas’ Cities. This necessitates rela-
belling (relative to the primary structure) the
US component as Minor US Cities. Simi-
larly, Component VII has an altering effect
on the European component from the pri-
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
2391
mary structure. We label this next component
Western Europe Cities, noting that it includes
no German cities; these remain in the larger
German-dominated European component.
However, the latter now becomes a narrower
component labelled German– East European
Cities. Component VII is a rather minor
component which we label Indian Cities
(with Guangzhou as a hybrid case with
PaciŽ c Asian Cities). These cities come from
the primary structure Outer Cities, but this
secondary structure is too weak to effect a
substantial alteration to the original in this
case. Component IX is a very minor dimen-
sion of common variation incorporating just
4 cities that are each rather minor but with a
banking speciality: our label is Minor Finan-
cial Cities. This interpretation is supported
by cities with loadings just below the 0.4
threshold for appearing in Table 7: Hamilton
(Bermuda), Lyons and Geneva. Finally,
Component X looks very insigniŽ cant with
just a single low loading, but again looking
below the 0.4 threshold suggests that this
Stockholm component might represent an in-
cipient Scandinavian Cities cluster: Copen-
hagen, Oslo, Helsinki and Amsterdam (with
its traditional Baltic links) are just below the
threshold. However, having to search
through relatively low loadings to make
sense of the last two components does illus-
trate that these are very minor patterns of
common variation; we consider just the ini-
tial three new components as representing
secondary structures.
The three secondary structures are not
necessarily best portrayed in the 10-
component solution. Looking through other
solutions, we have selected similar compo-
nents that have a tighter structure in Table 8.
For instance, the rather ‘loose’ (no high load-
ings) Americas component is more clearly
speciŽ ed as Major Latin American Cities in
component 6 of the 6-components solution.7
With US cities not loading on this version,
the US Cities cluster is retained. Note, how-
ever, that minor Latin American Cities re-
main in the Outer Cities cluster suggesting a
clear size differential among cities of this
region. Similarly, Component VII of the 7-
 Table 7. Cities allocated to 10 components
2392

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Minor US PaciŽ c Asian Old Commonwealth German-East Larger Americas Western Europe Minor Ž nancial
Outer cities cities cities cities European cities cities cities Indian cities cities Stockholm

0.7 1 Tel Aviv St Louis Taipei Perth Munich

SoŽ a Kansas City Bangkok Adelaide Berlin
Beirut Charlotte Brisbane Stuttgart
Kuwait Cleveland
Quito Pittsburgh
Montevideo Indianapolis
0.6– 0.69 Casablanca Denver Tokyo Birmingham Hamburg Milan Chennai Manama
Helsinki Portland Beijing Manchester Dusseldorf Madrid
Athens Jakarta Budapest
Cairo Hong Kong
Lima Shanghai
Nairobi Seoul
Bucharest Manila
Lagos
Panama
Dubai
Jeddah
Zagreb
0.5– 0.59 Istanbul Dallas Kuala Lumpur Vancouver Warsaw Mexico City Paris Guangzhou Luxembourg
Bratislava Seattle Ho Chi Min City Montreal Cologne Toronto Brussels
Oslo Minneapolis Guangzhou Hamilton Frankfurt Chicago
Vienna Philadelphia Calgary Zurich
Copenhagen San Diego Melbourne
P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.

Karachi Detroit
Kiev Washington
Nicosia Atlanta
Lisbon
Bangalore
Moscow
Prague
0.4– 0.49 Chennai Boston Singapore Auckland Prague São Paulo Rome New Delhi Port Louis Stockholm

