Alternative manifestations of metropolisation: spatial dissimilarity and the tensions between heuristics and realities of metropolisation

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the potential and limits of using the concept of metropolisation to describe the emergence and evolution of metropolitan spaces (process) and particularly focuses on its utility as a tool to specify the limits of the metropolitan (lens). To that end, it asks to what degree this alternative and multifaceted conceptualization of the metropolitan challenges existing models. It explores this question by outlining the main tenants of the metropolisation approach and engaging in a preliminary attempt to more firmly operationalize its political-institutional dimension. This paper focuses on unpacking this contrast in the United States and argues that applying metropolisation as a lens returns a very different interpretation of the extent of metropolitan areas than widely used statistical definitions (such as MSAs).

KEYWORDS:

• Metropolisation
• metropolitan governance
• regional governance
• functional urban regions

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. I retain the original spelling of the term “metropolisation” throughout in order to maintain consistency with other papers in this special issue.

2. Cardoso and Meijers (2019) use both terms – the “metropolisation process” and the “metropolisation lens” – without explicitly distinguishing the difference between them. I argue that they are correct and that the idea of metropolisation can serve both roles.

3. It should be noted that conceptual sharpening may have been complicated by the frequent use of the term metropolisation in French (and other European) literature that has been under-appreciated by English-language scholarship.

4. Note that this data excludes the New England states with the exception of Maine.