tv Panelists Discuss the Impact of Globalization on Cities CSPAN August 17, 2017 10:10am-11:35am EDT
also, the beauty taken from our cities and parts will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!" now, globalization and cities and the modern economy with the former mayor of rio de janeiro and the former brazilian foreign minister. the chicago council on global affairs and "the financial times" posted this event. ladies and gentlemen, the chicago affair council on global affairs president. >> good morning. -- good evening. >> welcome to chicago and the 2017 forum on global cities. it is difficult to imagine a more timely moment for us to convene this particular forum. in the years since we last met, here in chicago, indeed, in the we have seen,
examples of something that is extraordinary. cities are becoming important as players on the national stage, bypassing national governments to look to each other for solutions to global problems. in the last week alone, mayors and city leaders across this country affirmed their support for what had been an agreement among nations, the paris climate accord. yet, climate change is not an outlier in city-to-city coordination. quite the opposite. it is happening as well on issues of inclusion, immigration, health, security, governance, and human rights, and so many other critical issues that face our world today. in fact, "extraordinary" is perhaps the wrong word to describe this trend.
direct city-to-city coordinations emerging and maturing, becoming wonderfully ordinary. why? why is this happening? the answer is that urbanization is the most consequential force shaping our political order in this century. is undoubtedly -- it is undoubtedly the most dynamic force. more than 500 cities around the world have a population of more than one million people. and yet that statistic alone does not capture the staggering pace at which cities are growing. in 1950, one third of the world lived in urban areas. today, over half do. by 2050, it will be over two thirds, 6.3 billion people who will live and work in urban areas. at this very moment, a chicago-sized city is being added to the world's population every two weeks.
that is why we need to engage new people moving to cities and being born there. the next generation, about the challenges and power and promise that cities have is even more important. we are delighted to have so many young professionals with us, including 32 students from global universities around the world. cities also holds great economic power, greater than ever. 80% of the world economic output comes from cities. so, too, do more than 70% of greenhouse gases being emitted in the world. cities of the vanguards of openness, the champions of globalization, important qualities in the time when nationalists and anti-globalist sentiments are
merging. taken together, a future dominated by cities is rapidly becoming our present. as we have done, we are gathered in this global city to discuss the role of global cities in the changing world. but this year in some ways is different from previous years. the questions we hope to answer are entirely new for good reason. where previously we asked if they drove the public economy, now we ask how they will. before we asked if cities can have a foreign policy. now we are interested in cities doing diplomacy at their best. before, we asked whether such cities can challenge power on the global stage. today we know they are. we want to know how they will do so and better the lives of the citizens of our cities. there are many ways to start.
in fact, the council has released a new report that outlines the priorities for chicago's global strategy. that report, which is available outside, is a great resource for leaders from chicago and other global cities on how to organize ourselves and the many ideas we heard and learned not only from chicago, but traveling and having a forum like this about how we can meaningfully create an actionable agenda for global change. i encourage you to read the task force report at your leisure. we also have copies available of a special report on cities that "the financial times" published today. many of the journalists here with us are moderating or participating in the panels. they have contributed to the special section. of course, none of this happens by accident.
it takes a small city to organize this global city forum. on behalf of the chicago council on global affairs and "the financial times," i would like to thank the speakers who were joining us today. we are able to be here as well in this wonderful setting in which mayors and architects, ceo's educators, and journalists, and all of you are gathered because forward-thinking corporations and organizations believe level issues addressed here today are critical. they are right, and we are glad they are with us here. i want to thank our sponsors, our lead sponsors, and also our supporting sponsors, united airlines, usg corporation. and our foundation sponsors. the robert mccormick foundation. thanks to all of you for your support.
i want to thank our international and civil partners, who made possible the richness of the content of the next few days. none of this is possible without your support. finally, i want to thank the 500 delegates who join us here from three dozen countries. they made the trek to chicago. we gave you the nice weather, which comes free. it is part of what we do here in the council. very pleased to have you. thank you as well, for everyone watching us online. remember, tweet early and often. the hashtag is #globalcities2017. it is our hope what is said here carries over after the foreign o enrichter the forum t discussions and other global cities. before we start, i want to take
a moment to remember benjamin barber. a friend and partner who worked with us on cities, and passed away early this year. ben was a pioneering leader of thinking of the roles of cities in the world today. insights he shared in best-selling books, and on this stage in the inaugural forum two years ago. i think he would have enjoyed the program we have planned for you. it's my pleasure to welcome the u.s. manager of "the financial times," gillian tett. [applause] gillian: well, good evening, everybody, and welcome to the event. i would like to echo ivo's welcome. ivo is a powerful, effective man. i didn't know he could control the weather gods.
this is the third year we have had perfect weather. three out of three is a pretty good score. and it is great, because it really does show chicago as -- the fantastic city of chicago off to its great advantage. it provides perfect frame to talk about these incredibly serious issues. talking about cities now is very important. partly because of the great t-word. donald trump. cities are being asked to carry a lot of the burden of infrastructure. a lot of the burden of economic generation and growth. we live in an era where quite inadvertently, the administration has put cities and states at the
heart of the climate change debate. we also live at a time when the question of immigration and the question of how different communities can or cannot live together is absolutely crucial. cities are once again at the center of that. last but not least, we also live at a time when the question of how we find effective leadership, how we find politicians people can believe in in these fragmented times, is absolutely centerstage. we were having a discussion in the green room just before coming on here talking about which politicians we did or did not admire across the western stage. somewhat relevant, given the u.k. election. what became clear is many people looked to city leaders as people they can trust in these troubled times.