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
Riyadh Istanbul Cape Town Moscow Sydney Calcutta Antwerp
Calcutta Mumbai Abu Dhabi Luxembourg Boston Bangalore
Budapest Caracas Wellington Shanghai Buenos Aires Seattle
Manila San Francisco
Johannesburg
Santiago
Port Louis
Cape Town
Mumbai
Auckland
Warsaw
Bogota
 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD CITY NETWORK
Table 8. Cities allocated to speciŽ c factors in different analyses
VI with 6 components
Major Latin American cities
Buenos Aires
0.6– 0.69 Caracas
São Paulo
0.5– 0.59 Mexico City
Toronto
Sydney
0.4– 0.49 Melbourne
Madrid
Milan
Zurich
Santiago
Johannesburg
components solution provides a slightly more
precise speciŽ cation of Indian Cities with
New Delhi becoming more important. How-
ever, Mumbai still remains in the PaciŽ c
Asia cluster suggesting another size differen-
tial between cities of a region, although this
time it is the smaller cities that deŽ ne the
regional cluster. Finally, the Western Euro-
pean Cities are deŽ ned more clearly by com-
ponent VII in the 9-component solution
which includes 9 cities including one Ger-
man city, Cologne, suggesting that this city is
less connected to Eastern European Cities
than other German cities.
Conclusion: A Route through the World
City Network
In describing our research design, we have
used the metaphor of exploration. We think
this has shown itself to be a good metaphor
for the way it encompasses our methodologi-
cal purpose. To explore is to venture into
unknown territory where there is no room for
rigid thinking; a  exible approach is a
necessity. Because of the inherent ‘uncer-
tainties’ in the application of the factor-
analytical family of techniques, their
analyses can be adapted to a simple ex-
ploratory research design that is immensely
 exible. Hence we have been able to illus-
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
2393
VII with 7 components VII with 9 components
Indian cities Western European cities
Chennai Milan
Madrid
Guangzhou Paris
New Delhi
Calcutta Amsterdam
Bangalore Brussels
Detroit Cologne
trate how principal components analysis can
be used as a tool for exploring a large com-
plex data matrix. Without searching for
deŽ nitive answers, we have uncovered some
of the basic patterns that constitute our data.
The closest we come to a traditional analyti-
cal ‘answer’ is in the identiŽ cation of a ‘pri-
mary structure’ in the data. However, it
should be pointed out that this was not an
aim in embarking on the exploration. This
primary structure was encountered en route
through the data. In applications of this re-
search design with other data, there may well
be no such primary structure. There are, of
course, many multivariate techniques that
can be employed to analyse large data ma-
trices, but we think that employing principal
components analysis as an exploratory tool is
arguably the most fruitful way to begin an
understanding. We believe our results are a
justiŽ cation for this assertion.
We do not produce neat Ž ndings. There
are overlaps between clusters of cities; some
cities are not allocated; and the content of
clusters alters through different analyses.
There is deŽ nitely no simple hierarchy of
world cities. Nevertheless, we do Ž nish up
with a reasonable understanding of the struc-
ture of the data. This can be summarised as a
primary pattern of Ž ve common sources of
variation, three smaller secondary structures
2394 P . J. TAYLOR ET AL.
and two possible minor patterns with the
global cities of London and New York out-
side all structures. This is a new geography
of globalisation as indicated by the
conŽ guration of world cities that was
promised at the outset. It is offered as a rare
research output: a sound empirical depiction
of globalisation based as it is on a precise
speciŽ cation of the world city network and a
careful measurement of the global strategies
of 100 major service Ž rms.
Notes
1. In a previous paper (Taylor and Walker,
2001), we employed a principal components
analysis on a similar data matrix comprising
55 cities and 46 service Ž rms with service
values ranging from 0 to 3. This was a
preliminary experimental data-set derived
from a different research project that was
primarily concerned with London. As well as
the new data employed here being more
comprehensive (68 more cities, 2 more sec-
tors and 54 more Ž rms), there is a better
balance of service Ž rms: in hindsight, the
Ž rst data incorporated too many law Ž rms
(with 16, the largest sector represented). Ob-
viously, with such major differences exact
parallels with the new analysis cannot be
expected but similarities between analyses
will be pointed out in the notes. There were
also regional data matrices derived from the
London project and results from their analy-
ses in Taylor and Hoyler (2000) and Taylor
et al. (2000) will also be compared with the
new global analysis, as appropriate.
2. This is effectively what we did in Taylor and
Walker (2001) by presenting the solution
with the most interpretable components.
3. The Ž rst source of uncertainty that Rummel
(1970, ch. 14) identiŽ es is in selection from
among a wide range of factor techniques
which themselves can be based upon differ-
ent models (ch. 5) and rotations (ch. 6). For
the exploratory purposes pursued here, we do
not use this variation in technique; rather, we
employ the most basic factor-analytical
method: a principal components analysis
with principal axis extraction and varimax
rotation. In the Ž rst stage of looking at the
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on February 22, 2015
conŽ guration of the data, it seems to us that
differences in the number of possible com-
mon patterns of variation are the crucial path
to explore.
4. This European part of the Outer Wannabes is
similar to the Outer Triangle of Cities in
Taylor and Hoyler (2000, p. 183).
5. A similar cluster is identiŽ ed in both Taylor
and Walker (2001, p. 39) featuring Minor
PaciŽ c Asian Cities and Taylor et al. (2000,
p. 39).
6. This category was also identiŽ ed in Taylor et
al. (2000).
7. A similar component is to be found in Taylor
and Walker (2001, p. 39) as Major Trans-
national and Latin American Cities.
References
BEAVERSTOCK, J. V., SMITH, R. G. and TAYLOR, P.
J. (2000) World-city network: a new meta
geography?, Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 90, pp. 123– 134.
CASTELLS, M. (1996) The Rise of Network
Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
RUMMEL, R. J. (1970) Applied Factor Analysis.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
SASSEN, S. (1991) The Global City. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
SHORT, J. R., BREITBACH, C., BUCKMAN. S. and
ESSEX, J. (2000) From world cities to gateway
cities, City, 4, pp. 317– 340.
TAYLOR, P. J. (1997) Is the UK big enough for
both London and England?, Environment and
Planning A, 29, pp. 766 – 770.
TAYLOR, P. J. (2001) SpeciŽ cation of the world
city network, Geographical Analysis, 33,
pp. 181– 194.
TAYLOR, P. J. and HOYLER , M. (2000) The spatial
order of European cities under conditions of
contemporary globalization, Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale GeograŽ e, 91,
pp. 176– 189.
TAYLOR, P. J. and WALKER , D. R. F. (2001) World
cities: a Ž rst multivariate analysis of their ser-
vice complexes, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 23– 47.
TAYLOR P. J., CATALANO , G. and WALKER , D. R.
F. (2002) Measurement of the world city net-
work, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 2367– 2376.
TAYLOR, P. J., DOEL , M. A., HOYLER , M. ET AL.
(2000) World cities in the PaciŽ c Rim: a new
global test of regional coherence, Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography, 34, pp. 33– 45.