dean for undergraduate studies course of international ... · conceituação, causas,...
TRANSCRIPT
PARADIPLOMACY WITHIN THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE: THE TENDENCIES OF SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS’ ENGAGEMENTS IN TRANSNATIONAL CITY TWINNING
BETWEEN 2010 AND 2014
PARADIPLOMACY AND CITY TWINNING WITHIN THE
GLOBALIZATION DEBATE: the 2013 Brasília-Washington,
D.C. twinning case study.
Author: Nathan Henrique Alves Cazé
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Rosana Tomazini
Autor: Nathan Henrique Alves Cazé
Orientador: (Dr. Ironildes Bueno)
Brasília - DF
2015
Brasília - DF
Dean for Undergraduate Studies
Course of International Relations
Course's Final Paper
Pró-Reitoria de Graduação
Curso de Relações Internacionais
Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso
Nathan Henrique Alves Cazé
PARADIPLOMACY WITHIN THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE: THE TENDENCIES OF
SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS’ ENGAGEMENTS IN TRANSNATIONAL CITY
TWINNING BETWEEN 2010 AND 2014
Monograph presented to the Course of
International Relations of the Catholic
University of Brasília as partial requirement to
obtain the Bachelor title in International
Relations.
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Rosana Tomazini
BRASÍLIA 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my grandfather, Raimundo, for financially contributing to my superior
education.
To my parents, Gisele and Aurélio, for supporting and believing in me.
To Professor Dr. I. Bueno, of Steinbeis University Berlin (Steinbeis-Hochschule
Berlin), for providing me with valuable ideas related to the study of paradiplomacy, which
greatly contributed to the development of this research paper in its early stages.
To Professor and International Relations’ course Director, Dr. Rosana Tomazini,
of the Catholic University of Brasília, for accepting my invitation to be my supervisor in
this research paper.
To Professor Dr. Wilson Almeida, of the Catholic University of Brasília, for
accepting my invitation to be one of the examiners of this research paper.
To Professor Creomar de Souza, of the Catholic University of Brasília, for
accepting to be the examiner of this research paper in both of its stages.
To Professor Dr. Rodrigo Pires, of the University of Brasília, for providing me
feedback on analyzing sister city agreements through the content analysis methodology.
To Reinaldo Alencar, friend and academic researcher, for providing me valuable
feedback on the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015.
To all the municipalities that contributed to this research paper by providing me
with the sister city agreements and answering the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of
2015.
ABSTRACT
Reference: CAZÉ, Nathan H. A. Paradiplomacy within the globalization debate: the tendencies of subnational governments’ engagements in transnational city twinning between 2010 and 2014. 2015. Monograph (International Relations) – Catholic University of Brasília, Brasília, 2015.
The idea that nation-states are the only significant actors in the international arena has been challenged as new transnational actors, that is, subnational governments (e.g. governors and mayors), have increasingly exercised paradiplomatic activities all over the world. Most academic literature on city twinning (sister cities), a paradiplomatic activity, utilizes the concept of globalization, albeit without an analytical model robust enough, to explain the worldwide practice of such activity. Thus, through an exploratory approach, this research aims to answer the following question: what explains subnational governments’ tendencies of engaging in transnational city twinning between 2010 and 2014? To achieve that objective, this monograph utilizes the five points of contention of the globalization debate (i.e. conceptualization, causes, periodization, impacts and trajectory) that are debated among the sceptics’, hyperglobalizers’ and transformationalists’ schools, and content analysis methodology to analyze sister cities (city twinning), as a paradiplomatic activity, that established or renewed sister city agreements during the period between 2010 and 2014, and city-twinning surveys. The results are evidence that both paradiplomacy, as a general phenomenon, and city twinning (sister cities), as a paradiplomatic activity, should be understood as concepts of multiple dimensions and causes, having new aspects and characteristics when compared to their pre-Cold War activities, locally and globally generating different types of impacts, and having a homogeneous and linear trajectory between 2010 and 2014 on newly established sister city agreements and an uncertain future trajectory on its renewal or continuity in case of permanent agreements. Therefore, the results that were obtained through the analysis of the surveys and sister city agreements are evidence that the tendencies of engaging in transnational city twinning between 2010 and 2014, in different continents, are explained by the forces of contemporary globalization, in its transformationalist approach, upon the external activities of subnational governments.
RESUMO
Referência: CAZÉ, Nathan H. A. Paradiplomacy within the globalization debate: the tendencies of subnational governments’ engagements in transnational city twinning between 2010 and 2014. 2015. Monografia (Relações Internacionais) – Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brasília, 2015.
A ideia de que os estados-nações são os únicos atores significantes na arena internacional tem sido desafiada ao passo que novos atores transnacionais, isto é, governos subnacionais (e.g. governadores e prefeitos), têm crescentemente exercido atividades paradiplomáticas por todo o mundo. A maior parte da literatura acadêmica de irmanamentos de cidades (cidades irmãs), uma atividade paradiplomática, utiliza o conceito de globalização, embora sem um modelo analítico que seja suficientemente robusto, para explicar a prática mundial desta atividade. Assim, por meio de uma abordagem exploratória, esta pesquisa visa responder a seguinte questão: o que explica as tendências de governos subnacionais de engajar em irmanamentos transnacionais de cidades entre 2010 e 2014? Para alcançar este objetivo, esta monografia utiliza os cinco pontos de contenção do debate da globalização (i.e. conceituação, causas, periodização, impactos e trajetória) que são debatidos entre as escolas cética, hiperglobalista e transformacionalista, e a metodologia de análise de conteúdo para analisar as cidades irmãs (irmanamentos de cidades), como uma atividade paradiplomática, que estabeleceram ou renovaram acordos de irmanamentos durante o período entre 2010 e 2014, e os questionários de irmanamentos de cidades. Os resultados são evidência de que a paradiplomacia, como um fenômeno geral, e irmanamentos de cidades, como uma atividade paradiplomática, devem ser entendidas como conceitos de múltiplas dimensões e causas, tendo novos aspectos e características quando comparadas às suas atividades pré-Guerra Fria, local e globalmente gerando diferentes tipos de impactos, e tendo uma trajetória homogênea e linear entre 2010 e 2014 no tocante aos novos acordos estabelecidos de irmanamentos de cidades e uma trajetória futura incerta com relação às suas renovações e continuidades nos casos de acordos permanentes. Portanto, os resultados obtidos por meio da análise dos questionários e acordos de irmanamentos são evidência de que as tendências de engajamento em irmanamentos transnacionais de cidades entre 2010 e 2014, em diferentes continentes, são explicadas por meio das forces da globalização contemporânea, em sua abordagem transformacionalista, sobre as atividades externas de governos subnacionais.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8
1.1 PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE .......................................................................... 8
1.2 HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................ 9
1.3 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 Main objective ...................................................................................................... 10
1.3.2 Specific objectives .............................................................................................. 10
1.4 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 10
2 CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK ...................................................................................... 13
3 THE STATE OF THE ART IN PARADIPLOMACY WITHIN THE GLOBALIZATION
DEBATE AND CITY-TWINNING PHENOMENA ........................................................... 18
3.1 THE STATE OF THE ART IN PARADIPLOMACY ................................................... 18
3.1.1 Paradiplomacy within the globalization debate ................................................ 25
3.2 THE CITY-TWINNING PHENOMENON ................................................................... 30
3.2.1 Historical perspective of city-twinning phenomenon ...................................... 30
3.2.2 City-twinning phenomenon literature review .................................................... 31
4 ANALYSIS OF SISTER-CITY AGREEMENTS THROUGH THE GLOBALIZATION
DEBATE......................................................................................................................... 39
4.1 ANALYSIS OF SISTER-CITY AGREEMENTS ......................................................... 39
4.1.1 Conceptual insights of the globalization debate on the city-twinning
agreements ................................................................................................................... 48
5 ANALYSIS OF THE CITY TWINNING/SISTER CITY SURVEY OF 2015 THROUGH
THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE .................................................................................. 54
5.1 ANALYSIS OF THE CITY TWINNING/SISTER CITY SURVEY OF 2015 ................ 54
5.1.1 Conceptual insights of the globalization debate on the City Twinning/Sister
City Survey of 2015 ...................................................................................................... 82
6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 91
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX A - TIMETABLE ........................................................................................ 100
APPENDIX B - CITY TWINNING/SISTER CITY SURVEY OF 2015 ........................... 101
APPENDIX C - TABLE OF SURVEYS SENT AND RECEIVED .................................. 113
APPENDIX D – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE FIVE
POINTS OF CONTENTION OF THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE ON
PARADIPLOMACY AND CITY TWINNING ................................................................. 117
ANNEX A - CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SISTER CITIES VISUALISED ON A WORLD
MAP ............................................................................................................................. 119
8
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE
Diplomacy could be traced back to the ancient world and has been conducted by
emissaries and diplomats sent from one nation-state to another (NICOLSON, 1965).
However, the idea that nation-states are the only significant actors in the international
arena has diminished, inter alia, when U.S.’s federated states and Canada’s provinces
increasingly began to pursue their interests beyond their national frontiers in the early
1960s (DUCHACEK, 1990; KUZNETSOV, 2015) and, in the 1970s and 1980s
(SOLDATOS, 1990; KUZNETSOV, 2015), when paradiplomatic activities of new actors
in the international arena had intensified due to global interconnectedness. These new
actors are the subnational or non-central governments of regions (federated states,
cantons, landers, oblasts, provinces etc.) and municipalities. These subnational
governments of regions and municipalities began to promote their own interests beyond
their national borders without the participation of their nation-states’ foreign affairs entity.
Thus, the external activities of subnational governments are known as paradiplomacy.
Paradiplomacy is not a new activity (ADELCOA and KEATING, 1999) and is
usually attributed to the effects of globalization on its economic, cultural and political
dimensions (KEATING, 1999; KUZNETSOV, 2015). There are various paradiplomatic
activities carried out by regions and municipalities (BUENO, 2012; KUZNETSOV, 2015):
attraction of foreign direct investments, promotion of exports, establishment of trade,
political and cultural offices abroad, promotion of political relations and its regions’ and
municipalities’ tourism, involvement in cooperation for education and the environment,
promotion of cultural exchanges, and city-twinning1 agreements.
This monograph focuses on one of the above cited paradiplomatic activities,
namely, city twinning.2 Most authors agree that the origin of city twinning could be traced
to post-World War II, in the early 1950s (ZELINSKY, 1991; CLARKE, 2011; JOENNIEMI
and SERGUNIN, 2011). However, there are pre-World War II city twinnings that
1 European literature uses the term ‘city twinning,’ while U.S. literature adopts the ‘sister cities’ variant.
This paper will utilize both ‘city twinning’ and ‘sister city’ terms. 2 See previous footnote.
9
occurred in a non-regular fashion such as the municipalities of Brugg (Switzerland) and
Rotweill (Germany), which initiated in 1918 (ZELINSKY, 1991). Moreover, Zelinsky
identified more than 11,000 cities that established twinning agreements in approximately
159 countries between 1950 and 1990, considered city twinnings to be a movement and
phenomenon and attributed it to the “much vaster subject of globalizing society” (1991,
p. 3). A 2013 analysis of city twinning states that there are at least 11,618 cities all
around the world that established at least 15,225 city-twinning agreements
(KALTENBRUNNER et al, 2013). For a visualization of worldwide connections of twin
cities on a world map, see Annex A.
This paper presents an application of the five issues of contention of the
globalization debate (conceptualization, causes, periodization, impacts and trajectory)3
upon the paradiplomacy and city-twinning phenomena. The former phenomenon will
serve to conceptually support the latter, which is the principal aim of this research. Thus,
given that city twinning across nation-states is one of the foreign activities of subnational
governments and that most academic literature consider globalization to be the cause of
city twinning (ZELINSKI, 1991; RODRIGUES, 2004; CHUNG and BRUNO, 2008;
BUENO, 2012), this research will seek to answer the following question: what explains
subnational governments’ tendencies of engaging in transnational city twinning
between 2010 and 2014?
1.2 HYPOTHESIS
The tendencies of engaging in transnational city twinning between 2010 and
2014, in different continents, are explained by the forces of contemporary globalization,
in its transformationalist approach, upon the external activities of subnational
governments.
3 Also, see Figure 1 at the end of section two.
10
1.3 OBJECTIVES
1.3.1 Main objective
Identify what explains subnational governments’ tendencies of engaging in
transnational city twinning between 2010 and 2014.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
1. Present a literature review on paradiplomacy, its concept within the
globalization debate and a transnational city-twinning literature review.
2. Analyze, through content analysis and the globalization debate, all the sister
city/city-twinning agreements, obtained in this research, of the municipalities that
established or renewed twinning agreements during the period between 2010 and 2014.
3. Identify the tendencies of transnational city twinning through the City
Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 and analyze the findings through the five issues of
contention of the globalization debate (conceptualization, causes, periodization, impacts
and trajectories).
1.4 METHODOLOGY
This research employs an exploratory methodology. This methodological
approach is centered on exploration for continuous discovery and theory development
from data (JUPP, 2006). Exploratory research does not have a set formula to be
implemented, instead, it is flexible and pragmatic, broad and thorough (JUPP, 2006). For
that reason, this paper employs a mixed model research approach at which, during the
fourth and fifth sections, the researcher mixes both quantitative and qualitative data
during the process of analysis; as Bardin (1977) explains, inferences could be made
both quantitatively and qualitatively from data.