the t-word, trump, has put cities on to the center stage, but even without donald trump, if you can remember a world without donald trump, cities are incredibly important and growing in importance for all the reasons ivo has just said. "ft"s the third year the ' has been involved in this, and we are delighted to be involved with this. so many of these themes are central to things on our pages every day. we are so glad we can cover these issues and cover these debates well. so well that if you are already a subscriber, you will know that we have a special supplement which has come out today on the question of the future of cities. if you are not a subscriber, we have a special promotional deal, which is that we have a newsletter talking about the discussions we are going to be ,aving for the next three days
and you can get a free trial subscription through that. that is my one commercial plug. otherwise, several journalists in the group in the next few days. myself. ed luce, our chief u.s. commentator. our asia managing editor. we have the mighty martin wolf, chief economics commentator. and andrew johnson, our u.s. news editor. we would love to have a chance to talk to as many of you as possible about these issues, and hope that you enjoy the debate, create an interesting set of stories for us to write about, and hopefully read about, and and take it over -- to kick us , we
begin with a panel called "open cities, closed borders, a response to globalization." in the supplement, we have a column by martin wolf which starts, "the world's great cities are inherently dynamic and diverse. they are naturally open to the world. how should they respond if their countries seek to close themselves against outsiders? how should they do view their responsibilities to the world?" that, indeed, is one of the great questions of the age. i look forward to hear some answers. thank you. [applause] >> your moderator, ivo daalder. in the "open cities, closed borders" panel. [applause]
>> gillian, thank you for that kind introduction. welcome again. good to see you. i'm joined with some very important voices where we can have a good discussion about where cities are heading in an age of globalization. which is in some ways competing with the way in which our international system has been organized. an international system based on the interaction of mission -- nationstates. and increasingly, we are seeing globalization is posing real questions for not the viability of nation-states, but how do nation-states cooperate with the challenges we all face, and how do cities as subnational entities offer an opportunity to coordinate and cooperate in
dealing with these fashions? with these challenges, and offer solutions? we have practitioners and thinkers, journalists and politicians, to ask these kind of questions. people who have served at high levels of government, who have not served in these high levels. people who have served nationally and at local levels. we have the mayor of toronto since 2014. great to have you with us. is the chiefwho economics commentator at "the financial times." already cited in the kickoff here. the former mayor of rio de janeiro, including during the 2016 summer olympics. and the former chairman of the cities climate leadership group. the former
prime minister of new zealand. ministerrmer foreign and prime minister of sweden. we are going to have a discussion. first, i really want to talk about this fundamental question of governing a world where political power of cities is not commence or it with their -- commensuratet -- with their economic and cultural power. martin, let me start with you. you wrote in the special section "the financial times put out today, and if you haven't had a chance to look at it, please do. what has the past year revealed to you about the changing global order and the role cities are playing? >> first of all, thank you for the question. it's a great pleasure to be back here in chicago, particularly involved with a program we are running with you. i've always enjoyed being involved with the global
council. the start, how many hours do i have? obviously, the last year has taught us that we are in a spectacular mess in the west as far as globalization is concerned. quite particularly, in the united states and united kingdom, which one would have regarded as the heartland of international liberalism defined in the english sense of the term. not the american one. so, these are not the only countries in which backlash is against globalization. we dodged a bullet in france. very plausible the biggest party in italy.
that could have big consequences. we have to ask ourselves, what is going on, and what does it mean for cities? the answer, i think, is that we are now living in a period of pretty extreme political fragility in the most important parts of the western world. we have not succeeded in persuading a large part of our populations that the global order as it evolved has worked for their benefit. and in my view, manipulative an irresponsible politicians have, as you would expect, because that is their profession, as it were, have exploited this. the form of exploitation takes the form of a return to tribalism.
tribal identities linked around ethnicity and nationality. which are by their nature hostile to globalization and the idea of an open society in its many different respects. why? we have had rising inequality. stagnant wages in the last 10 years. we had a gigantic financial crisis from which in the view of many citizens, the bankers themselves were saved and they weren't. and, they don't see this is going to get better. one of the things that is very revealing, so many people don't think the future for their children will be better than their own. this is the context. what does it mean for the challenges for cities? in some ways, thinking about my own country, the brexit
referendum captured this stress between growing tribalism and the outward-looking metropolis of london. london's population is just under 40% foreign-born. it is the place where there are incredibly large number of immigrants. and yet voted very, very strongly to remain. it is completely relaxed about this. it opened -- its links to the world are colossal. it is in some ways the antithesis of the movement which led to brexit. , the people who voted for brexit it were voting against london. voting against the very thing it embodied.
even though, not paradoxically but not surprisingly, london is an enormous source of fiscal transfers to the country. by depriving of london of its position in europe, they will greatly impoverish themselves. the resentments being built up are such that they are choosing policy at the national level, which impoverish themselves because of resentments that a city like london creates. they are similar things in other societies. that creates immense challenges at the national level and city level. i don't personally believe cities can escape from national context. but they have to be aware of the national context in which they are operating. and i think a core element is this return of tribalism shown so clearly in
the results -- the brexit vote, the presidential election here in the u.s., and maybe shown in other things. we have enormous challenges to confront. >> take us from there. you are a national leader. a local leader. international leader. but staying with the local and national for a moment, cities are often characterized, and non-bigust did -- cities have a sense of cities having too much power and influence, too much say over what is going on. they tend to be viewed as elitist, out of touch. where does this perception come from? why is it occurring? what can we do about it? because even if it is true, it's not a healthy way in which to live. >> there is a tendency to have polarization between the center and the periphery in any
society, particularly between a large dominance and smaller cities, the rural hinterland. what we're seeing is this having an overlay of globalization. it is favoring the cities, but not so much favor the secondary cities and where the industries left and the rural areas from which are feeling neglected. so that exacerbates what is often a traditional tension. i think also for the periphery, there's the issue of the scale of the cities, vis-à-vis them. big somehow becomes bad. there's the perception that the city is a dangerous place, and perhaps recent tragic events bear that out for many. there is the fact that because of the scale of the cities, they have more political power in the national legislatures, or federal legislatures as well. this builds up a resentment.
