ABSTRACT
Indeed, the city is physically embedded in the geography of its own country and by laws institutionalized in the national political system and regional configurations. The city’s relations to the world in most countries largely fall through the mediation of state and regional politics which could alter or delude or worsen the effects of the external shocks to the city. Even in the USA where local autonomy is believed to be stronger than in other countries, an American city is in fact under the Dillon rule which suggests that ‘cities are creatures of the state’ (Dillon, 1868).1 Accordingly, the city may not have the political power that a nation-state has in the world order. Therborn’s argument may be right. Yet, his argument poses some problems. Therborn overemphasizes state political power and underplays urban power that inherently belongs to the city itself. This typically urban nature of capital cities does not seem to exist in Therborn’s capital cities that manifest only state power. I argue that the built environments of capital cities need to be analysed from both state power and urban power. I define urban power as the combination of urban historical legacy, urban renewal power, and the economies of scale.