The primary sources are the sister city agreements and the City Twinning/Sister
City Survey of 2015 containing both qualitative and quantitative data on cities that
twinned or renewed their twinning agreements during the period between 2010 and
11
2014. In addition, the secondary sources utilized are books, academic journals,
monographs and dissertations, and websites.
The third section of this monograph presents a literature review on paradiplomacy
and its concept within the globalization debate4 in order to conceptually support the city-
twinning phenomenon. Moreover, that section reviews transnational city-twinning
literature according to the chronological order of its publications.
The fourth section presents a content analysis, based on Bardin (1977),5 of the
sister city/city-twinning agreements, obtained in this research, that were established or
renewed during the period between 2010 and 2014. Two institutions will be utilized in
order to identify the municipalities that established or renewed twinning agreements
between the aforementioned period of time, namely, Sister Cities International (SCI) and
the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan. The
content analysis of the city-twinning agreements that were obtained in this research will
be based on the variables contained in them and on the globalization debate (i.e.
conceptualization, causes, periodization, impacts and trajectory).6
The fifth section presents the qualitative and quantitative data that was gathered
through the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015. Such data will be analyzed
through content analysis, as defined above, and the variables of the globalization debate
(i.e. conceptualization, causes, periodization, impacts and trajectory)7 in order to explore
and identify possible conceptual implications to the study of transnational city twinning.
Moreover, based on the entire research, it will be possible to improve the definition of
city twinning, which will fulfill a fundamental aspect of exploratory methodology, that is,
4 See discussion of the globalization debate in Section 2 (Conceptual landmark). 5 Bardin (1977, p. 42) defines content analysis as “A set of techniques of analysis of the communications
aiming at obtaining, through systematic and objective procedures of description of the messages’ content,
indicators (quantitative or not) that allow for the inference of knowledge relative to the conditions of
production/reception (inferred variables) of these messages.” (own translation). 6 See Figure 1 at the end of section 2. See discussion of the globalization debate in Section 2 (Conceptual
landmark). 7 See previous footnote.
12
theoretical or conceptual development (cf. JUPP, 2006) and to determine the
subnational governments’ tendencies of engaging in transnational city twinning between
2010 and 2014.
Finally, the sixth section presents the final considerations of the research and of
what explains subnational governments’ tendencies of engaging in transnational city
twinning between 2010 and 2014.
13
2 CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK
This research is based on Held’s (et al) (1999; 2003) classic academic
contribution to the subject of globalization, that is, the meta-synthesis of the
aforementioned phenomenon’s scholarly literature into hyperglobalizers’, sceptics’ and
transformationalists’ schools of globalization.
Such schools introduced their theoretical perspectives on globalization’s five
principal issues of contention (HELD et al, 1999): conceptualization, causation,
periodization, impacts, and trajectory. This research adopts Held’s (et al) (2003, p. 68;
1999, p. 16) following definition of globalization:
a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial
organization of social relations and transactions - assessed in terms of their
extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or
interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of
power.
Moreover, besides the four above cited assessing variables, this research will
utilize the following variables of the globalization debate that encompasses the five
issues of contention and the two analytical frameworks, that is, the spatio-temporal and
the organizational, which are situated within the periodization issue of contention. All the
following variables are illustrated in Figure 1 at the end of this section.
(I) the conceptualization issue of contention debates whether or not globalization
is unidimensional or multidimensional (HELD et al, 1999);
(II) the causation issue refers to globalization’s monocausal or multicausal
determinant(s) (HELD et al, 1999);
(III) periodization explores how history is periodized in order to answer the
question of ‘what is new about contemporary globalization’ through the spatio-temporal
and organizational analytical frameworks (HELD et al, 1999) (see Figure 1). The former
analytical framework is composed of the (1) extensity, (2) intensity, (3) velocity and (4)
impact dimensions (types: decisional, institutional, distributive and structural) whereas
the latter analytical framework is comprised of the (5) infrastructure, (6)
14
institutionalization, (7) stratification and (8) dominant modes of interaction dimensions.
The periodization variable was originally utilized by Held et al (1999, p. 17) as a “basis
for constructing a systematic comparative analysis of globalization over time” with views
to create a “mechanism for capturing and systematizing relevant differences and
similarities.” In other words, two periods of time, in comparison to each other, are
analyzed through the two aforementioned analytical frameworks in order to identify and
systematize similarities and differences between such periods concerning globalization.
Therefore, while Held et al (1999) periodized globalization, this research will periodize
the city-twinning phenomenon insofar as it is attainable, for even Held et al (1999) do
not apply each and every one of globalization’s five points of contention to each of their
chapters, case studies and historical analyses.
Extensity: the notion of extensity is the idea of geographical space and distance.
Also, globalization could make local social activities in one location have significance to
individuals in a distant region of the world; Intensity: the transborder flows occur with
regularity instead of occasionally or randomly; Velocity: increased speed of global
systems of transport and communication (e.g. motor vehicles, airplanes and the
Internet); Impacts, and its decisional, institutional, distributive and structural types, will
be explained further on as part of the fourth issue of contention; Infrastructure: may be
“physical, regulative/legal, or symbolic” (HELD et al, 1999, p. 19) or a combination of
them. It mediates flows and connectivity and, consequently, facilitates or constrains “the
extensity and intensity of global connectedness” and “institutionalization of global
networks, flows and relations” (HELD et al, 1999, p. 19); Institutionalization: “practices
and operations of the agencies (states, collectivities, households, individuals)” through
interaction across time and space (HELD et al, 1999, p. 19); such operations are
channels utilized to establish contacts; Stratification: “different patterns of organization,
distribution and exercise of power” (HELD et al, 2003, p. 72) throughout different
historical epochs and in different social spheres such as political-military, economic,
cultural, environmental etc. (BUENO, 2012); Modes of interaction: modes or manners
that global interactions occur over different phases of the process of globalization. The
dominant types of interaction between, for example, states and cities could be “imperial
15
or coercive, cooperative, competitive, conflictual” that employs economic or military
instruments, for example (HELD et al, 1999, p. 20);
(IV) the impacts (types: decisional, institutional, distributive and structural) fourth
issue of contention is treated differently here than when it is located within the
periodization debate. Within periodization, the function of the four types of impacts is to
be utilized in order to analyze a comparison between two periods of time. Differently, as
the fourth issue of contention of the globalization debate, impacts are utilized without a
comparison between two periods of time. Therefore, this research relocates these four
types of impacts from the periodization issue of contention to the impacts fourth issue of
contention; Decisional impacts: globalization affects the costs of policy choices and,
consequently, “influences the preferences and choices of decision-makers” (HELD et al,
1999, p. 18); Institutional impacts: possibilitates or constrains the “effective choices or
range of choices available as a result of globalization” (HELD et al, 1999, p. 18);
Distributive impacts: shaping of social forces “[…] (groups, classes, collectivities) within
societies and across them” (HELD et al, 1999, p. 18). For example, trade may
undermine some workers and enhance others. Thus, “some groups and societies may
be more vulnerable to globalization than others” (HELD et al, 1999, p. 18); Structural
impacts: “conditions patterns of domestic social, economic and political organization and
behaviour” (HELD et al, 1999, p. 18). For example, the West has spread its concepts to
other parts of the world, such as the modern state and capitalism;
(V) the trajectory debate aims to discover the ‘direction of global change,’ whether
it is linear towards progress, regressive and faulty, or indeterminate and uncertain
(HELD et al, 1999).
Furthermore, this paper presents paradiplomacy as part of a greater
phenomenon, namely, globalization, and employs Cornago Prieto’s (1999, p. 40)
definition of paradiplomacy:
non-central governments' involvement in international relations through the
establishment of permanent or ad hoc contacts with foreign public or private
entities, with the aim to promote socioeconomic or cultural issues, as well as any
other foreign dimension of their constitutional competences.
16
Finally, this monograph will review the literature on city twinning on the first
section and will adopt the following definition (SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL, 2014,
p. 3):
A sister city […] relationship is a broad, long-term partnership between two
communities in two countries. A sister partnership is officially recognized after
the highest elected or appointed official from both communities sign an
agreement establishing the relationship.
However, based on the analysis of the city-twinning agreements, on the fourth section,
and the analysis of the City Twinning/Sister City Surveys of 2015, on the fifth section,
this research will elaborate a new definition of the city-twinning phenomenon in its final
considerations’ section.
17
Figure 1 – Five points of contention of the globalization debate
Source: own elaboration based on Held et al (1999).
18
3 THE STATE OF THE ART IN PARADIPLOMACY WITHIN THE GLOBALIZATION
DEBATE AND CITY-TWINNING PHENOMENA
Section 3.1 will present a literature review of the state of the art in paradiplomacy
in order to give the reader a broad overview and understanding of its concept and
practice. In section 3.1.1, paradiplomacy will be analyzed through the globalization
dimension and debate. Finally, section 3.2 will present a literature review of city-twinning
phenomenon, which is the principal focus of this research paper.
3.1 THE STATE OF THE ART IN PARADIPLOMACY
The literature review on paradiplomacy in this section will briefly introduce the
development of the studies on subnational governments’ external involvements between
the 1970s and 2000s, the definition of the concept and the eleven dimensions of the
paradiplomacy discourse.
The first academic studies on subnational activities began in the early 1970s; that
period of time marked the early stages of paradiplomacy studies. It was during the
1980s, however, that the study on paradiplomacy gained the notion of foreign activities
of subnational governments (KUZNETSOV, 2015). During this time, Duchacek and
Soldatos published fundamental studies in paradiplomacy, from a federalist perspective,
that contributed to fill the gap that existed between the theory and terminology of
subnational governments’ involvement in foreign affairs (KUZNETSOV, 2015). The
‘paradiplomacy’ neologism is thought of being coined by Duchacek and Soldatos (cf.
ADELCOA and KEATING, 1999, p. 185), but Kuznetsov (2015, p. 26) defends that such
affirmation is ‘delusional’:
One of the delusions concerning the appearance of the term “paradiplomacy” is
that it was originally coined in the 1980s by Ivo Duchacek with his colleague
Panayotis Soldatos and after that it was widely promoted in the North American
academic discourse mostly on federalism. […] the first attempt to incorporate the
term “paradiplomacy” in the social science literature was done by Rohan Butler
in 1961, when he published in the collective monograph Studies in Diplomatic
History and Historiography the chapter under the title “Paradiplomacy.”
19
In studying paradiplomacy during the 1970s, Kuznetsov (2015) identifies the
circumstances that influenced the political academic communities’ interest on the study
of subnational governments’ foreign involvements. During that time, International
Relations scholars began to focus their attention on the new non-state actors in the
international arena such as multinational corporations and, to a lesser degree,
subnational governments. Within the study of transnational relations (cf. BUENO, 2012,
p. 2), transnational actors (HUNTINGTON, 1973, p. 333 apud KUZNETSOV, 2015, p.
35)
(a) proliferated in number far beyond anything remotely existing in the past; (b)
individually grew in size far beyond anything existing in the past; (c) performed
functions which they never performed in the past; and (d) operated on a truly
global scale such as was never possible in the past.
Another circumstance that contributed to the development of paradiplomacy
studies during the 1970s was the overlap of domestic and foreign policy issues, which
became known as intermestic affairs (KUZNETSOV, 2015). “Low” politics matters,
including subnational governments’ external activities, gained greater attention in the
political academic communities (KUZNETSOV, 2015). Additionally, an important aspect
during this period is that most of the academic literature on paradiplomacy was based
on case study approaches on Australian states, Canadian provinces and U.S. states.
Kuznetsov (2015) notes that there were no paradiplomacy studies on European regions
or on less developed countries during that decade.
In the 1980s, there was a shift from descriptive approaches to the study of
subnational governments’ external activities to a methodology oriented towards gaining
theoretical insights. The North American Publius journal on federalism, published in
1984, made significant contributions to theorizing paradiplomacy and, in the following
year, The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Policy conference, held in Canada, was the
first academic meeting dedicated to the paradiplomacy phenomenon. It gathered both
practitioners and scholars and, thus, solidified and advanced theory and research in this
field (KUZNETSOV, 2015).
20
Paradiplomacy studies transitioned from North American scholarship to the world,
but especially to Europe, in the 1990s (KUZNETSOV, 2015). As Kuznetsov (2015)
notes, the processes of globalization and regionalization accelerated paradiplomacy
alongside with other global political events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of
the Cold War, the Maastricht treaty that created the European Union (EU) and the
Committee of the Regions (CoR), which was a body of the EU. Another significant event
that advanced and expanded such studies was the 1997 paradiplomacy seminar held at
the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao. A classic work was published in 1999 as
a result of the seminar, namely, Paradiplomacy in action: the foreign relations of
subnational governments, of which the great majority of scholars were European. It is
from the above-cited work that this research paper adopts the following definition of
paradiplomacy (CORNAGO PRIETO, 1999, p. 40):
non-central governments' involvement in international relations through the
establishment of permanent or ad hoc contacts with foreign public or private
entities, with the aim to promote socioeconomic or cultural issues, as well as any
other foreign dimension of their constitutional competences.