this also -- in this big place, these big places are seen as doing better than i am in my smaller place on the periphery, that creates antagonism. now, on the issue of elitism, it is also then easy to trash the cities as the places where the pointy heads are. the universities, the academics. what do they know about anything? what do they know. it is where the big media centers are. populism has taken on attacking the media. arts and culture are there. that can be represented as pointy-headed. the cities give space to the expression of more liberal values than one finds in a hinterlands. multiculturalism. the space for feminism. lgbt rights. the space for the political left, which may not be found in the hinterland.
for all these reasons, we are in a time and place where traditional periphery dividers is exacerbated. what we can do about it is a much, much harder issue. but i think for national governance, for political tendencies that are concerned about populism we are seeing at the moment, the issue is how to run economic and social policies which are more inclusive, so you don't set up these divisions. that, to me, is the core issue -- how do we become more cohesive, more inclusive in the way countries are run? >> we will come back to this issue of the city and the periphery can come together more and share in the benefits of openness. but staying for a moment with the city, global cities in
particular, yours being one of them, proclaim they are open to the world. as martin said, almost 40% of london's population is foreign-born. i believe in your city it is even larger than that. >> 51. >> 51%. they are open, but also not particularly open in some ways. they are leaving people within their own cities behind. what are the tensions playing out in a global city like that? >> different kinds. i guess they are tensions of a sort, but not the kind of tribal tensions. the challenge is you don't want them to develop into that. canada has been fortunate in that are shared values are broadly shared across the country, including in the big cities. we do have 51% of the population born outside of the country. we have somehow managed to have people feel accepted and embraced. if there is tension, it is not between different nationalities
or faith. if there are challenges in front of us that could lead to tensions, not trying to pretend we have achieved perfection. i'm saying in the context of the periphery and the core i am , probably the single greatest unifying feature in time the mayor of toronto, the largest and most disliked in the country. -- disliked the city in the country. my contribution to national unity. [laughter] tensions about inclusion versus noninclusion. if you look at the people not totally integrated, they tend to it tends to be people who disproportionally come come from somewhere else. it is not because anyone is trying to exclude of them come it is that we are working hard on developing the language courses and transition courses. the level of education of people
choosing to come to canada is higher than people who are already there, and yet when they come to toronto or canada and seek to get recognition for educational or professional credentials, it is very difficult. some of that is, i'm sure, by design. professions that don't admit it that put up barriers to entry. we are developing transition courses, community hubs where these people live to avoid tension arising from a lack of inclusion. we are working hard at things as simple as language courses. how can anybody become included if they can't speak one of our official languages? we are working at that, but it is -- where is the challenge for us? that is where it is. as opposed to the tribal roots of tensions that exist elsewhere in the world. we don't have refugees coming on foot or in votes but we took a
very open approach. and when it was put forward by leaders, including myself, that we should be open, this was not a subject of any particular debate. we didn't have the same pressures that countries in europe would have. it is just the attitude and the values. we still have a challenge with inclusion. >> brazil has different challenges. one is there is an urban rule challenge, which is in some ways affecting policy and policy making, and even voting behavior. how has this manifested itself? is there a populism that comes with that rural-urban difference and the challenge of the rapid changes happening in the urban areas in brazil?
>> obviously, it is always going to be a difference when we speak from the global north and come to the global south. i would like to go back a little bit in brazilian history. we are going through a crazy period in brazilian politics. if you look like two or three years ago, the country was doing great. if you look at the past two decades, 10 years, inequality has become smaller. things were getting better. the economy was doing well. and we had it -- why would i like to go back a little? in 2013, we had lots of protests. the economy was growing. almost no unemployment. brazil finally had become a great country. and everyone went out on the streets and was protesting against the politicians. it was nice to have so many people protesting. there was always the issue of the olympics and the world cup.
and this and that. end, that is something that has come between the global south and the global north, and we face the big problem. the role of representative democracy. we still choose our leaders in the same way we did centuries ago. i mean, obviously, it got better. women are voting. no more slaves. become open. but there are these people who have more information. people have more access to politicians. this has become a thing that when you look at cities, it can mean a big difference between a rural area and the cities.
we are coming to a point, we are a generation of people that have to go through this adaptation. but we are coming to a point where cities are the place where direct democracy can come back. people are always wanting to discuss. people in 2013 did not go out into the streets of brazil to complain about the services, because they were better than they were before. obviously, they can always get better. people were complaining about the lack of representation. in these things, cities can make a big difference. this first moment, i'm optimistic about what is going to happen in the near future. everywhere else, if you look at latin america, if you look at south america especially, it will see lots of populists.
