Discussion Papers 2007.
Social Inequalities in Urban Areas and Globalization.
The Case of Central Europe 7-10. p.
SOCIAL INEQUALITIES IN URBAN AREAS AND
GLOBALISATION – AN INTRODUCTION
The strategic importance of big cities
Very  few  researches  have  investigated  the  current  characteristic  features  of  the
social structure of Hungarian metropolitan areas and the socio-spatial impacts of
transition,  globalization  and  European  integration.  Since  the  1980s  only  a  few
comprehensive  urban  analyses  have  been  prepared  for  interpreting  urban  space
not  only  as  a  unit  of  economy  and  infrastructure  but  as  a  complex  social  phe-
nomenon and for viewing urban space in a social context. Albeit there is an in-
creasing need for being aware of the social processes of metropolitan spaces. The
future of Hungarian society and its accelerating modernisation in the context of
European integration also depends on what processes are undergoing in big cities,
what kind of social processes are formulating the urban space, how the integration
into the European urban network is progressing and what the relationship is be-
tween the Hungarian and European urban development processes and between the
international and Hungarian trends.
In West-European countries the scientific and political awareness of urban af-
fairs has recently increased and the number of scientific debates in this field has
also  grown.  The  central  problem  of  these  debates  is  what  the  metropolis means
for the 21st century what kind of favourable and unfavourable processes the met-
ropolitan space is facing who benefit from their positive and who are hit by their
negative impacts? How can the threat of socio-spatial problems be reduced?
The number of professional debates about these issues is not accedentally in-
creasing. In the globalization era the future of big cities with the management of
urban problems and eliminating contradictions have strategic importance. In eco-
nomically  advanced  countries  big  cities  play  key  role  in  economic  dynamism,
global  cities  provide  a  basis  for  competitive  advantages  for  the  preservation  of
their power and economic positions, for the welfare of urban societies and of in-
creasing urban population.
It is a well-known fact revealed by social and economic geographical analyses
that global economy can most efficiently operate in a metropolitan environment.
It  is  the  metropolitan  space that can best ensure the necessary infrastructure for
the competitiveness of multinational and transnational firms, the major actors of
global  economy.  Metropolises  can  provide  all  the  necessary  financial  and  other
facilities  with  their  institutional  background needed for accommodating interna-
tional  capital  and  the  necessary  labour  force  and  social  groups  attached  (on  a
varying level) to global economy by their social positions and professional skills.

7

Szirmai, Viktória : Social Inequalities in Urban Areas and Globalisation - an Introduction.
In: Social Inequalities in Urban Areas and Globalization. The Case of Central Europe.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 7-10. p. Discussion Papers, Special
Modern urban networks created by global economy are serving as a basis not
only for the economic success and participation of business actors in global econ-
omy but they are also facilitating the integration of these economy-driven social
groups  into  global  processes  and  urban  networks.  These  urban  networks  are
manufacturing the finest products; they are embedded into global and local econ-
omy  and  provide  high  living  standards  and  successful  living  strategies  for  the
(consumer)  social  groups.  This  is  achieved  practically  by  creating  jobs  (easily
accessible,  having high social reputation, offering high salaries and good career
chances) with facilities of culture, lifelong education, leisure, amusement, social
contact building and self-fulfilment chances and by building political and social
institutions and management centres for gaining political power as well.
However,  modern  metropolitan  space  is  full  of  contradictions.  Big  cities  are
concentrating  not  only  modernisation,  the  abundance  of  socio-economic  devel-
opment chances, the heritage of accumulated knowledge from the past, the build-
ings of old architecture, the amenities of welfare and comfort and the availability
of  high-tech  infrastructure.  They  are  due  partially  to  historical  reasons  and  par-
tially to the consequences of global development, facing a series of social prob-
lems: the traditional and new structures of residential social inequalities, the old
and new forms of poverty, the traditional and new forms of crime, the damages of
natural environment with their negative impacts for health, the various symptoms
of socio-economic conflicts and now terrorism as a new, recently emerged urban
phenomenon.  Although  due  to  the  specific  social  structure  of  the  metropolitan
space the deepest social conflicts are concentrated in the peripheral zones of me-
tropolises located outside the city centre (Hamer–Linn, 1987) but the social prob-
lems of urban peripheries more or less affect urban centres as well. The presence
of  these  problems  is  manifested  either  by  the  emergence  of  peripheral  zone
population  in  metropolitan  labour  markets  or  by  the  usage  of  the  metropolitan
space  as  a  buffering  zone  in  the  clashing  of  interests  and  conflicts  between  the
society of city centres and the society of urban peripheries.
Several  researchers  are  on  the  opinion  that  social  problems  are  questioning
even  the  future  of  our  current  metropolitan  system  (Bagnasco,  Le  Gales  1997,
Ascher 1995). Since the 1980s in West-Europe there is a growing awareness that
the long-term dynamism of advanced economies and the metropolitan quality of
life depends on the management of social problems as well. During the 1990s a
great  emphasis  was  laid  on  governmental  and  urban  policy  fighting  against  the
spread  of  regional  disparities,  segregation  and  the  formation  of  ghettos  (Sueur
1999; Helluin, 2001).
The future of big cities became an issue of strategic importance in post-social-
ist cities as well. Big cities were considered as means of recovery from the crisis
to find a way of integration into modern world economy and global politics. The
city  in  Hungarian  professional,  scientific  and  public  debates  has  emerged  as  a