Kuznetsov (2015, p. 40) further notes that subnational governments’ external
involvement, as understood by European scholars, is situated within issues of
regionalization and subnational nationalism, whereas to Canadian and U.S. scholars,
within the context of federalism and subnational and federal authorities’
intergovernmental affairs.
Paradiplomacy spread worldwide in the 2000s reaching new continents such as
Asia and South America. Argentinian, Brazilian, Chinese, Indian and Japanese scholars
also published works on paradiplomacy and made new theoretical insights based on
their respective regions (KUZNETSOV, 2015).
Moreover, a great and novel contribution to academic literature on paradiplomacy
has been Kuznetsov’s (2015) classification of the different fields that study this topic. He
presents a multidimensional perspective on paradiplomacy by distinguishing eleven
dimensions or angles of the academic discourse of subnational governments’
international activities (KUZNETSOV, 2015):
21
(1) Constitutional dimension: researchers in this field approach the study of
paradiplomacy from a legal and, more specifically, constitutional perspective. Scholars
study the constitutions and legal acts in order to identify subnational governments’
competencies and limits in participating in various external activities and
intergovernmental relations (KUZNETSOV, 2015);
(2) Federalist and intergovernmental dimension: scholars in this field seek to better
understand federalism and intergovernmentalism by studying regions’ (federated states,
provinces, oblasts, cantons, landers and etc.) external activities. The first studies on
regional governments’ foreign activities in the 1970s and 1980s were done by scholars
of federalism and, until today, paradiplomacy scholarship is mostly conducted in the
federalist dimension. Federalism scholars focus on studying the federalization (or
decentralization) of the external relations of states and the impacts of paradiplomacy on
federalism and intergovernmental relations (KUZNETSOV, 2015). For example,
Duchacek, a prominent federalism scholar, affirmed that “constituent diplomacy
[paradiplomacy] does not totally eliminate the sovereignty of modern states but definitely
perforates it” (1986, p. 219 apud KUZNETSOV, 2015, p. 59-60);
(3) Nationalist dimension: this angle studies nationalist aspirations as the motive for
subnational governments’ foreign involvements. More than half of all case studies
available on paradiplomacy have had the Basque Country, Catalonia, Flanders, Quebec
and Wallonia as its object of analysis. One common variable in all these regions’ case
studies has been nationalism (KUZNETSOV, 2015). According to Lecours’ and
Moreno’s research on subnational governments’ external nationalist endeavors, regions
such as those cited above engage in paradiplomacy to construct and consolidate their
identity, define and articulate interests and political-territorial mobilization (apud
KUZNETSOV, 2015);
(4) International Relations dimension: scholars in this field analyze new actors in the
international arena such as the subnational governments, nongovernmental
organizations and multinational corporations, which challenge the traditional realist
premise that sovereign states are the only important actors such arena. This dimension
is profoundly rich in theory and, thus, is capable of providing a pluralism of theoretical
22
insights to the study of paradiplomacy. Furthermore, Kuznetsov agrees with Fry (1993
apud 2015) that IR dimension has mainly focused on sovereign states, non-
governmental organizations, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, but not on
subnational governments as new actors in the global arena;
(5) Border dimension: This dimension seeks to study the impacts of paradiplomacy upon
the geographical borders of regions and the various interactions between regions
(federated states, provinces, oblasts, cantons, landers, etc.) that border each other.
Thus, research in this dimension is composed of case studies of subnational
governments’ transborder cooperation (KUZNETSOV, 2015);
(6) Globalization dimension: works in this field analyses paradiplomacy as a result of the
global forces of globalization and regionalization. One important link between
globalization and paradiplomacy is that, through globalization, subnational governments
promoted their economic interests in the global arena without depending on their central
governments’ intervention. Kuznetsov (2015, p. 77) also observed that
[…] paradiplomacy is certainly a very logical consequence of globalization
processes and it possesses a dualistic nature: constituent diplomacy
[paradiplomacy] is enabled by globalization and simultaneously paradiplomacy
further accelerates globalization.
As mentioned before, this research paper will analyze both paradiplomacy and, more
importantly, city twinning through the globalization dimension;
(7) Security/geopolitical dimension: this dimension studies the impacts of paradiplomacy
on international security and geopolitics. Subnational governments’ external activities
could reduce transnational ethnic conflicts and be an auxiliary instrument to manage, for
example, migration and ecological issues (KUZNETSOV, 2015). For example, the
Austrian Tyrol and Italian Bolzano minority groups were involved in ethnopolitical
problems against each other; such conflict was resolved through cooperation between
the subnational governments’ of both regions (CORNAGO PRIETO, 1999; cf.
KUZNETSOV, 2015). In relation to geopolitics, “paradiplomacy can be a geopolitical
factor in these cases when subnational government involvement to international
23
relations contains some strong cultural or linguistic messages” (KUZNETSOV, 2015, p.
79), such as in the Tyrol-Bolzano conflict;
(8) Global economy dimension: researchers in this dimension study paradiplomacy
within the academic fields of world trade and global economics. Actors of the global
economy such as nation-states, European Union and multinational corporations attract
more scholarly attention than subnational governments. Paradiplomacy literature in the
global economy dimension focuses on “studying the impacts of the regions on
international trade regimes [GATT, NAFTA, WTO] and on national governments’ foreign
trade policies” (KUZNETSOV, 2015, p. 80). For example, regions can promote their
financial interests abroad, increase competitiveness within regions of the same country
and, overall, be a mechanism for economic growth (KUZNETSOV, 2015, p. 80);
(9) Environmental dimension: this angle studies subnational governments’ involvement
in international environmental regimes. Global environmental policies are debated and
formulated in supranational levels such as the European Union and United Nations.
However, the implementation of such environmental policies occurs within the regional
level. Moreover, Kuznetsov (2015, p. 83) classifies paradiplomacy literature on the
environmental dimension into three groups: “case studies on regional cross border
environmental projects,” “development of global environmental networks of subnational
governments and […] their influence on the policy-making process on ecological issues”
and the study of “subnational governments on the issues related to the global
environmental agenda, such as climate change”;
(10) Diplomacy dimension: this field concentrates on studying how paradiplomacy
affects traditional state-centric diplomacy and the consequences of the decentralization
of the former. Literature in traditional state-centric diplomacy dimension debates the
activities of state and transnational actors in the international scene and maintains the
state-centric position while its opponents argue that contemporary diplomacy is
becoming less institutionalized and a more flexible instrument to establish global
relations (KUZNETSOV, 2015). Kuznetsov (2015, p. 87) classifies contemporary
diplomacy studies into two groups: “The first one still concentrates mostly all its attention
to classical diplomatic interstate relations, while the second one tries to rearrange the
24
concept of diplomacy in the way it can accommodate the emerged transformations in the
international environment”;
(11) Separatist/non-recognized states dimension: scholars in this dimension study
subnational governments’ search for the international recognition of non-recognized
nation-states. As Kuznetsov (2015, p. 88) points out, there is a difference between the
nationalist and separatist/non-recognized states dimension:
“The nationalist/cultural perspective on paradiplomacy takes under
consideration the involvement in international affairs of those subnational
entities that, through their own foreign activities, try to affirm their cultural and
linguistic differences and to convert it to higher political and economic autonomy.
As a rule, nationalist inspired paradiplomacy has a convenient form, it
recognizes the leading role of national institutes in foreign affairs and do not
pretend to completely substitute the central government in the international
arena…The non-recognized or partially recognized state dimension on
paradiplomacy focuses on subnational entities that are usually only de-jure
“subnational” but are de-facto sovereign nations. In the list of those units, we
can include first of all Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern
Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. The paradiplomacy of these
subnational governments is also often based on the articulation of their national,
religious or cultural peculiarities in the international arena…”
Thus, academic studies on paradiplomacy began in the 1970s when non-state
actors, or transnational relations, were increasingly studied; but it was in the 1980s that
paradiplomatic activities were understood to be the external activities of subnational
governments through academic journals and conferences on that subject. In the 1990s,
there was a shift in the paradiplomatic studies from North America to the world,
especially to Europe. Furthermore, in the 2000s, new studies and theoretical insights
were published by Argentinian, Brazilian, Chinese, Indian and Japanese scholars on
paradiplomacy. Moreover, Cornago Prietos definition of paradiplomacy has been vastly
utilized in paradiplomatic academic literature. Finally, a great contribution to
paradiplomatic research has been Kuznetsov’s classification of various fields of
subnational governments’ participation.
25
3.1.1 Paradiplomacy within the globalization debate
The globalization debate that will be applied in order to analyze paradiplomacy in
this sub-section was defined on this paper’s second section entitled “Conceptual
landmark.”
Bueno’s (2012) research focused on the study of paradiplomacy inside the state
of art debate of the theory of globalization. It presents the interpretation of the three
broad schools of globalization8 (cf. HELD et al, 1999) upon subnational governments’
external activities, applies these three schools’ interpretation to the five principal issues
of contention within the globalization debate9 to identify possible implications to the
study of paradiplomacy, and presents a case study with empirical data on U.S. and
Brazilian subnational governments’ foreign engagements.
The three schools of globalization interpret the paradiplomatic phenomenon
differently from each other. Thus, for hyperglobalizers, paradiplomacy is the “result of
the decline of the nation-state’s authority and of the increasing diffusion of such authority
among subnational levels of governance” (BUENO, 2012, p. 18); sceptics do not deny
the increasing subnational governments’ foreign interactions and affirm that it is not a
process of globalization, but rather “a process of internationalization and of regionalism
and, as such, paradiplomacy would constitute itself in a contrary movement to
globalization” (BUENO, 2012, p. 20); last but not least, transformationalists sustain that
paradiplomacy is both an agent and an object of the transformational forces of
globalization (BUENO, 2012) and “an empirical evidence of the intermestic and a
sufficiently visible manifestation of turbulence provoked by the transformational forces of
globalization” (BUENO, 2012, p. 22).10
In addition, the following presents a summary of the interpretation of
globalization’s three schools on its five issues of contention and Bueno’s (2012) findings 8 Hyperglobalizers, sceptics, and transformationalists. 9 Globalization’s issues of contention are conceptualization, causes, periodization, impacts, and trajectory. 10 The concept of ‘intermestic’ is central to the tranformationalist approach, which sustains that
globalization affected the domestic and international levels of nation-states to the degree that international
issues cannot be divided into those two levels (BUENO, 2012).
26
that contemporary paradiplomacy is supported by the transformationalist approach. The
first issue of contention of the globalization debate refers to its conceptualization on
whether it is unidimensional or multidimensional. Hyperglobalizers and sceptics assert
that globalization (or regionalization/internationalization, as sceptics argue) is
unidimensional, thus having either an economic or a cultural nature, whereas
transformationalists affirm that it is multidimensional encompassing, inter alia, the social,
political, military, legal, environmental and criminal dimensions (HELD et al, 1999).
Bueno’s (2012) research observes that paradiplomacy is better supported by a
multidimensional nature due to the political expression of the increasing number of
subnational actors’ international engagements, and the multifaceted agenda of such
actors involving various dimensions.
The second issue of contention involves the causes of globalization, which are
the monocausal and multicausal groups. The former affirms a primary cause such as
capitalism or technological change, and the latter a product of a combination of factors,
including technological change, market forces, ideology and political decisions,
economic, cultural and political changes (HELD et al, 1999). Concerning this issue,
paradiplomacy is a result of multiple causes (SOLDATOS, 1993).11
Moreover, periodization is the third issue of contention and is important because it
explores how history is periodized in order to answer the question of ‘what is new about
contemporary globalization’ (HELD et al, 1999, p. 13). In that sense, whereas Held et al
(1999) identify different historical forms of globalization,12 Bueno (2012) identifies
historical forms of paradiplomacy by using Held’s (et al) (1999; 2003) two analytical
frameworks, that is, the spatio-temporal and the organizational dimensions, as illustrated
by Figure 1 at the end of the second section.13
11 Cf. Soldatos’ ‘Key determinants of State/Provincial Deployment in the International Economy’ (1993, p.
50). 12 Pre-modern (before 1500s), early modern (1500-1850), modern (1850-1945), and contemporary
globalization (post-1945) (HELD et al, 2003). 13 The ‘impact’ dimension of the spatio-temporal analytical framework of Held et al was presented in the
fourth issue of contention in Bueno’s (2012) research. Note that one does not have to utilize all variables
27
(1) extensity: local social activities became global, which resulted in paradiplomacy’s
expansion to developed and more dynamic emerging countries (BUENO, 2012, p. 27
and 42); (2) intensity: contemporary paradiplomatic interactions encompasses a plurality
of issues and present more regular and permanent flows than any other time before
(BUENO, 2012); (3) velocity: contemporary paradiplomatic relations increased due to
the high speed of transport vehicles and communication instruments (BUENO, 2012);
(4) infrastructure: paradiplomacy is made viable through new transport and
communication technologies such as airlines, fiber cables, telephone and cellphone
lines, satellites, Internet and etc. (BUENO, 2012); (5) institutionalization: refers to
contemporary paradiplomacy’s new formal channels of establishing contacts such as
through
hundreds of permanent foreign subnational offices, interstate/interprovince
organizations aimed for paradiplomatic cooperation, representative forums of
the subnational governments inside the bureaucracies of global governance
(EU, especially), regional and international networks of cities and sister-
provinces and the formal agreements of international partnerships (BUENO,
2012, p. 42).14
(6) stratification: the end of the Cold War and the economic growth of emerging
countries since then partly resulted in the expansion and intensification of
paradiplomacy (BUENO, 2012); (7) mode of interaction: the dominant mode of
interaction affects the different levels of government (national, regional, local) resulting
in subnational governments’ greater sensibility and vulnerability to the external arena
(BUENO, 2012). Moreover,
The paradiplomatic activity demonstrated itself to be more dynamic and vigorous
in an environment at which the mode of interaction of global flows is dominantly
competitive/cooperative and based on the use of economic instruments, instead
of the coercive interaction mode that was characteristic of the Cold War and of
its dominant military instruments (BUENO, 2012, p. 42).
in their research. For example, in Held’s (et al) (1999) work, not all variables were applied for each
chapter. 14 Own translation.