johnson the left -- i don't -- it comes from the left -- i don't want to say bad things about venezuela, but it comes from the left, it comes from the right. but by the end, this is a transition. i think cities will play a major role in fighting against the populism. i see cities, the way cities can change representative thdemocracy ceases cities as a great machine to change what is going on. >> i want to talk about sweden, and also go beyond that. sweden has in many ways gone through all of refugeeages, large populations in the 1990's, and then in recent years, the inclusion dynamic has been one. the social and economic dynamic, the difference between city and non-city has not been as great. perhaps as it could have been in countries like the u.k. and the u.s. reflect a little on that. but also, as part of a
transition to where are we, but what can we do about it, what are the challenges big cities are facing that cities are better placed to tackle? than the nation-state, per se? first i think to state the , obvious, it is not a question of cities or nation-states or global organizations. it has to be all of them. cities are becoming more important. if you think of mega trends in global development, two megatrends are going to be dominant. one is industrialization. we are at the end of the industrial age, the beginning of the digital age. that is going to shake everything.
we are, in terms of technology, roughly where the industrial age was with the second-generation steam engine. that is going to be enormously important. the other is urbanization. we can talk about the divide between rural areas and cities, but the fact is that across the world people are moving into , cities. i think two thirds of the population is going to be in cities. particularly if you talk about sweden or canada or brazil or new zealand, but if you look at africa. what is going to happen there? enormous cities are going to be created. it is not that politicians are forcing people to go into cities. people find that even if things can be difficult in cities from which they can be, they prefer life there for different reasons. essentially, it is to find solutions for cities in cities. that will have to be done.
some of the issues are going to be the same, if you look at it long-term. issues that needs to be addressed, to take a couple of them, the digital issues. we are going to see the impact of them more profoundly on the city level. take issues like transportation ,ystems, what can be done there with automation, self- driving, things like that. roughly a third of the area of los angeles taken up by the highways and parking places, parking spots. if you take away the cause and have them automated and shared, it transforms the landscape. that is going to happen in cities.
you talk about mumbai. another fairly big plays. they are going to catch up very fast with the digital age. the divided we see now is going to be far less than a couple of years. that is one issue. the other one very much debated, the sustainability and energy issues. probably going to return to that. another one out to be forgotten, security issues. we can talk about the threat of terrorism or national police forces, but at the end of the day, local policing, local security. security is very local. and the way you organized -- to take one example, cannot go into detail without insulting to many people, the difference in a country like belgium. that is one nation-state. security forces in brussels, antwerp, completely different
systems, completely different effects in terms of security they are able to provide. here, cities to it, and cities that do it differently need to learn. sweden, a nice country of in the north. it has to be said that once upon a time, and it still might be the case, there were more people of swedish ancestry living in chicago that probably in all of sweden, but certainly in stockholm. we had a time when life in sweden wasn't as glorious. people thought chicago was better. whether that is still the case, i don't know. we have gone through major challenges in development as well in terms of urbanization. the biggest change was the
mechanization of forestry. we should not forget, a lot of people were living on farms. there were no machines. they were doing this year-round. then machines appeared in the 1950's and the 1960's, and large parts of sweden were depopulated as they moved into urban areas. there was tension there, but we sorted that out. then we had, as alluded to, immigration. the figures that we have are different from the toronto figures -- people coming to toronto, canada, have a high level of education. it has something to do with the canadian system, it has to be said. we are open to refugees. they are coming often with an education. not always. other groups are highly educated and have done well. but some are coming with low levels of education.
we do have a challenge. have we mastered that fully? no. have we done it broadly ok? , broadly ok, but broadly ok is not enough. if you succeed with 80% but fail with 20%, you have a massive problem. you need to succeed with 95%. there is no question immigration has contributed to the vitality of our cities. these tendencies and politics to say take up the drawbridge. that is not going to happen. >> thanks. and all of the -- i think we have a diagnosis. the question is how do we solve it? let's move to addressing the problems that we see. martin, just starting with you, we have this tension about the economic and cultural importance of cities, and the lack of
political power on the other. you mentioned 11 versus the periphery, -- london versus the periphery, and the importance london was in the entire country. london is a good example. is there a way it could use economic clout better? we have seen brexit as one of those examples. is there a way we could redistribute power from the national level, where it seems to reside, to effectuate change that benefits all? >> when i was asked to write the column that appears in our special report, it forced me to go back to think about some questions that have interested me for a large part of my life.
