「世界城市」的研究成爲近來西方都市與空間研究的熱門話題,本文引用Friedmann (1995)所建議的二個類型的分析:一是「世界城市的範型」,二是「世界城市的假說」。延伸這個分類的方法,本文認爲這二項不同的研究類型在後續的研究中給予不同名詞的定義:一是所謂的世界「城市」,主要在於討論城市所具有的世界城市特徵,以及在全球城市系統所佔有的地位;另一個研究定義則是所謂的全球化的城市,它所說明的是藉由不同的政治、社會、經濟和文化等面向提供城市研究的框架。若從研究標的所發展的取向而言,前者代表了藉由全球化所凝聚的趨同效果,它說明了將世界中的所有城市藉由全球城市體系的效果放置在不同層級和不同面向,卻同一定義的世界城市範疇中;後者則從個別的城市條件與動態出發,說明這些城市與全球性之間的糾葛與邏輯,以及邁向全球化的趨異過程,其中近來許多學者所提供的空間再層域化研究正代表了這個趨勢。本文的結論則藉由兩個不同類型研究的比較,建議在世界城市理論氛圍下發展「非世界城市」研究的可能性。
”World City” has dominated at the urban and spatial research in the West for a couple of decades, Friedmann (1995) grouped this empirical research into two groups: one is ”world city paradigm”; and the other is ”world city hypothesis”. Based on Friedmann's argument of these two theoretical frameworks, this paper tries to denominate and accentuate the two different research themes: one is so-called ”world city-ness”, mainly analyzing the condition of world city and evaluating the position of global urban system for each candidate city; and the other is ”globalizing city”, providing a research framework for urban study from different aspects, such as economy, politic, society, and culture etc.. The former delivers a result of convergence under globalization effectively, which embodies the qualified city an identity of world city, according to different global urban hierarchies, and different aspects, but same term; and the latter, starting from each city's policy dynamic, gives an account of complexities and logic between city and globalism, and a divergent process of going to global, thus introducing ”rescaling” as a sample. Beyond this comparison between these two divisions, this paper concludes by emphasizing the potential concepts of non-world city for exploring a new way in urban and regional studies.