28
Given that Held et al (1999) periodized contemporary globalization as of post-
1945, Bueno (2012, p. 31) identified a ‘relative fragility or insufficiency’ on the adopted
analytical model. Hence, the analysis of paradiplomacy indicates the necessity to
differentiate between Cold War’s international order and post-Cold War’s new
international order (BUENO, 2012). For that reason, it seems appropriate to refer to
current global interactions as “most recent phase of contemporary globalization” or
“post-Cold War contemporary globalization” (BUENO, 2012, p. 32). Thus, Bueno
(BUENO, 2012, p. 32) states that “there is strong evidence that the point of inflection for
the current stage of subnational governments’ international engagements is historically
located along the last decade of the XX century.” Bueno’s observation on this matter
agrees with O’Toole’s (CHUNG and BRUNO, 2008) consideration that the end of the
Cold War gave rise to trade and economic development.
Therefore, based on Held’s (et al) (1999; 2003) two analytical frameworks, the
periodization of paradiplomacy “is a specific attribute of the most recent phase of
contemporary globalization” (BUENO, 2012, p. 33).
The fourth issue of contention refers to globalization’s impacts. Held’s (et al)
(1999; 2003) analytical framework distinguishes four types of impacts: decisional,
institutional, distributive and structural. Decisional impacts refer to how globalization
influences the preferences and choices of decision-makers (HELD et al, 1999; 2003).
When applied to paradiplomacy, such as in the political sector, subnational agents
consider “the benefits of participating in transnational agreements” (BUENO, 2012, p.
33); institutional impacts possibilitate or constrain the preferences of diverse
international actors (BUENO, 2012). Concerning subnational governments, institutional
impacts create a “set of new means or channels of interaction with the world (…):
political and promotional offices abroad, the great increase of agreements and networks
of sister cities and province cities (…)” (BUENO, 2012, p. 36); distributive impacts upon
paradiplomacy have two points of intergovernmental relations (BUENO, 2012): firstly,
between subnational governments of different countries, which use the global arena to
influence the economic development in its regions, respectively, and, secondly, between
subnational and national governments of the same country, which could use the global
29
arena to expand the benefits of their economic development policies; Lastly, structural
impacts upon paradiplomacy indicate the “erosion of the distinction between domestic
and international, the diffusion of power and political authority, new sovereignty and
autonomy regimes […]” (BUENO, 2012, p. 38).
Last but not least, globalization’s trajectory is the fifth and last issue of contention.
Hyperglobalizers affirm that globalization is a linear process “moving towards human
progress” (BUENO, 2012, p. 39); for sceptics, it is a process “marked by regressions
and failures” (BUENO, 2012, p. 39); for transformationalists, globalization is a process
that “[…] pulls and pushes societies in opposing directions; it fragments as it integrates,
engenders cooperation as well as conflict, and universalizes while it particularizes. Thus
the trajectory of global change is largely indeterminate and uncertain (Rosenau, 1997)”
(apud HELD et al, 1999, p. 14). Likewise, Bueno (2012, p. 39) applied this issue of
contention on the Brazilian and U.S. state governments’ case study and concluded that
“[…] the American and Brazilian trajectories appear as empirical evidence that there is
no predetermination or linearity – neither homogeneity – towards the process of
subnational governments’ international engagement.”
Therefore, the hyperglobalist school of globalization believes that the diffusion of
the practice of paradiplomacy is the result of the decline of the nation-state’s authority
and its diffusion to subnational levels of governance; sceptics affirm that paradiplomatic
activities is the outcome of subnational governments’ internationalization and
regionalism, instead of globalization; transformationalists assert that paradiplomacy is an
agent and product of the transformational forces of globalization. In addition,
paradiplomacy is supported by a multidimensional conceptualization and multiple
causes; the periodization of paradiplomacy is a specific attribute of the most recent
phase of contemporary globalization and paradiplomatic impacts could be summarized
as the diffusion of power and political authority and the erosion of the separation of
domestic and international relations. Finally, the trajectory of Brazilian and U.S.
subnational governments’ paradiplomacy is indeterminate and uncertain.
30
3.2 THE CITY-TWINNING PHENOMENON
This sub-section presents a brief history of sister cities15 and then a literature
review that is composed of the subjects of globalization and city twinning and discusses
them, with emphasis on their concept and practice, according to the chronological order
of their publication.
3.2.1 Historical perspective of city-twinning phenomenon
In answering the question of the origin of city twinning, Zelinsky (1991, p. 4-5)
identified several antecedents that may have contributed to the advent of twinning such
as, inter alia: (1) Christian missionary efforts abroad; (2) “[…] enterprises subsequently
joined by freemasonry, the Rotarians […], and other transnational fraternal, professional,
philanthropic […] and political activities of a nongovernmental nature”; (3) worldwide
fairs in the 1850s on the motivation of people-to-people transboundary affairs; (4)
proliferation of business and scientific conventions; (5) organizations that promoted
social causes; (6) “spontaneous international relief campaigns generated by calamities
such as the 1871 Chicago fire or 1923 Tokyo earthquake”; (7) “immigrants from specific
Old World communities with some participation by their offspring”; (8) “most immediate
progenitor of today's organized transnational companionship among communities was
the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA) founded at Ghent in 1913
(PHILIPPOVICH, 1983, p. 1)” (apud ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 5); (9) As of the 1950s,
international tourism and sports, pen pal movement, and scientific and academic
exchanges through universities; (10) the one event that finally catalyzed the movement
was obviously World War II” (ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 5).
On the latter catalytic event, Zelinsky (1991, p. 5-6) identifies two reasons to
support the view that transnational city twinning was consolidated or had an “effective
origin”:16 (1) “During and just after the conflict, a number of war relief organizations, e.g.,
15 As discussed earlier, sister cities are also referred to as, inter alia, twin cities and city twinning. 16 Zelinsky (1991, p. 6) recognized that there was twinning before the 1940s such as Brugg (Switzerland)
and Rotweill (Germany) which initiated in 1918, but called it “scattering of spontaneous pairings in earlier
years,” given that it was not “formally organized grassroots rapprochement.”
31
Bundles for Britain, Russian War Relief, and American Aid to France, Inc., channeled
assistance from North America to the stricken populations of allied countries…” and
American combatants who participated in the war and personally decided to help
Europeans by organizing “hometown programs to facilitate rehabilitation;” (2) leaders
from local European communities labored in “healing, reconciliation, and long-term
fraternity, creating active twinning relationships between pairs of municipalities, initially
in France and Germany but later involving other countries as well.”
Motivated to create “an economically and politically unified Europe” and
“continental unification or reconciling historically hostile nations,” in the context of post-
World War II, the following institutions contributed to the promotion of city twinning
(ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 7): the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR),
the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), the Parliament of Europe and the
United Towns Organizations (UTO or Federation Mondiale des Cites Unies et Villes
Jumelees).
Moreover, in the 1956, “U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower convened a White
House Summit on Citizen Diplomacy” and established a People-to-People program
between U.S. and foreign municipalities (SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL, 2006, p. 8).
Zelinsky comments on such program and states that “Out of all the many subgroups,
only the Civic Committee survived. In 1967 it was reorganized as a legal entity, a
nonprofit association entitled the Town Affiliation Association of the U.S., Inc., with an
operating wing called Sister Cities International” (SCI) (ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 8).
Several antecedents contributed to the activity of city twinning, but it was World
War II that catalyzed and strengthened its practices. Also, some of the most important
city-twinning/sister city institutions are the CEMR, IULA, Parliament of Europe, UTO and
SCI.
3.2.2 City-twinning phenomenon literature review
Zelinsky (1991) identified more than 11,000 cities that established twinning
agreements in approximately 159 countries since 1950 and considered city twinning to
be a movement and a phenomenon. He attributed city twinning to the “much vaster
32
subject of globalizing society” (ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 3) and identified that it does not
aspire to devise and implement a single project, but rather to establish relationships via
various shared activities with the “overall objective of advancing mutual understanding
and friendship” (ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 3). Such shared activities include “economic,
cultural, ideological, historical, recreational, or other type of concern or perhaps a
beneficial complementarity of interest” (ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 4). Additionally, although
the array of motivations for twinning varies from case to case, Zelinsky (1991) identified
more variables, inter alia, that drive such agreements: reconciliation, distance,
commerce, diplomacy, politics, historically common land of origin, long-lasting cultural
sentiment, ancient linguistic and ethnic linkages, and humanitarian or philanthropic
impulses.17 On the contrary, factors that impede the prospect of city twinning are hostile
relations between nation-states and official restrictions such as the unavailability of visas
(ZELINSKY, 1991).
Zelinky’s (1991) research has direct correlation with globalization, as will be
presented as follows. Held et al went beyond the simple notion of globalization, that is,
the “widening, deepening and speeding up of global interconnectedness” (1999, p. 14),
by providing the following definition of it (HELD et al 2003, p. 68; HELD et al 1999, p.
16):
a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial
organization of social relations and transactions - assessed in terms of their
extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or
interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of
power.
Based on Modelski (1972), Mann (1986) and Castells (1996), Held et al (1999; 2003)
define such ‘flows’ as “the movements of physical artefacts, people, symbols, tokens
and information across space and time” and ‘networks’ as “regularized or patterned
interactions between independent agents, nodes of activity, or sites of power.” Zelinsky
(1991) considered the globalization phenomenon to be the driving force of the city-
twinning movement. Much of the shared activities between cities that contribute to
17 For more twinning incentives, see ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 21-22.
33
twinning agreements’ establishments, as identified by Zelinsky (1991), are set of
processes that generate social relations and transcontinental or interregional flows and
networks of interaction and activity.
Another significant contribution to the study of city twinning was made in the
twenty-first century through new conceptual insights such as the processes of
engagement in such activity and the economic dimension municipal twinning (CREMER;
BRUIN; DUPIS; 2000).
Cremer’s research (BRUIN; DUPIS; 2000) outlines key features of the
engagement process of city-twinning relations: a relationship is established through the
signing of a formal agreement by municipal officials such as the mayor; agreements last
indefinitely;18 the established twinning relationship aims at creating various joint projects
and activities; city officials work to establish and support the city-twinning relationship,
but local citizens, or civil society, participate in the programs and activities as unpaid
volunteers; the attainments of the established activities do not depend on the patronage
or support of the national government; city-twinning relationships should be
characterized by "genuine reciprocity of effort and benefit, with neither community
profiting at the expense of the other" (ZELINSKY, 1991, p. 3).
Besides the various reasons stated by Zelinsky (1991) that explain why and how
municipalities may choose to engage in twinning relations, Cremer (BRUIN; DUPUIS,
2000) contributes to the study of city twinning by making new conceptual insights such
as presenting the importance of individual contacts and private initiatives as the means
of attaining the establishment of city-twinning relations.
The authors believe commerce and culture are two fundamental aspects of a city-
twinning relationship because they contribute to its maintenance and progress. They
argue for a balance between both dimensions, rather than an overemphasis upon either
one. They call this the “integrative approach to sister-city relationships” and define it as
18 This research partially agrees with the idea that the period of validity of city-twinning agreements lasts
permanently. More on this point will be discussed on the section that analyzes the Sister City/City-twinning
Surveys.
34
an approach that "strives for a balance of cultural, political, social, and economic
development for both cities, and insists on tangible results in all of those priority areas”
(CREMER et al, 1996, p. 12 apud CREMER; BRUIN; DUPUIS, 2000, p. 383-384). The
idea is that twin city programs and relations are more likely to be successful if the parties
involved are not motivated by economic self-interest and that trade missions are more
successful if both municipalities have previously established city-twinning relations
(CREMER; BRUIN; DUPUIS, 2000). For example, individual contacts between the
mayors of New Zealand’s and China’s municipalities demonstrated that the integrative
approach played a fundamental role in that, in the perception of Chinese local
authorities, it built mutual trust and helped to overcome bureaucratic processes
(CREMER; BRUIN; DUPUIS, 2000).
Since city twinning originally aimed at fostering peace between people
(ZELINSKY, 1991), O’Toole studies the debate of the shift from the latter interest to the
dimension of commercial and economic activities in Australian and Japanese city-
twinning relations (2001). His research, within the context of Australian-Japanese
twinning relations, is relevant to city twinning because it contributes to the general
knowledge of such field of inquiry by presenting new insights on the role of public
policies, the types of activities, importance, benefits and problems of city twinning
(O’TOOLE, 2001) and complements Cremer’s (BRUIN; DUPUIS, 2000) research by
making new conceptual contributions.