a long period in history. i thought it is relevant to this -- i have been profoundly persuaded by the work of jane jacobs, who i regard as a genius. who i was privileged to know. that cities were the great invention of the era. -- of the neolithic era. very slow by contemporary standards. but economic progress has always occurred in cities. -- it has always occurred in cities. in fact, she puts forward a wonderful argument, that scholars are debating, that cities invented agriculture. we can discuss that. but the -- it is a completely persuasive argument, by the way. she was a genius. don't underestimate her. the point is, when cities formed, in the early period of
human development, many of the -- many of them were also .olitical entities so the city-state is not just an episode. the very beginning of samaria, city-states were a dominant entity. in the west, very unlike asia, city-states have played a staggering role in our cultural development, from athens through rome through italy and so forth. really, today, singapore is the only city-state of any independence. all the cities you talk about them even the ones of immense scale, city regions which generate close to half of the gdp of their country
are nonetheless and that it -- nonetheless embedded in territories. the reason we emphasize them, they shape the world system. they are of a scale that dwarfs even their cities. political power ended up in countries, which contain many cities, and whose interests are as expressed in their political systems very separate from those of their global cities, whose economic role in my view is as dominant as ever, and their political role is remarkably significant. what do we do about this? i don't think it is plausible that the cities, which lack armies and lack on tribal loyalties, which i rather like, when to rise up
-- are going to rise up and say give us independence. i wrote a column in which i argued it -- and i believe it thatonately, by the way -- it will be a good thing if london became singapore. if it became an independent city-state. i do not expect the british people to a seat to that. -- acede to that. so we are not going to have political independence. we are not going to be able to train the legal environment in which this occurs. a lot of these discussions are about how the city should deal with one another. one of the things cities have to do is to take the argument to their countries. they have toy, persuade people who are not living in metropolitan
cities that their existence that benefits them, and they are open to them. this is one big issue i've fought very hard on -- they have to show people can live in them. one of the reasons people cannot live in them is there is no housing in them. the housing in almost every major city has become so prohibitively expensive, it is unthinkable for most to live there unless they want to live in squalor. one thing they have to do is to get engaged nationally. the other thing, of course, they can do is they can become models of living harmony in regional with very different people, models of what their country should become. they can't pursue -- they can pursue policies that show that global goals are still achievable, climate change is
still important. they can work hard at that level to show how you integrate people from abroad and people from other parts of the country. they can become integration machines. and they should, i think, not only cultivate relationships between one another, but crucially with the city regions , of which they are a part. if they tried to spread their influence and opportunities not just to those inside, but the people who are fairly close to them. there is quite a complex set of things within this context without being able to run patches, because they're not going to run them, or run the world, to ameliorate the situation in which we find ourselves >>. >> helen, reflect on what martin said. you talked about the difference between the center and the periphery. martin saying the center can't
can't get away from the periphery. the periphery is part of it. but it can find a way to bring the periphery into the political and economic advantage of the center. the city in this case. reflect on that, the urban-rural divide, divide between large and small cities. how do you make them feel there is an advantage to be part of the cost of college and -- the cosmopolitan city, rather than think that we are better off by cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world? what does a practical politician do to get that agenda implemented? >> because my leadership was at the national level, i look at what should the national governments be doing, and i come back to the inclusive, noninclusive dimensions of policy. i think national governments have the obligation to ensure
the magnets of growth, which is cities don't monopolize all the prosperity and opportunity in the country. there is a responsibility to more widelyrity than we are seeing. the urbanization trend, two thirds of the global population in cities like 2050, and to put that in numbers, we have a global population of 7.5 billion now. it is heading for 9.5 billion, 10 billion by 2050. all of that extra population is going to be in cities. it is going to be bigger and, given the trends we're talking about now, even more powerful. the role of the national governments trying to spread prosperity becomes even more accentuated. i absolutely agree with martin that there are things cities could do to affirm their own value proposition to hold countries.
showing the interdependence between periphery and city -- how did the goods get out of the market. how do people transport themselves in and out of the periphery. it is generally through the major city transit hubs. where our goods are processed. what happens in the cities matters a great deal. mores could market a lot their so there are interdependencies martin's point on housing, i important very, very one because we are seeing the global cities become places only those of considerable means can afford to live. the answer to that will part lie with the cities in how they zone and to the extent of which they have a commitment to social housing and mixed income housing. but there's also a of centrality governments, because often these
trends of unaffordability have exacerbateed by central governments taking away the subsidy orusing whatever support which enables those who do a lot of the work cities, the server work ers, to actually be able to there. so in summary, i think there's responsibilities of our national responsibilities on cities themselves to sell , and i think that cities can be the model of what be,ould like our world to more inclusive, tolerant, accept ing, open, inyo innovative but we have to have some shared prosperity and benefits from all .f this ivo: thanks very much. before i go on, i should mention floorgoing to open up the pretty soon but we'll open it up digitally because we're living digital world, and virtual ly. screen thaton the page, cihcess our web
.cns.io. if you put that into your your smartphone, you can type in questions there, and vote on questions that you think ask.ould and i'll turn to that in a minute. toant to go from the nation an inter-- to a more inter national perspective of how cope with these issues. and john tory, increasingly, cities are looking not just to their national governments or even to their peripheries but counterparts and other -- in other parts of the world to address the problems face in order to find solutions. you're active in something that called urban diplomacy, as an initiative. describe what it is that you're specifically with those issues and the impact to're seeing as it relates overcoming some of the divisions and tensions that you find in own city and society. john: happy to address that.
back to the previous question for one second. one thing we did in practical, political terms in the most election, wasn that the big city has a caucus of the biggest cities which represented a huge proportion of the members of parliament. we put all of the parties -- put and weeet to the fire maintained unity between ourselves, getting back into a meaningd transit in ful way. and it was very successful because they couldn't avoid us. we were together. we represented together 80% of the population of the country. so it wasn't so much of trying outonvince anybody in the lying areas of the cities of the merits of our case. it was a matter of convincing politicians we were electing it was a straight forward, practical political. united one we stayed it, it worked very well. now, we have the good fortune in ofada, again, where a lot what we would do even through the urban diplomacy is -- i cities should be, in an ideal world, supporting the national ambitions of their country. consistency be a between the two. and i think on things like, you
know, open trade, climate change open immigration, and so on, we actually have the good fortune that most of the cities fact i might even say all of them, have views and values and aspiration that are nationalt with the aspirations in that regard. the urbannk that democracy today, to me, has more do with the practical delivery the solution of some of the problems that i talked about and we've all talked about, whether it is transit, whether it's integration of people. who integrates refugees? governments may set policies about how many are being taken and that sort of thing. who integrates them? cities do. who builds public transportation who actually fixes the environment? you know, in large measure in terms of the practical day-to- day energy retrofitting building of public transportation to get cars off the roads. or dople invest in cities they invest in countries? i think there's no hard and fast todayut by and large they're investing in city regions, not in countries.
