With these measures, we construct a vector of urban governance indicators which we use to test the impact of urban governance on city performance. The vector consists of measures of voice and participation and transparency and accountability which we take from the UN database. We also use measures like illegal financing, state capture, bribery in utility, and bribery in judiciary from the Kaufmann, Léautier, and Mastruzzi (KLM) database. Finally, we construct a dynamic indicator of city transparency which uses proxies like, whether a city has a web page, what information is included in the web page, whether the city budget is publicly available on the web or whether companies can register on the web. Note that this indicator captures similar aspects as the one described earlier in Section 2 and attributed to Townsend (2001).

# **3.3 Defining the Impact of Urban Governance on Globalized Cities**

A ‘globalized city’ as an _enduring performance_ is a concept worth testing empirically. We can ask “what aspects of governance give cities this capability to constantly translate the global complexities into an advantage to them which can be seen in the way they treat their citizens (access to services, quality of services); attract firms to invest (public-private partnerships, FDI, firm location); or measures such as maintaining economic growth over several years and increasing the average per capita income of a city’s citizens. Doel and Hubbard (2002) suggest that a globalized city is always a work in progress being shaped and managed by firms, states, sectors, and cities. Thus a city which has good governance should be able to perform well and remain in the league of important global cities as well as deliver value to its citizens.

The literature on globalization and urban governance has two schools of thought on the importance of globalization for the performance of cities. There are those who argue that cities can be well performing if they have sufficient spatial agglomeration of know-how and capacity in the city and that a city’s international competitiveness is quite different from the concept of an international city (Kresl, 1995 p.54). Their superior performance in delivering local value to their citizens can come from their interaction with the rural hinterland, as well as with cities within the same country. Thus, well governed cities that are not highly globalized would fit in this category, where we would expect that such cities would be well performing because they are well governed rather than because they are globalized.

Others argue that successful cities will be those that are considered world cities, that deliver local value through interpreting and tapping into global opportunities (Doel and Hubbard, 2002). Such cities would be attending to their own position in a global space of flows, and will be well governed not only in local terms but also in global terms. Their ability to remain well performing cities in a globalized world is determined by their constant cycle; (7) fairness in enforcing laws; (8) incorporation of excluded groups in the consultation process; (9) clarity of procedures and regulations and responsibilities; (10) existing participatory processes; (11) freedom of the media and existence of local media; and (12) autonomy of financial resources.

9