For example, in the Australia’s case, the lack of public policies for city-twinning
activities was not perceived as having negative impacts, but rather it meant “freedom
from policy prescriptions and freedom to negotiate international relationships in ways
that suit individual localities” (O’TOOLE, 2001, p. 405). It is within this context that
O’Toole analyzed the history of Australian cities’ involvement in twinning relations and
discovered that their external municipal relations included three phases in the following
order: associative, reciprocative and commercial. The first phase began in the 1960s
and 1970s and the motivations for municipalities’ engagement with other cities reflected
the general concept of twinning during that period of time, namely, international
friendship and cultural exchange (ZELINSKY, 1991; O’TOOLE, 2001); the second phase
35
involved programs of educational exchange. The difference between this phase and the
former is that “Associative relationships are more symbolic in their exchanges whereas
reciprocative relationships involve activities that develop skills among the participants”
(O’TOOLE, 2001, p. 405); the last phase takes advantage of the consolidated ties, as a
result of the first two phases, to further both cities’ local economic and commercial
interests (e.g. tourism, trade and investment). As a consequence of the application of
this city-twinning model, “Most local governments in Australia now have economic
development officers whose role it is to ensure that there are strategies in place to
ensure ‘growth’ in the local economy” (O’TOOLE, 2001, p. 406). Thus, the Australian
city-twinning experience serves as a model to be followed, modified or simply one that
aggregates knowledge for the development of future, unique models.
Another important contribution was made from a Latin American perspective on
external municipal engagements (RODRIGUES, 2004). According to Rodrigues (2004),
in the 1990s, globalization, great United Nations’ conferences and intensification of
regional integration’s processes promoted cities in international relations. Such scholar
researched Brazilian cases on the international insertion of cities and stated that the
international engagement of Brazilian federated states and cities has gradually
increased since the 1980s. Rodrigues (CMDMA, 1988, p. 277 apud RODRIGUES, 2004,
p. 445) highlighted events that contributed to increase cities’ activities at the
international arena such as the 1987 Brundtland Report, which recognized the necessity
of local authorities on the fulfillment of sustainable environmental development, the
Convention on Biological Diversity (1991), Agenda 21 (1993) and Habitat II, which
acknowledged the importance and necessity of subnational governments’ participation
on global matters. Correspondingly, Rodrigues’ findings on the growth of Brazilian
subnational activities in the 1980s is in accordance to Zelinsky’s (1991, p. 12) statistical
records, which state that Brazil had 139 city-twinning agreements with 28 countries by
1988, of which 42 twinnings occurred with the U.S. (1991, p. 15).
Clarke’s (2011) research identified twin cities in the late 1970s and early 1980s
that aimed at bridging North and South nation-states. For example, North-South
twinnings between Britain and Nicaragua after the 1979 Sandinista Revolution and
36
British and African city twinnings, both on matters poverty and inequality (CLARKE,
2011). However, Clarke’s (2011) research adds that contemporary trends of local
governments’ international activity has caused British local authorities to favor less
binding, short-term partnerships and projects, instead of traditionally formal and long-
term twinning agreements with foreign cities (cf. HANDLEY, 2006, p. 4). To that respect,
contemporary city twinnings, at least in Great Britain, differs from older twinnings in that
they tend to be characterized by less formal and short-term qualities. Finally, in
analyzing forms of city-twinning agreements in the twentieth and twentieth-first
centuries, Clarke (2011) identifies its changing characteristics in that older and
traditional city twinnings were long-term and formal relationships that generated
obligations between parties, whereas newer forms of twinning are increasingly short-
term, informal, and tightly focused. Such observation will be further analyzed on the
fourth and fifth sections.
Joenniemi and Sergunin (2011) also made important contributions to the study of
city twinning in Europe regarding its concept and modern activities. On the first matter,
twin cities could be conceptualized within a ‘domestic context’ or with an ‘international
sense’ (JOENNIEMI and SERGUNIN, 2011, p. 122). In the domestic context,19 ‘twin
cities’20 are a “special case of two cities or urban centres founded in close geographic
proximity and then growing into each other over time,” whereas, the international sense
has a ‘broad’ and a ‘narrow’ definition. Broadly defined, it means “cooperative
agreements between cities, towns and even counties which are not neighbours but
located at a considerable distance and even in separate countries to promote economic,
19 Some examples of domestic twinning are (JOENNIEMI and SERGUNIN, 2011): Minneapolis and Saint
Paul located in Minnesota (USA); Chatham and Rochester, Manchester and Salford, Raleigh-Durham
(UK); Budapest (Buda and Pest) is an example of two cities losing their individual identities and merging
into one. 20 European synonyms of ‘twin cities’ include: “sister [cities], connected [cities], double [cities], trans-
border [cities], bi-national [cities], neighboured [cities], coupled [cities], partner [cities] and friendship
[cities], and city-pairs (Buursink, 2001; Schultz, 2002);” in Russia, and in the USSR, brother (pobratimy) or
related (porodnennye) cities are also used (BUURSINK, 2001; SCHULTZ, 2002 apud JOENNIEMI and
SERGUNIN, 2011, p. 122).
37
commercial and cultural ties” (STEPHEN, 2008 apud JOENNIEMI and SERGUNIN,
2011, p. 122) and, narrowly defined, “border towns adjacent to each other” (2011, p.
122); secondly, the authors (HANDLEY, 2006, p. 6-8 apud JOENNIEMI and
SERGUNIN, 2011, p. 121) also presented more up-to-date twinning activities,21 which
complements Zelinsky’s (1991) research.
Joenniemi and Sergunin (2012) also conducted five case studies on city
twinnings in Northern Europe, namely between Tornio-Haparanda (Finland and
Sweden), Narva-Ivangorod (Estonia and Russia), Imatra-Svetogorsk (Finland and
Russia), Valga-Valka (Estonia and Latvia), and Kirkenes-Nikel (Norway and Russia).
The authors (JOENNIEMI and SERGUNIN, 2012, p. 44) concluded that
Twinning is perhaps still in its infancy and often oriented towards the short rather
than the long term perspectives but will probably get more established and
stronger over time thus also calling for added theoretical insight as well as
further empirical enquiry as local experimenting in testing the fixity of identities
and questioning the divisive effects of borders may potentially have some quite
far-reaching consequences.
Therefore, the authors’ conclusion on city-twinnings’ short-term perspective corresponds
to Clarke’s (2011) findings that contemporary local governments’ foreign activity seek
increasingly short-term, informal, and tightly focused forms of twinnings.
Therefore, several authors consider globalization to be the cause of city twinning.
Twinning between cities aims to establish relationships through various shared or joint
activities with the overall objective of establishing mutual understanding and friendship.
City twinning originally aimed at fostering peace between people of different countries,
21 “bolstering economic and business development, improving service delivery and problem solving,
improving transport infrastructure, promoting freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital,
accessing EU and other financial institutions in search for funding, promoting community well-being,
promoting stronger community partnerships, increasing global and European awareness, yielding more
intense local government staff development and training, providing resources for developing education
and culture, promoting tolerance and increasing understanding and enhancing youth activities”
(JOENNIEMI and SERGUNIN, 2011, p. 122).
38
but there has been a shift, to some degree, to commercial and economic interests.
Furthermore, the main features of the engagement process in a city-twinning
relationship are the signing of the agreement by a local authority such as a mayor, and
the execution of the agreement through joint activities, projects and programs.
Additionally, sister city activities are more successful if both municipalities have
previously established city-twinning relations. Moreover, cities became more globally
active since the 1990s as a result of, inter alia, the great United Nations’ conferences
and intensification of regional integration’s processes. The literatures consider that
contemporary local governments’ foreign activities seek increasingly short-term,
informal, and tightly focused forms of twinnings.
39
4 ANALYSIS OF SISTER-CITY AGREEMENTS THROUGH THE GLOBALIZATION
DEBATE
This section presents a content analysis of the sister city/city-twinning
agreements that were obtained. Two institutions contributed to the identification of the
municipalities that established or renewed twinning agreements between the period of
2010 and 2014, namely, Sister Cities International (SCI) and the Council of Local
Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan.
The following sister city agreements’ variables will be examined and compared in
order to attain conceptual insights to the study of transnational city-twinning
phenomenon and discover the tendencies of subnational governments’ engagements in
it during the period between 2010 and 2014: the sister cities’ municipality, country and
continent, the date of its establishment or renewal, the period of validity, the various
areas of cooperation between municipalities,22 and the office of the person that signed
the agreements.
Thus, as Bardin (1977) explains, the content analysis in this section will address
the data both quantitatively and qualitatively. The former is based on the frequency of
the appearance of certain elements of the agreements, while the latter is based on
“specific deductions on an event or a variable of precise inference” (BARDIN, 1977, p.
115). Therefore, this section will first present the quantitative data and then qualitative
deductions based on the variables of the globalization debate (see Figure 1).
4.1 ANALYSIS OF SISTER-CITY AGREEMENTS
The following table presents the sister city agreements that were obtained in this
research:
Table 1 - Sister City Agreements between 2010 and 2014 from different continents
Municipality Country of
municipality Continent of municipality
Sister City Sister-
City Country
Continent of Sister City
22 Refer to Appendix C for the document containing such statistics.
40
Auckland New Zealand Oceania Guangzhou China Asia
Auckland New Zealand Oceania Kakogawa Japan Asia
Bandera USA North
America Tysmenytsia Ukraine Europe
Beijing China Asia Delhi India Asia
Belfast United
Kingdom Europe Boston USA
North America
Bengaluru India Asia Chengdu China Asia
Chigasaki Japan Asia Honolulu USA North
America
Elk Grove USA North
America Concepcion de
Ataco El
Salvador North
America
Juneau USA North
America Kalibo Philippines Asia
Kolkata India Asia Kunming China Asia
Laval France Europe Mettmann Germany Europe
Medelin Colombia South
America Rosario Argentina
South America
Milpitas USA North
America Dagupan Philippines Asia
Milpitas USA North
America Huizhou China Asia
Milpitas USA North
America Tsukuba Japan Asia
Pharr USA North
America Abasolo Mexico
North America
Pharr USA North
America Dolores Hidalgo Mexico
North America
Pharr USA North
America Hualahuises Mexico
North America
Pharr USA North
America Linares Mexico
North America
Pharr USA North
America Mazatlan Mexico
North America
Pharr USA North
America Reynosa Mexico
North America
Pharr USA North
America Tierra Blanca Mexico
North America
San Carlos USA North
America Omura Japan Asia
Schaumburg USA North
America Safranbolu Turkey Asia
Torino Italy Europe Rosario Argentina South
America Venice Italy Europe Dubrovnik Croatia Europe
Venice Italy Europe Yerevan Armenia Asia Washington,
D.C. USA
North America
Addis Abba Ethiopia Africa
Washington, D.C.
USA North
America Bangkok Thailand Asia
Washington, D.C.
USA North
America Beijing China Asia
41
Washington, D.C.
USA North
America Rome Italy Europe
Washington, D.C.
USA North
America Tshwane (Pretoria)
South Africa
Africa
Washington, D.C.
USA North
America Ankara Turkey Asia
Washington, D.C.
USA North
America Brasilia Brazil
South America
Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan.
Table 1 illustrates the municipality and its sister city as well as both cities’ country
and continent. For example, the first entry at the top states that the municipality of
Auckland, New Zealand, located in Oceania23 twinned with Guangzhou, China, of the
continent of Asia. In addition, this research obtained a total of 34 sister city agreements
from six different continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South
America), 22 different countries and 50 different municipalities.
Figure 3 - Number of countries represented by municipalities that established twinning agreements per continent (2010-2014)
Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan.
23 Given that New Zealand is not part of the Australian continent, this research classifies both Australia’s
and New Zealand’s municipalities as part of Oceania.
2
7
6
3
1
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Africa Asia Europe North America Oceania South America
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
Continent
Figure 3 - Number of countries represented by municipalities that established twinning agreements per continent (2010-2014)
42
Figure 3 displays the number of countries represented by municipalities that
established twinning agreements per continent. There are seven different countries that
represent the establishment of city-twinning agreements in Asia, six in Europe, three in
both North American and South America, two in Africa and one in Oceania.
Figure 4 - Municipalities that twinned per continent (2010-2014)
Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan.
Figure 4 illustrates the number of municipalities that twinned per continent. Note
that some twinnings were established by the same municipality. Thus, this graph
displays North America as the most active continent with approximately 47,05% of
municipalities that twinned followed by Asia (27,9%), Europe (13,2%), South America
(5,88%), and Africa and Oceania with 2,94% each.
Table 2 - Number of city twinnings per country (2010-2014) (continues)
Country(*) Number of twinnings
United States of America 24
Mexico 7
China 6
2
19
9
32
2 4 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Africa Asia Europe North America Oceania SouthAmerica
Nu
mb
er o
f in
div
idu
al m
un
icip
alit
ies
that
tw
inn
ed
Continents
Figure 4 - Municipalities that twinned per continent (2010-2014)
43
Italy 4
Japan 4
India 3
Argentina 2
New Zealand 2
Philippines 2
Turkey 2
Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan. (*) For the following countries, there is only a single city twinning: Armenia, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Germany, South Africa, Thailand, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
Table 2 illustrates the number of city twinnings per country and helps to better
understand how the city twinnings are distributed per country. Although North America
has 32 city twinnings, 75% of them belong to the United States and, therefore, it is not
evenly distributed between Mexico (21,87%), and El Salvador (3,12%); Asia has 19 city
twinnings, of which China’s participation is 31,57%, Japan (21,05%), India (15,78%),
Philippines and Turkey (10,52% each) and Armenia and Thailand (5,26% each); Europe
has nine city twinnings, of which Italy participates with 44,44%, and Croatia, France,
Germany, Ukraine and United Kingdom (11,11% each); South America has four city
twinnings, of which Argentina participates with 50% and Brazil and Colombia (25%
each); Africa has two city twinnings, of which Ethiopia and South Africa participate with
50% each; finally, Oceania has two city twinnings, of which 100% belong to New
Zealand.