8

Szirmai, Viktória : Social Inequalities in Urban Areas and Globalisation - an Introduction.
In: Social Inequalities in Urban Areas and Globalization. The Case of Central Europe.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 7-10. p. Discussion Papers, Special
complex economic, social and political problem during the past few years only.
There are several reasons why so few issues have been discussed on the economic
and social aspects of cities including socio-spatial issues such as social inequali-
ties,  conflicts  and  the  obstacles  of  social  participation.  Today’s  modernisation
processes,  the  demands  of  European  integration  are  (apparently)  attaching  im-
portance to other factors. Social policy rather more focuses on the issues of eco-
nomic  development  (a  rather  short-term  interest),  of  European  accession,  of  the
acceleration  of  economic  modernisation,  of  public  administration  reforms  and
regionalisation than on the issues of complex socio-economic development on the
development  of  urban  strategies  concentrating  on  the  easing  of  socio-economic
problems.
The current political powers of Hungarian big cities have insufficient compe-
tence for discussing urban problems in the broad public. Occassionally some big
cities are raising their voice at different local public or political debates but in the
areana of national-level politics only those big cties can participate that are repre-
senting  the  traditional  major  political  powers  (this  is  because  the  members  of
governmental parties but even a part of the opposition are urban citizens. For ex-
ample  one  fourth  of  the  active  wage  earners  of  Budapest  are  employed  in  the
public administration sector (Izsák, 2003, 133). Moreover, those political powers
considered as key economic and political agents due to their key positions in in-
ternational economy or politics and to their extensive relational system are merely
new actors (trying) to enforce their own interests against the state. But these cities
are  entering  into  the  political  arena  still  for  safeguarding  the  state’s  economic
interests because they are trying to get some extra funding sources from the state
or from the European Union for their own development. However the majority of
Hungarian cities (including Budapest as well) have not yet achieved a key posi-
tion in global economy therefore so far they have won no or very few resources
from this situation. The key decision-makers of these cities have no such strategic
relations in local and regional economy and society that could provide a sufficient
influential power to enable them for building significant positions in international
economy.
Hungarian  cities  have  not  yet  recognized  their  potentials for improving their
positions  neither  in  domestic  nor  in  international  economy.  They  do  not  see  or
know how to develop an urban policy for increasing their competitiveness. This
would  certainly  need  such  a  long-term  economic  and  social  planning  practice
which would be based on local, urban agglomerational and regional level coop-
eration  and  on  improving  relations  between  political  actors  and  urban  societies.
Although urban policy concepts in general call the attention for the necessity of
formulating  a  concept  for  the  management  of social problems, of establishing a
microregional cooperation system but they do not go into the details of their prac-
tical  implementation.  The  latest  aspects  of  the  EU’s  cohesion  policy,  the  new

9