Measuring Centrality and Power Recursively in the World City Network: A Reply to Neal

John P. Boyd, Matthew C. Mahutga and David A. Smith

Urban Studies, 2013, vol. 50, issue 8, 1641-1647

Abstract: In a recent article, Zachary Neal (2011) distinguishes between centrality and power in world city networks and proposes two measures of recursive power and centrality. His effort to clarify oversimplistic interpretations of relational measures of power and position in world city networks is appreciated. However, Neal’s effort to innovate methodologically is based on theoretical reasoning that is dubious when applied to world city networks. And his attempt to develop new measures is flawed since he conflates ‘eigenvector centrality’ with ‘beta centrality’ and then argues that ‘eigenvector-based approaches’ to recursive power and centrality are ill-suited to world city networks. The main problem is that his measures of ‘recursive’ centrality and power are not recursive at all and thus are of very limited utility. It is concluded that established eigenvector centrality measures used in past research (which Neal critiques) provide more useful gauges of power and centrality in world city networks than his new indexes.

Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098012466599 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:50:y:2013:i:8:p:1641-1647

DOI: 10.1177/0042098012466599

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Urban Studies from Urban Studies Journal Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().