44
Figure 5 - Number of city twinnings compared in relation to its respective continents (2010-2014)
Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan. Note: City twinning(s) in the Continent-Continent relation is followed by the number of twinnings and the percentage of its participation in the total number of twinning relations. e.g. “Asia-Europe, 1, 3%.”
Figure 5 displays the number of city twinnings compared in relation to its
respective continents. It allows for a better visualization of the municipalities’ continents
in a comparative perspective. For example, although there are three different countries
of South America (Argentina, Brazil and Colombia; see Table 1), there is only one
twinning between municipalities of that same continent, that is, Medelin (Colombia) and
Rosario (Argentina). Thus, the relation between South America-South America city
twinnings account for only 3% of the total number of municipalities’ respective
continents. Moreover, Figure 5 shows various combinations of city twinnings
represented by their continents, namely, Asia-North America, North America-North
America, Asia-Asia, Europe-North America, Africa-North America, Asia-Oceania,
Africa-North America, 2, 6%
Asia-Asia, 3,
9%
Asia-Europe, 1, 3%
Asia-North America, 10, 29%
Asia-Oceania, 2, 6%
Europe- Europe, 2, 6%
Europe-North America, 3, 9%
Europe-South America, 1, 3%
North America-North America, 8,
23%
North America-South America, 1,
3%
South America-South America, 1,
3%
Figure 5 - Number of city twinnings compared in relation to its respective continents (2010-2014)
45
Europe-Europe, Asia-Europe, Europe-South America, North America-South America
and South America-South America.
Table 3 - Date of establishment or renewal, period of validity, and number of cooperation areas of the city-twinning agreements per municipality (2010-2014)
Municipality Sister City Agreement
date Agreement:
New/Renewed
Agreements' period of validity
Number of areas of
cooperation
Auckland Guangzhou 2014 Renewed Not available 5
Auckland Kakogawa 2012 New Not available 4
Bandera Tysmenytsia 2011 New Permanent 9
Beijing Delhi 2013 New 5 years 13
Belfast Boston 2014 New Not available 6
Bengaluru Chengdu 2013 New 5 years 13
Chigasaki Honolulu 2014 New Not available 6
Elk Grove Concepcion de Ataco
2014 New
Not available 4
Juneau Kalibo 2014 New Not available 4
Kolkata Kunming 2013 New 5 years 13
Laval Mettmann 2014 New Not available 5
Medelin Rosario 2011 New Permanent 5
Milpitas Huizhou 2014 Renewed 5 years 10
Milpitas Tsukuba 2013 Renewed 5 years 10
Milpitas Dagupan 2014 Renewed 5 years 10
Pharr Abasolo 2011 New Permanent 7
Pharr Dolores Hidalgo
2010 New
Permanent 7
Pharr Hualahuises 2010 New Permanent 7
Pharr Linares 2010 New Permanent 7
Pharr Mazatlan 2012 New Permanent 7
Pharr Reynosa 2012 New Permanent 7
Pharr Tierra Blanca
2014 New
Permanent 7
San Carlos Omura 2012 New Not available 6
Schaumburg Safranbolu 2013 New Not available 4
Torino Rosario 2013 Renewed Not available 9
Venice Yerevan 2012 New Not available 6
Venice Dubrovnik 2011 New Not available 6 Washington, D.C. Brasilia
2013 New
5 years 11
Washington, D.C. Beijing
2012 Renewed
5 years 9
Washington, D.C. Addis Abba
2012 Renewed
5 years 9
46
Washington, D.C. Rome
2013 Renewed
5 years 11
Washington, D.C.
Tshwane (Pretoria)
2011 Renewed
5 years 9
Washington, D.C. Bangkok
2011 New
Permanent 8
Washington, D.C. Ankara
2013 New
5 years 8
Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan.
Table 3 presents the date the city-twinning agreements were established,
whether such establishment was new or renewed from an earlier sister city agreement,
their period of validity, and the number of cooperation areas established by the
agreements.
There were three agreements in 2010, six in 2011, seven in 2012, and nine in
both 2013 and 2014, adding up to a total of 34 agreements. Of the total number of
agreements, 25 were newly established and nine were renewed from an earlier sister
city agreement. Additionally, concerning the agreements’ period of validity, 12 did not
mention an expiration date, 10 affirmed that they were permanent and 12 established a
period of five years from the date that they were signed. Of the 12 agreements that
established a period of validity of five years, five were new and seven renewed; of the
10 permanent agreements, 100% of them were newly established; of the not available
category in Table 3, 10 agreements were new and two renewed.
There is a total of 24 different areas of cooperation from all sister city agreements
and an average of 7,7 areas of cooperation per sister city agreement. The areas of
cooperation are as follows: education, culture, industry, economic
development/trade/investment,24 sports, tourism, history, diplomacy, agriculture,
goodwill exchange (best practices), public policy, health, science and technology, youth
affairs, urban planning, waste and water management, infrastructure,
environment/sustainability, trade and commerce exchange, faith/religious exchange,
housing, social/community service, business/entrepreneurship and public safety.
24 These three variables were classified, in this research, as one area of cooperation because both trade
and investment seek to attain economic development.
47
Figure 6 - Number of areas of cooperation in all the sister city agreements per specific areas of cooperation (2010-2014)
Source: own elaboration based on the sister city agreements obtained.
Figure 6 illustrates the number of areas of cooperation in all the sister city
agreements and classifies them by specific areas of cooperation. For example, the
education area of cooperation appears a total of 29 times of a total of 34 city-twinning
agreements. Out of the 24 different areas of cooperation between sister cities,
environment/sustainability appears halfway in Figure 6 with 12 occurrences in the city-
twinning agreements, both sports and social/community service with 14, goodwill
exchanges (best practices) with 19, business/entrepreneurship with 21, tourism with 22,
economic development/trade/investment with 27, education with 29, and culture with
32. All other areas of cooperation occur less than 12 times.
Furthermore, all city-twinning agreements were signed by the Mayor of the
municipality or its equivalent such as “Village President” and “Lord Mayor.” Also, some
of the agreements contained one or more signatures of witnesses such as the following:
municipality’s Vice-Mayor, city council representative, Ambassador of municipality,
municipality’s city manager, representative of Sister Cities International or another sister
29 32
1
27
14
22
5 1 1
19
5
11 9
11 10 7
5
12
3 1 1
14
21
1 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nu
mb
er o
f ar
eas
of
coo
per
atio
n
Specific areas of cooperation
Figure 6: Number of areas of cooperation in all the sister city agreements per specific areas of cooperation (2010-2014)
48
city institution, Secretary for International Affairs of a municipality, Minister of Culture of
the municipality or country and Secretary of the municipality.
This section analyzed a total of 34 sister city agreements from six different
continents, 22 different countries and 50 different municipalities; such agreements were
either new or renewed within the period between 2010 and 2014. Certain agreements
did not even mention a period of validity (expiration date), while some were permanent
and others established a period of validity of five years. Furthermore, North America and
Asia were the most active continents from which municipalities twinned. Additionally,
most city twinnings were established from within and between the continents of Asia-
North America and North America-North America. Moreover, there was a total of 24
different areas of cooperation from all sister city agreements and an average of 7,7
areas of cooperation per sister city agreement. The most frequent cooperation areas
between sister cities were culture, education, economic development, tourism,
business/entrepreneurship, goodwill exchanges (best practices), sports, and
environment/sustainability; the areas of cooperation are not defined or explained in the
sister city agreements. Finally, all sister city agreements were signed by a Mayor and
some agreements included the signature of witnesses.
4.1.1 Conceptual insights of the globalization debate on the city-twinning
agreements
This sub-section will analyze and interpret the data presented in section 4.1
through the variables of the globalization debate as presented in the Conceptual
landmark (section 2) and Figure 1.
The first issue of contention of the globalization debate is whether or not the
conceptualization of globalization is unidimensional or multidimensional (HELD et al,
1999). The former means that globalization (or regionalization/internationalization, as
sceptics argue) would be either economic or cultural in nature, as defended by
hyperglobalizers and sceptics, while transformationalists affirm that it involves various
dimensions simultaneously. According to the data on the previous section, city-twinning
agreements are settled on several different areas as illustrated by Figure 6. City
49
twinning, both when it began in the post-World War II context25 and between the period
of 2010-2014, has been multidimensional, traversing the economic and cultural areas to
several other areas of cooperation such as education, goodwill exchanges, health,
environment/sustainability, urban planning, faith/religious exchanges and etc.
The second issue of contention of the globalization debate is the causation issue,
that is, it seeks to discover if globalization’s causes are monocausal or multicausal
(HELD et al, 1999). The former attributes capitalism or technological change as causes
while the latter sustains that there is a combination of factors that cause globalization
including technological change, market forces, ideology, political decisions, and
economic, cultural and political changes (HELD et al, 1999). Zelinsky (1999) provides
evidence that, inter alia, cooperation and a strong desire to foster peace among people
were some of the causes of city twinning. Since post-World War II and, specifically,
between the 2010-2014 period, new reasons for city twinning emerged among the
processes of globalization such as seeking to attain economic benefits, foment
academic ties, cooperate in environmental related issues, among others. Some, within
this debate, affirm globalization is a product of western civilization (HELD et al, 1999);
however, the causes of city twinning do not only spur from the western world, but from
all continents, including between Asia-Asia and Asia-Oceania (see Figure 5). Thus, a
multidimensional conceptualization of globalization and sister city agreement and
provides a conceptual framework for understanding the multicausal determinants to its
processes.
The third issue of contention is periodization, which explores how history is
periodized in order to answer the question of ‘what is new about contemporary
globalization.’ It does so through the spatio-temporal and organizational analytical
frameworks (HELD et al, 1999) (see Figure 1). The spatio-temporal analytical framework
is composed of the (1) extensity, (2) intensity, (3) velocity and (4) impact dimensions
(types of impacts: decisional, institutional, distributive and structural); the organizational
analytical framework is comprised of the (5) infrastructure, (6) institutionalization, (7)
25 See Zelinsky’s discussion on the origin of city-twinning in section 3.2.1.
50
stratification and (8) dominant modes of interaction dimensions. As explained in the
Conceptual landmark (section 2), periodization means that two periods of time, in
comparison to each other, are analyzed through the two aforementioned analytical
frameworks in order to identify and systematize similarities and differences between
such periods (see Figure 1). Therefore, while Held et al (1999) periodized globalization,
this research periodizes the city-twinning phenomenon insofar as it is attainable, for
even Held et al (1999) do not apply each and every one of globalization’s five points of
contention to each of their chapters, case studies and historical analyses.
Based on the data of section 4.1, the extensity of established city-twinning
relations was not an impediment or a barrier, given that cities from different continents
twinned with each other. For example, out of all 34 obtained sister city agreements,
approximately 59%, or 20 of them, were established between municipalities of different
continents (see Figure 5). Between 1950 and 1990, city twinning was already extensive
and numerous, as Zelinsky (1991) recorded over 11,000 cities of 159 countries that
established twinning agreements and as Kaltenbrunner’s (et al) (2013) research affirms,
as of 2013 there has been cities all around the world that established at least 15,225
city-twinning agreements. Thus, the extensity of city twinning relations between 1950
and 1990, 1950 and 2013 and between 2010 and 2014 has increased and has not been
an impediment to the establishment of such relations, as Kaltenbrunner’s (et al) (2013,
p. 7) extensive analysis of lists of twin cities affirms: “The most noteworthy result may be
that the geographical distance has only a negligible influence when a city selects a sister
city.” (For a visualization of the network of twin cities all around the world, see Annex A).
Intensity refers to the transborder flows and seeks to discover if its occurrences
are regular instead of occasional or random. In the perspective of number of city
twinnings per country, 10 out of 22 countries had municipalities that established two or
more twinnings (see Table 2) and seven of the 50 municipalities established two or more
city-twinning agreements (see Table 1). Nine of the 34 agreements renewed twinning
relations at least once by part of four different countries (see Table 3). Such data is
evidence that the twinning relations, through the obtained agreements in the 2010-2014
period, are evidence that the intensity of city-twinning transborder flows is neither
51
occasional nor random, but regular. The continuity of establishing city-twinning relations
since the 1950s (cf. ZELINSKY, 1991; KALTENBRUNNER et al, 2013) is evidence
against the transborder flows being occasional, and the renewal of previously
established city-twinning agreements is evidence against the notion of randomness.
The velocity of city-twinning relations has increased, over time, due to technology,
among other factors.26 There are more twin cities today than in the 1950s (cf.
ZELINSKY, 1991; KALTENBRUNNER et al, 2013). When considering the period
between 2010 and 2014, there has been an increase in the establishment of city-
twinning agreements per year, for there were three agreements in 2010, six in 2011,
seven in 2012, and nine in both 2013 and 2014, totaling 34 agreements (see Table 3).