this me the advantage of urban diplomacy is simply that -- i don't mean this to be nationaltful of our government or anybody else's or our provincial governments. when it ripping us off comes to the fact that we have those responsibilities and we don't have the ability -- we are subservient and do have the ability necessarily to raise the money to do the things we're doing. for but i'm going to learn more from a meeting with ram emmanuel in or in jerusalem as did i on monday night in tonto about all of those things i just mentioned, to be frank. and i'm going to learn meeting with most people in the national government or in other national because they're not actually delivering these services on a day-to-day basis. we are. so you can learn from talking to anybody. but i find that the urban diplomacy allows us the opportunity as we're having this morning, tonight to sit in a room with people with like responsibilities and compare how you're doing it because that's where the rubber hits the road in almost every one of these issues, not interest rates, not foreign policy but on everything else that matters to people and
our ability to include and them and make them whole in the context. our country or any other. cities. ivo: eduardo, a good segue to head.xperiences as the climatet one example of and sustainability where cities in the last five to six years have come together because they the ones responsible for -- both responsible for the problem to some except but really for a solution. you can talk a little bit about you cooperated together, how you tried to influence national governments on these issues, key issue, too, but then how you -- take john tory's point, learning from other cities in a practical way in order to achieve real results eduardo: it was good that john tory spoke before me because we a sweetke like transition here. earlier with the presentation --
mean all parts of the layers. i'm going to talk a little about there is -- i'm not a mayor anymore. look -- i left office. i'm not looking for more power here. -- by the end of the day remember what i said first. there's a problem with .epresentative democracy which level of government is living the everyday problems of people? which is the level of government more and moreg with the issues that really matters to people? when people listen -- and i don't think we need to get rid governments. that would be impossible. at there needs to be transition there. there needs to be a change there for example, most of the revenues, most of the taxes,
they don't go to the central governments that's something -- that's a model that is not work and it will keep not working. so we need to decentralize. power too give more mayors. again, the world will become because the cities are a fantastic experience. people like to live in cities. that's why the world is becoming .ore and more urbanized and we proved that in c40.tutions like talk a little bit about urban, city diplomacy, whatever. i remember it was created almost i remember inut 2012 we had -- that's the there. in rio, 20ummit 1992. that's rio national states got together in
rio. decision. .hey could not agree .o mayors got together and there were common actions copy from toronto and new york could copy from chicago. experiences and look at the figures. 40% of cities could do the task ahead of us concerning climate change. to paris, there was an agreement. that there's not this agreement anymore. rightthink of this moment here. primm primm last week said, ok, -- president trump said last ok, we are out of the paris agreement. i can guarantee you that the united states is capable -- their businessed also -- but it's capable of delivering what was a paris if mayors -- and i know the american mayors are
ify committed to that -- mayors get together and get things done. i really believe that there is , in spight a point of the fact that we have -- in spite of the fact that the mayor any army, in spite of the fact that the diplomacy is different, but be a pointng to -- theost of the changes world that by want to live in -- want to live in will be run by cities and mayors will play a major role. get more strength. that's why i'm optimist. that's why i really believe that to get better.g especially things, here, we're going to -- i think the transition will get to mayors to be more powerful, governments will be more powerful, and the changes will be stronger.
ivo: so i want to go back to where martin started, carl, less is the slightly optimistic version of the one that eduardo just put on the increasing fragility. but more importantly that our national politics, city politics , are diverging. in some ways in some places. that in the saw volt in the u.t k., here in our country. one other side of that equation. you believe there is at least some decision between the national politics we're seeing arethe way big cities approaching the problems, how do we overcome that problem? havese we're not going to independent city states. that's probably a given. make sure that our national politics continue to the open markets, the open boarders, the open minds and the societies that we used to have in our western politics at
now seem to be mov ing in a different direction? how do we have cities and theons come together in right way or is this something that is just air transition worry aboutouldn't it all that much, politics will take care of it, which is, i eduardo was coming from. how do you see it? carl: well, we are in transition from where we are to where we're so from that, we are in a transition phase. you are right on that, ifo. are in a bigger transition phase to repeat that particular phrase. it, particularly from the european point of view, the development of our political institutions in perspective of a couple of centuries, we've been the era of the nation states, when that is the dominant -- more and more power thebeen concentrated in nation states. and that's sort of from the french revolution and onwards or something like that. then what is needed now is obviously the nation state is
still very important. is thes to say, it number one focus of the sort of political cultures of different parts of the world. that.stion about we've seen that reflected in a number of elections. but we see that there is a need for more powers, it be european, at a globalan, or level, of things that need to be sorted out, global trade, sustainability, those sorts of things. that wasn't that prominent if we go back a couple of decades. a need to devolve powers more. there's a demand for that from people. also a need. because slightly different problems need to be addressed in slightly different ways. and that means that we do have the nationn with states being perhaps like a re treat. dominant as they were. but still dominant in the perception of people who see obviously.ctions cities'need for more
autonomy or diverse solutions. and i think there's to a certain one way of sorting out the problem that we indicate as tensions could be there. because at the end of day what people want is for cities or nations or whatever to sort out , toproblems that they have meet the demand that is there for security or public services whatever. and having the appropriate political structure is, i think, key to making that possible. and their political structures will have to be slightly different in the future. than what was dominating at development for, say, 200 years or something like that. up until now. to some extent, being slightly philosophical, i was inspired by martin and his thesis of sort of agricultural in cities. remain to be convinced about that. but the importance of cities, -- look at prior to
nation state in europe. it was a much looser arrangement europe. few people have heard about the holy roman empire of the german nation that was there for a years.d very, very loose. and under that, not only sort of northern italy and the renaissance but take something -- for at of the world couple of hundred years, different cities united by the same rulers for commerce and trading rules and developing technologies and things like that. these were slightly glorious in terms of development, but it was looser on that theicular level, heavier on lower level. and i think we are returning to that. ivo: but the challenge here in a sense is that you have global challenges that, in fact, require global cooperation participating not in that level of governance.