The four types of impacts, that is, decisional, institutional, distributive and
structural as well as the organizational analytical framework, which contains the
infrastructure, institutionalization, stratification and dominant modes of interaction
dimensions (see Figure 1), are analyzed through the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of
2015 in the next section because the agreements themselves do not provide information
concerning such dimensions.
The fourth issue of contention is impacts. However, notice that Held et al (1999)
places the four types of impacts within the periodization issue of contention and then
places impacts as its own issue of contention (see Figure 1). The difference between the
impacts within periodization and impacts as a sole issue of contention is that the former
analyzes and compares two periods of time, while the latter does not. Therefore,
concerning impacts as the fourth issue of contention, researchers may analyze the
impact of globalization, city twinning or any other object of analysis in relation to a single
period of time. Furthermore, on the fourth issue of contention, researchers may discuss
any concept of impact, not being limited to its decisional, institutional, distributive and
structural forms and even may provide an overall conclusion of the impact of their object
of analysis.
26 Velocity and infrastructure overlap. See next section for a more complete discussion of the possible
reasons for the increase of city twinning around the world.
52
Hence, concerning impacts as the fourth issue of contention and analyzing the
single period of time between 2010 and 2014, there has been an increase between
2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, while both 2013 and 2014 had nine city-twinning
agreements (see Table 3). Also, there has been a deepening in the network and
relations of nine cities through the renewal of pre-2010 agreements (see Table 3). Such
agreement renewals is evidence that previously established sister city agreements
resulted in successful impacts for each municipality.
The fifth and last issue of contention is the trajectory debate that aims to discover
the ‘direction of global change,’ that is, whether globalization is linear towards progress,
regressive and faulty, or indeterminate and uncertain (HELD et al, 1999). The trajectory
of globalization for hyperglobalizers is a linear process moving towards human progress;
sceptics see it as regressive and marked by failures; transformationalists understand it
to be indeterminate and uncertain. The data clearly shows that municipalities are
intertwined from a combination of different continents and countries, some for the first
time and others for the second time. To affirm that sister city agreements are linear is
synonymous to affirming that its future is predictable. Furthermore, to assert that sister
city agreements are regressive and faulty does not reflect the evolution of city twinning
from post-World War II (cf. ZELINSKY, 1999), which concentrated on fostering peace
among people of a war-torn Europe, to a multidimensional and multicausal nature of
municipal twinning between the 2010 and 2014 period. Rather, the data (see Table 3)
supports the view that globalization and, therefore, city twinning, is indeterminate and
uncertain, for out of the 12 agreements that established a period of validity of five years,
five were new and seven renewed; of the 10 permanent agreements, 100% of them
were newly established; in relation to the agreements’ period of validity (see Table 3), 10
agreements were new and two renewed of the not available category. It is uncertain and
unpredictable whether or not twinning agreements will progress through time by being
renewed or, in case they are permanent, by being active instead of dormant. However,
the increase of the number of established sister city agreements since the 1950s is
evidence that it is predictable.
53
Therefore, Sister city agreements are conceptualized multidimensionally, given
that there are several areas of cooperation that cannot be classified as economic or
cultural. In addition, the engagement and establishment of sister cities agreements are
explained by multiple causes such as cooperation on education and environmental
related issues, desire to attain peace, economic benefits and cultural reasons, among
others. Furthermore, concerning the application of periodization on sister city
agreements, the extensity or distance was neither a difficulty nor barrier between 2010
and 2014 as the municipalities twinned with each other from six different continents, nor
was there an impediment in the over 11,000 city-twinning agreements between 1950
and 1990, and over 15,000 agreements between 1950 and 2013 as demonstrated by
other studies. The obtained agreements during the 2010 and 2014 period are evidence
that the intensity of city-twinning transborder flows is regular, instead of occasional or
random. Additionally, the velocity of city twinning increased since the 1950s and the
period between 2010 and 2014 has experienced a gradual increase, per year, of the 34
established agreements. Moreover, the renewal of pre-2010 sister city agreements is
evidence that such agreements had positive impacts and that their respective
municipalities chose to continue previously established twinning relations. Finally, there
are two perspective of the trajectory of city-twinning agreements. Firstly, given the
constant increase of sister city agreements since the 1950s, it may be affirmed that their
trajectory is linear or predictable. Secondly, it is uncertain and unpredictable whether or
not sister city agreements will be renewed or, in case they are permanent, active instead
of dormant.
54
5 ANALYSIS OF THE CITY TWINNING/SISTER CITY SURVEY OF 2015 THROUGH
THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE
This section presents the quantitative and qualitative findings of the municipalities
that answered the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015. Then, it presents the
content analysis of such data through the globalization debate in order to attain
conceptual insights to transnational city twinning and discover the tendencies of
subnational governments’ engagements in it during the period between 2010 and 2014.
5.1 ANALYSIS OF THE CITY TWINNING/SISTER CITY SURVEY OF 2015
Most of the questions of the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015, hereinafter
called Survey, were developed through the five points of contention of the globalization
debate (see Figure 1). The Survey (see Appendix B) has a total of 25 questions. Most
questions were developed from the globalization debate structure of Held et al (1999) by
correlating globalization and city-twinning phenomenon in order to elaborate a survey
from which to extract conceptual insights to the study of transnational city twinning and
discover the tendencies of subnational governments’ engagements in it between 2010
and 2014.
Questions 1-2 are in part one and are related to City-twinning/sister city
authorities; Questions 3-24 were elaborated based on the globalization debate (see
Figure 1). Questions 3-7 are grouped in part two, section one, and are related to the
conceptualization debate; Question 8 belongs in part two, section two, on the causes
debate of globalization; Questions 9-23 pertain to the periodization debate with one
exception, that is, if the answer to Question 9 is ‘Yes,’ questions 11 and 12 belong to the
periodization debate and, if ‘No,’ they belong to the impacts debate, which is the fourth
issue of contention of the globalization debate (see Figure 1); Question 24 belongs in
part two, section four, related to the trajectory debate; Question 25 belongs to part three,
section five, and aims at obtaining a list of city-twinning relationships from the
municipality that answered the Survey.
55
Table 4 - Question-answer structures of the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015
Survey’s question-answer structures Total
questions Question
Identification
Multiple choice question with possibility of choosing a single objective answer choice 1 9
Multiple choice question with possibility of choosing one or more objective answer choices 1 13
Multiple choice question with possibility of choosing one or more answer choices, whether objective AND/OR subjective (open-ended) 2 3,11
Multiple choice with possibility of choosing one objective answer OR one subjective (open-ended) answer 11
4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12,14, 19, 20, 23, 24
Question that provides an answer field for a subjective (open-ended) answer 9
1, 2, 15, 16, 17,18, 21, 22, 25
Double-barreled question with possibility of providing a single subjective (open-ended) answer to each part 1 6
Source: own elaboration.
Table 4 illustrates six types of the Survey’s question-answer structures, the total
number of questions for each type of structures and the identification of the questions
per structure. The following descriptions refer to the six types of question-answer
structures utilized in the Survey: (1) Question 9 is a multiple choice question and its
answer choices are objective, that is, such choices are provided by the Survey. In this
question, the respondent must choose only one answer choice; (2) Question 13 is a
multiple choice question; its choices are objective and the respondent may choose one
or more answer choices; (3) Questions 3 and 11 are multiple choice questions; its
answer choices are both objective and subjective (open-ended). The respondent may
choose a single objective or subjective answer choice, or a combination of objective and
subjective answer choices; (4) Questions 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, 20, 23 and 24 are
multiple choice questions; its answer choices are objective or subjective (open-ended).
The respondent must choose only the former or the latter; (5) Questions 1, 2, 15, 16, 17,
18, 21, 22 and 25 provide an answer field in which respondents may only provide a
subjective (open-ended) answer; finally, (6) Question 6 is a double-barreled question.27
For part ‘a’ and ‘b’ of question 6, respondents may only provide a subjective (open-
27 A double-barreled question is two questions in one (cf. JOHNSON; JOSLYN; REYNOLDS, 2001, p.
277).
56
ended) answer. Moreover, the first and second types of question-answer structures
accounts for 4% of the total amount of questions; the third accounts for 8%, the fourth
for 44%, the fifth for 36% and the sixth for 4%.
Sister Cities International (SCI) and the Council of Local Authorities for
International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan contributed to the identification of the
municipalities that established or renewed twinning agreements between the period of
2010 and 2014. From thence, the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 was
delivered solely to the electronic mail of the municipalities listed in Appendix C. A total of
115 Surveys were sent to the municipalities in Appendix C, and 13, or 11,3%, were
answered.
Table 5 - Municipalities that answered the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015
Municipality Country of
municipality Continent of municipality
Survey sent
Survey answered
Bandera USA North America Yes Yes
Belfast United Kingdom Europe Yes Yes
Chigasaki Japan Asia Yes Yes
Copenhagen Denmark Europe Yes Yes
Delaware USA North America Yes Yes
Milpitas USA North America Yes Yes
Rochester USA North America Yes Yes
San Jose USA North America Yes Yes
Schaumburg USA North America Yes Yes
Scottsdale USA North America Yes Yes
Shijonawate Japan Asia Yes Yes
Sunnyvale USA North America Yes Yes
Venice Italy Europe Yes Yes Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan.
Table 5 displays the municipalities that received the City Twinning/Sister City
Survey of 2015 and answered them, as well as their respective countries and
continents. There are 13 municipalities from five different countries and three different
continents that answered the Survey. One municipality is from Denmark, one from Italy,
one from the United Kingdom, two from Japan and eight from the United States. From
the perspective of continents, two municipalities are from Asia, three from Europe and
eight from North America.
57
Table 6 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 1 Question 1
Types of answers Mayor/Lord
Mayor County Judge Commissioners
Village President
Bandera 1 1 1 0 Belfast 1 0 0 0 Chigasaki 1 0 0 0 Copenhagen 1 0 0 0 Delaware 1 0 0 0 Milpitas 1 0 0 0 Rochester 1 0 0 0 San Jose 0 0 0 1 Schaumburg 1 0 0 0 Scottsdale 1 0 0 0 Shijonawate 1 0 0 0 Sunnyvale 1 0 0 0 Venice 1 0 0 0 Total per answer 12 1 1 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. For example, San Jose has only one person that can sign the agreements, that is, the Village President.
Table 6 displays all the answers to Question 1 of the City Twinning/Sister City
Survey of 2015, which stated: “List the official position(s) of those that can legally sign
city-twinning agreements in your municipality.” The Mayor or Lord Mayor was the most
mentioned official position of those that can legally sign city-twinning agreements. It
accounts for 12 occurrences with the exception of San Jose whose Village President is
the one who can legally sign the agreements. Additionally, Bandera city was the only
one that allowed more than one municipal official to sign the agreements.
Table 7 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 2 Question 2
Types of answers
No Did not answer Yes
Bandera 1 0 0Belfast 1 0 0Chigasaki 0 1 0Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 1 0 0
58
Milpitas 1 0 0Rochester 1 0 0San Jose 1 0 0Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale 1 0 0Shijonawate 1 0 0Sunnyvale 1 0 0Venice 1 0 0Total per answer 12 1 0
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’.
Table 7 illustrates all the answers to Question 2 of the Survey, which states:
“After the city-twinning/sister city agreement has been signed by everyone involved in it,
does the agreement need to be approved by any other institution(s) of your municipality
or country? If yes, please explain.” Out of the 13 municipalities, 12 answered ‘No,’ that
is, that there is no further approval, by any institution, after the city-twinning agreements
have been sign the municipal official. One municipality did not answer the question.
Figure 7 - Dimensions included in municipalities' city-twinning agreements that were established or renewed between 2010 and 2014
Source: own elaboration based on the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015.
9
13
10
6
12
2 1 1 1 1 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nu
mb
er o
f m
un
icip
alit
ies
Dimensions
Figure 7: Dimensions included in municipalities' city-twinning agreements that were established or renewed between 2010 and
2014
59
Figure 7 illustrates the answers to Question 3 of the Survey, which states: “During
the period of 2010-2014, which of the following dimension(s) did your municipality’s
twinning engagements have?” There were a total of 17 different dimensions (areas of
cooperation) that the municipalities’ twinning agreements provided: trade and
commerce, cultural, social, environmental/sustainability, educational, tourism,
cooperation, peace, sightseeing, science and technology, sports, political, water, urban
development/construction, humanitarian aid, governmental technical assistance, and
administration. Additionally, categorizing such dimension into categories is possible as
content analysis theorist Bardin (1977, p. 117) explains by stating that “Categorization is
an operation of classification of elements that constitute a set, by differentiation and,
then, by regrouping according to the gender (analogy), with the criteria previously
defined” and “The criteria of categorization may be semantic (thematic categories […])”
(BARDIN, 1977, p. 117).28 For example, this research categorized urban development
and construction as the same activity and dimension.
All 13 municipalities included the cultural dimension in their city-twinning
agreements; 12 municipalities provided the educational dimension; ten municipalities
had the social dimension; nine municipalities included the trade and commerce
dimension; six municipalities provided the environmental/sustainability dimension; three
municipalities had the sports dimension; two municipalities had tourism; all other
dimensions were included in only one municipalities’ city-twinning agreement.