carl: no,er there not. ways the's in some challenge that we face. can we overcome that? is there a way in which the structure -- one is to devolve power down. but in some ways it's also power that is gained below and bringing it up to the u.n. level, to the international union to the european level. so in some ways international oh organizations, need to become open to non-national if not non-national votes i think that's where the tension from.rting to come c40 in some ways started to do that. happening.ah, that's if you look at what happened in theparis -- in rio meeting, united nations, mayors meeting .here i mean, when you look at paris, was a completely different environment. i was kind of afraid because i u.n. bureaucracy gets into the mayors, that they
into, you know, get us trouble. but, again, it's a way of the reality.r to so i think institutions are much .ore open to mayors now ivo: martin, please. questions.et to some martin: i think that part -- this fits very well with the view, which is if andthink about openness some sense of the sharing of the world as where we want to go, the logical consequence is that a world -- i would go back to -- it doesn't really matter. sovereignty ish "absolute." and it's concentrated in nation states which are structures for obedience and for
war, let's be quite clear. and that concept, which is clear ly what has returned in the brexit vote and in the last election here, there's no doubt about it. returned because it is what happens when you're frightened. conception, which seems to me absolutely the absolutely wrong conception. it is not the way we can continue. canright way -- if we continue as a species i think well and successfully, we have isdiffuse that notion, which a modern notion. carl is absolutely right. was.is not how it always and into a notion in which power ly,distributed horizontal starting at the global level -- things at the global level, that have to be done at the global level and down to re .ocalities for the nation state and those
who rely on the nation state to , this concept is .errifying but i have absolutely no doubt .t's where we have to go and i'm increasingly convinced of this the european union was a attempt to achieve that. that is one of the reasons i find the brexit vote so horrify ing. , the unitedways states viewed as a federal state this.reat attempt to do but the question is, can we make complex transition to a world in which power is horizontally in this way , which once it's done, of allows cities to share problems. it's a different way of organizing the world if we don't way, ie the world that think we will destroy ourselves. ivo: let me go to some of the questions that have been asked. one is on the role of the private sector. we've really focused on sort of
sector here. but the role of the private sector, which in some ways is by nationalnd .oundaries how can the private sector be a part of help address these problems? we will have to rely on the private sector being a key part economic driving force, but the question is, what's the role of the private sector in for citiescase becoming more powerful as well as to stimulate inclusive growth helen, do you want to take that maybe carl? helen: actually, incorporating into it the way in which cities are adopting the globalling agendas. because we've got two pretty one that have come out of 2015: one, of course, the paris climate agreement, and the other the agenda on 2030 sustain able development. neither of these agreements are going to be implementedless
is cities do a lot of the heavy size andecause of the scale of the global cities in economy. so while cities aren't represent level,he u.n. certainly without the cities being active nothing much is to happen. now, allied to that we have seen i think very, very encouraging interests of the global private sector in these global agendas. to a climate change conference of parties every year , as i have for the last , the global private sector is there and construct there. you may get some criticism from n.g.o.'s about green wash and rest of it. i don't buy it. i see the global private sector withrs very, very engaged these agendas. so maybe there's some, you know, betweenalliances there the global cities, the global , seeing thatr
there's things that just have to times, to move with the make a contribution. and if governments are opting while, i think the momentum is going to carry on because the leadership in the and the global private sector will carry it through. ivo: carl? carl: i think it will be automatic business will be drivers. now at the digital development, the things that we talk about or they talk about at the moment is going to be five years from now. phenomenons.an and, of course, if you are sort airbnb youership of look at cities, be that chicago, shanghai, or stockholm. the same.ok at airbnb and, of course, if you are the business of agriculture and machinery, you might have a different perspective. but otherwise they will see and they willents compare the markets and they will look at the opportunities
nationalively of borders. they are driving it. the digital age is going to be to.ed ivo: and not just the digital age because all of that innovation is pretty much coming out of the private sector and i guess the research sector as well. but the same with climate change where are the developments of thenew methodologies, better methodology with respect to energy retrofitting or -- from private come ingenuity, private capital. [john tory speaking] overthink we have to get over the fear and anxiety that that everybody will get ripped off and son on and so on. and i think we have to remember governments do -- one thing they do is they don't have a loot of when it the in them comes to the development of new products and things like that but they have the upper hand in of regulating to the extent necessary. so if we can remember the governments have the upper hand harness the ingenuity of the private sector, i don't
think it's that often. when you present should there be a role, we can't possibly cope with the transition to the digital age solving problems like climate change without huge lead ership, ingenuity and discipline from the private sector but properly over seen by those who are put in to do so which is people like us have been and others. ivo: martin? martin: i always create .ifficulty so i suppose what i feel, it's absolutely clear the private capitalism is global. actuallyte about this, . and markets naturally go across have a verywe global capitalist system at the moment. and it brings all of these about.s we talk seen by many of the people who are angry and so as the people who have abandoned them, the
abandoned themas when mr. trump gets on the phone to somebody and says you shouldn't take your factory to x , it's an ineffective policy but he surely is responding to a felt need. so i think the job of the complexsector is more than this. they have to be global because are and they have to seat world globally -- see the world can't abandonhey the people of the countries in which they operate, from which began because if they do, they will be seen and they are seen as fundamentally disloyal. and this gets into rather complicated questions about what are their responsibilities well, one answer.u one responsibility they have is to pay tax. [laughter] [applause] with which artifice companies -- they didn't just exploit the tax system. the tax system. let's be clear.
for their benefit. absolutely subversive of democratic governments and it's .ot tolerable [whistle] [cheers and applause] john: i actually watch in our own city and elsewhere, what's happening now is i think what represents much more of a solution to the problems that in citiesing about it's coming from two-person businesses that are starting up and four-person businesses. agree, global capitalism is big businesses that are global by definition but there's more of these small local businesses now where people sort of figure it's better to create a job for yourself than it is to know how to get one. and they're just going and doing it. i think it's part of that transition that was referred to earlier on as the digital age. martin: some become global overnight. even small businesses can be global. that's part -- that is a genuine revolution.digital finalt does raise the question which i want to pick up from the audience.
it raises the question of leader ship. and ultimately, and we have two national leaders and two local .eaders carl: the only one who is in power has power -- ivo: experience at the national level.al let me rephrase it. of leadership need to change in some ways? the kind of -- when it used to be that it came from the bottom and sort of, you know, you became a city counselor, a mayor, then a governor and then a senator and then hopefully the vice president or president of the country. i know a number who have made it way. is it different? what kind of leadership do we now need of cities in order to address the kinds of questions we've just been discussing here plus?e last hour of you herehe four who i know have the answer.
but what should we be looking for in leadership? eduardo: again, i would go to .hat i said in the beginning being a leader, being a politician, running for office, closer to people we came to a moment where awayicians were too far from people's realities. that still is a big problem. the higher level you go it will tougher. so going to the local politics, saying you- i'm not need to go and be a city council member, then a mayor, then a congressman, whatever. although vice president trump would be president of the united states and there would be a big problem. thing about dealing with the everyday life of the people, the experience of the local makes you, i think leader, dealing
with the everyday life of the people. that only can come on the city level. ivo: helen? helen: well, i think the cities reallythe matters. i think the governance really matters, too. the cities which dwarf a number of smaller countries, including be well-governed toapable, perform as we would expect many to do.nation states but i think that leaders and seen in a way be of like premieres. they need to set the tone of tolerance and inclusion in their city. they need to set the vision for what the city can be, and socially. they need to be able to take people with them. they need to practice inclusive governance, participatory govern ance. they need to be accountable. setting quite a high standard, more than just being the sort of elected chair of the
counsel sill. it's really somebody who can stand up there and take a vision go.here the city can ivo: carl? carl: to be an effective national leader, i think you need to have an element of local politics,, local absolutely. i think -- i wouldn't say clearlyly necessary but helpful. and you need to have a global .erspective importanteasingly because cities are becoming far more global. once upon a anytime politics by being elected to the great council and was sitting in a capital committee. some of them were profoundly boring. them.t of carl: i had absolutely no influence over anything because it was run by local bureaucracy. a number learn quite of things, also by challenging the local bureaucracy. benefit from that when i was dealing with other issues
.ater on so i think -- they even elect med to the local, whatever it called, the short community leadership. i had to distribute apartments .etween the priests lot.rned a ivo: you learn a bunch of inter national meetings which equally boring, i know. >> i have two points which are incredibly important among .tructure the first, and it's often i think it's difficult to govern a city well if it is not integrated with the a partgion of which it's i can give many examples. i've thought about this a lot. and i think one of the big problems in new york city is the way it's structured. it's very difficult to change governance structure and divide it among several states.
problems with london now, the greater london too small.h we can't govern this as a great er region. one of the reasons we can't isve the housing problem because the regions where it can be solved aren't under its control. have to beions governed agent regions. and the second point made clear it's unbelievably important that cities have the relevant powers to solve their problems. most important one is to have tax revenue. tax a power. you fought a revolution here .ver it your mistaken attempt at independence. [laughter] never mind. have voided to recede. martin: we won't go there. so national governments are very fiscaljealous of power. and in most countries that i is extreme, but even here, far too much is
concentrated at the national level. to make citfficult ies work well if you don't control the revenue, don't region.the you talk about mumbai. i know a bit about india because i worked on it. a monstrously big problem in indian urban government because it's not the level at which planning occurs and it's not the level at which revenue is planned. actually, the chinese strangely do this better. so these structural questions are really important if we're to get the future of cit ies to work. ivo: john, final word? john: i dissociate myself with the particular comments of helen martin. i think cities in many cases now have the quality of leadership done.ary to get the job and more importantly in a way that they, by definition, remain closer to the people. the people look first. i'm amazed in the job that i now have, went straight into without having been in -- they look first to the city to solve any problem. they are oblivious to and frank
ly frustrated by you telling them that some other level of government has responsibility for that. so i think you have to stay close but look afar. back to our urban diplomacy point. you have to figure out what is the best way to solve climate change? what is the best way to integrate refugees, to build transit? the urban diplomacy comes in not from the other governments in your own country. i think this massive fiscal imbalance has to be addressed. in our case, in our country, 8 is actually dollar collected by and the responsibility of cities when we have all of these responsibilit of to do all these things and we have to rels like a little boy in short pants to go to the other governments and beg for money to do things. they and the people expect us to do. and that has to be addressed. i don't know how that's going to be addressed. it's not a matter of who is in office. it's the structures that probably aren't going to be changed anytime soon. martin, eduardo, helen, carl, thanks so much for getting us started. [applause] conversation.