Table 8 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 4 Question 4
Types of answers
Trade and commerce Cultural Educational Bandera - - -Belfast 1 0 0Chigasaki 0 1 0Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 0 1 0Milpitas 0 0 1Rochester - - -
28 Own translation.
60
San Jose 1 0 0Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale - - -Shijonawate 0 1 0Sunnyvale - - -Venice 0 1 0Total per answer 4 4 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 8 displays Question 4 of the Survey, which states: “Which of the above
dimensions had the greatest weight in conceptualizing the overall twinning experience of
your municipality during the period of 2010-2014?” Only three dimensions were cited as
the most important area cooperation of the municipalities’ twinning engagements. The
trade and commerce and cultural dimension were the most frequent variables that
conceptualized the twinning experience of nine municipalities; the educational
dimension occurred once. The other four municipalities do not apply to this question.
Table 9 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 5 Question 5
Types of answers
Yes No Other
"More or less" Bandera 1 0 0Belfast - - -Chigasaki - - -Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 1 0 0Milpitas 1 0 0Rochester 0 0 1San Jose 1 0 0Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale 1 0 0Shijonawate 1 0 0Sunnyvale 1 0 0Venice 1 0 0Total per answer 10 0 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015
61
Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 9 shows the answers to Question 5 of the Survey; it states: “Do you agree
that city-twinning/sister city agreements establish broadly-based relationships?” This
question was important due to the Sister Cities International’s (2014, p. 3) definition of
city twinning, which states that “A sister city […] relationship is a broad, long-term
partnership between two communities in two countries.” Out of the 13 municipalities, ten
answered positively, which agrees with the aforementioned definition that city-
twinning/sister city agreements establish broad relationships. One municipality answered
that the city-twinning relationship is “more or less” broad; two municipalities do not apply
to this question.
Table 10 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 6a and 6b Question 6a and 6b
Types of answers 6a 6b
Bandera 12 4Belfast Permanent PermanentChigasaki - -Copenhagen 5 5Delaware 2 -
Milpitas 2 for new; 5 for
renewed2 for new; 5 for
renewedRochester 5; Permanent PermanentSan Jose Permanent PermanentSchaumburg Permanent PermanentScottsdale Permanent PermanentShijonawate Permanent PermanentSunnyvale 3 3Venice Permanent Permanent
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 10 records the answers to a Question 6a and 6b, which is a double-
barreled question, that is, two questions in one. It states: “Considering that each city-
twinning agreement has a period of validity, what is the average amount of years of: a)
your municipality’s twinning agreements during the period of 2010-2014? b) all your
62
municipality’s twinning agreements?” This question is important due to Sister Cities
International’s (2014) aforementioned definition, which states that city-twinning/sister city
agreements are long-term partnerships or relationships.
Concerning part 6a of Question 6, which is delimited by the period between 2010
and 2014, seven municipalities asserted that their city-twinning agreements were
permanent and, therefore, do not have a period of validity; Rochester has one city-
twinning agreements that has an average period of validity of five years and all its other
agreements are permanent; Milpitas’ agreements have an average period of validity of
two years if they are new and five years when renewed; the greatest average period of
validity is of 12 years, followed by five, three and two years.
In relation to part 6b of Question 6, the data is almost identical to part 6a; the only
differences are that the average period of validity of all of Bandera’s agreements are 4
years, and that Delaware’s answer does not apply.
Table 11 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 7 Question 7
Types of answers
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
Other
Permanent10 or more
years Bandera 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Belfast 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Chigasaki - - - - - - - Copenhagen 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Delaware 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Milpitas 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Rochester 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 San Jose 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Schaumburg 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Scottsdale 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Shijonawate 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Sunnyvale 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Venice 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total per answer 0 1 1 1 1 7 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015
63
Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 11 displays answers to Question 7 of the Survey, which asks: “Which of the
following amount of years do you consider a city-twinning/sister city agreement to be
long-term?” The types of answers ranged from one to five years and an open-ended
space for the respondent to provide a subjective written answer; each municipality
provided a single answer. None of the municipalities considered a one year city-
twinning/sister city agreement to be long-term; one municipality considered two years to
be long-term; another considered three years; one considered four years; and another
municipality, five years. Seven municipalities conceptualized city-twinning agreements to
be permanent, and one municipality stated that 10 years or more characterized an
agreement as long-term.
Table 12 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 8 Question 8
Types of answers
Cultural Trade and commerce
Educational Other
Sports (*) Bandera 1 0 0 0 0Belfast 0 1 0 0 0Chigasaki 1 0 0 0 0Copenhagen 0 1 0 0 0Delaware 0 0 0 1 0Milpitas 0 0 1 0 0Rochester 0 0 0 0 (a)San Jose 0 1 0 0 0Schaumburg - - - - -Scottsdale 1 0 0 0 0Shijonawate 1 0 0 0 0Sunnyvale - - - - -Venice - - - - -Total per answer 4 3 1 1 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer. Moreover, (a) means that Rochester provided a written answer in the ‘other’ (open-ended) field.
64
Table 12 presents the answers to Survey’s Question 8, that is, “Which of the
following dimensions best reflect what caused your municipality to establish or renew
twinning/sister cities agreements during the period of 2010-2014?” This question asked
the respondent to choose the most significant of the variables Question 8 provided.
Environmental, political and social dimensions were not chosen by any municipality; the
only variables chosen, as Table 12 presents, was the cultural, trade and commerce,
educational, sports and ‘other,’ which is a written answer in the open-ended field.
Four municipalities considered culture to be the most significant dimension that
caused the municipality to engage in city twinning; three municipalities chose trade and
commerce to be the causal dimension of their twinning engagements; one municipality
considered education and another, sports, to be the most important causal dimension.
Rochester answered the question in the ‘other’ open-ended field by affirming that “Long-
term commitment to SC relationship [is] independent of specific activities.” Thus, that
respondent does not believe any of the dimensions (specific activities) of which
municipalities cooperate in cause them to engage in long-term sister city/city-twinning
relations. Finally, three municipalities do not apply to this question.
Table 13 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 9 Question 9
Types of answers
Yes No
Bandera 1 0Belfast - -Chigasaki 0 1Copenhagen 0 1Delaware 0 1Milpitas 1 0Rochester 1 0San Jose 1 0Schaumburg 1 0Scottsdale 1 0Shijonawate 0 1Sunnyvale 1 0Venice 1 0Total per answer 8 4
65
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 13 illustrates the Survey’s answers to Question 9, which asks: “Has your
municipality established or renewed city-twinning/sister city agreements before 2010?
Note: If your municipality does NOT have pre-2010 twinning agreements, ONLY answer
the question based on the 2010-2014 period.” This question is important because if the
respondent answered ‘Yes,’ Questions 11 and 12 belong to the third issue of contention,
which is the periodization debate; if ‘No,’ they belong to the fourth issue of contention,
which is the impacts debate (see Figure 1). Thus, eight municipalities, that is, Bandera,
Milpitas, Rochester, San Jose, Schaumburg, Scottsdale, Sunnyvale, and Venice
answered positively to Question 9 and, therefore, their respective answers to Questions
11 and 12 will be analyzed through the periodization debate. On the contrary,
Copenhagen, City of Delaware and Shijonawate answered negatively to Question 9 and,
therefore, their respective answers to Questions 11 and 12 will be analyzed through the
impacts debate. Belfast and Chigasaki did not answer Questions 11 and 12.
Table 14 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 10 Question 10
Types of answers
Extensity was an impediment
Extensity was NOT an
impediment
Other
"Extensity isinsignificant"
Bandera 0 1 0Belfast - - -Chigasaki 0 1 0Copenhagen 0 1 0Delaware 1 0 0Milpitas 0 1 0Rochester 0 0 1San Jose 0 1 0Schaumburg 0 1 0Scottsdale 0 1 0Shijonawate 0 1 0Sunnyvale 0 1 0Venice 0 1 0
66
Total per answer 1 10 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 14 presents the Survey’s answers to Question 10, which asks: “Which of
the following reflect in what way did the extensity (distance) between your municipality
and its twin cities/sister cities, during the period of 2010-2014, affect the outcome of
establishing city-twinning agreements?” One municipality considered the extensity
(distance) factor to be an impediment or difficulty in order to establish city-twinning
relations; ten municipalities considered that extensity was not an impediment or difficulty
to establish city-twinning relations; the city of Rochester considered the extensity
variable to be “insignificant;” last but not least, one municipality did not answer the
question.
Table 15 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 11 Question 11
Types of answers
Regularly Occasionally RandomlyOther
(*) "None"Bandera 1 0 0 0 0Belfast - - - - -Chigasaki - - - - -Copenhagen 1 0 0 0 0Delaware 1 0 0 0 0Milpitas 1 0 0 0 0Rochester 1 0 0 0 0San Jose 0 1 0 0 0Schaumburg 0 0 0 (a) 0Scottsdale 0 0 1 0 0Shijonawate 0 0 0 0 1Sunnyvale … … … … … Venice 0 1 0 0 0Total per answer 5 2 1 1 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
67
Table 15 displays the answers to Question 11 of the Survey, which states:29
“Comparing the pre-2010 period with the 2010-2014 period, which of the following best
reflect the intensity of your municipality’s foreign engagements in seeking to establish or
renew city-twinning relations and agreements?” Five municipalities answered that the
intensity of their respective city-twinning engagements in seeking to establish or renew
city-twinning relations and agreements are regular; two municipalities considered their
city-twinning intensity to be occasional; one municipality understands that the intensity of
its city-twinning relations are random; the municipality of Schaumburg answered in the
‘Other’ (open-ended) field by stating that the intensity of its foreign twinning
engagements are “based on changing population (relationship with India), historical
significance (relationship with Germany), business population (relationship with Japan),”
which does not directly answer the question of the intensity in terms of being regular,
occasional, random or a similar variable; the municipality of Shijonawate stated that the
intensity of its twinning relations are “none;” lastly, one municipality did not answer the
question.
Table 16 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 12 Question 12
Types of answers
Velocity increased
Velocity decreased
Other "No
influence of velocity"
"Little change"
Bandera 1 0 0 0Belfast - - - -Chigasaki - - - -
29 As explained earlier in this section, if the answer to Question 9 is ‘Yes,’ Questions 11 and 12 belong to
the periodization debate and, if ‘No,’ they belong to the impacts debate, which is the fourth issue of
contention of the globalization debate (see Figure 1). Thus, the municipalities of Belfast and Chigasaki did
not answer Questions 9, 11 and 12; Copenhagen, Delaware and Shijonawate municipalities answered
negatively to Survey Question 9 and, therefore, Questions 11 and 12 will be analyzed in the next sub-
section as part of the fourth issue of contention, that is, impacts; the municipalities of Bandera, Milpitas,
Rochester, San Jose, Schaumburg, Scottsdale, Sunnyvale and Venice answered positively to Question 9
and, therefore, Questions 11 and 12 will be analyzed in the next sub-section as part of the third issue of
contention, that is, periodization.
68
Copenhagen 1 0 0 0Delaware 1 0 0 0Milpitas 0 0 1 0Rochester - - - -San Jose 0 0 0 1Schaumburg 1 0 0 0Scottsdale 1 0 0 0Shijonawate 1 0 0 0Sunnyvale 0 1 0 0Venice 0 0 1 0Total per answer 6 1 2 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 16 illustrates the answers of Question 12 of the Survey, which states:30
“Comparing the pre-2010 period with the 2010-2014 period, has the velocity of your
municipality’s city-twinning’/sister cities’ foreign relations increase, decrease or other,
due to modern global systems of transport and communication (e.g. motor vehicles,
airplanes, Internet etc.)?” Six municipalities answered that their city-twinning relations
increased due to modern global systems of transport and communication; one
municipality considered that its city-twinning relation’s velocity decreased; two
municipalities understand that there is “No influence of velocity” on increasing or
decreasing the speed of their respective city-twinning relations; last but not least, San
Jose municipality considered the velocity variable to have undergone “Little change” in
relation to its city-twinning relations.
Table 17 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 13 Question 13
Types of answers
Airlines
Motor vehicles
Telephone/cellphone lines
InternetBandera 1 1 1 1Belfast 1 1 1 1Chigasaki 1 1 1 1
30 See previous footnote.
69
Copenhagen 1 0 1 1Delaware 1 0 1 1Milpitas 1 1 1 1Rochester 1 0 1 1San Jose 1 0 1 1Schaumburg 1 1 1 1Scottsdale 1 1 1 1Shijonawate 1 1 1 1Sunnyvale 1 1 1 1Venice 0 0 1 1Total per answer 12 8 13 13
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’.
Table 17 shows the answers to Question 13 of the Survey, which states: “Choose
the following transport and communication infrastructure variables that your municipality
utilizes in its twin city/sister city relations.” There were five types of answers; only four
types of answers are displayed in Table 17 because the ‘Other’ answer choice was not
utilized by any of the municipalities. Also, notice that each municipality was allowed to
provide more than one answer. Table 17 shows that twelve out of 13 municipalities
stated that airlines are utilized in their respective city-twinning relations; eight of the 13
municipalities utilize motor vehicles; finally, all 13 municipalities uses telephone and
cellphone lines, and the Internet.
Table 18 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 14 Question 14
Types of answers
Yes No Other
"Unknown"
Bandera 1 0 0Belfast 1 0 0Chigasaki 1 0 0Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 1 0 0Milpitas 1 0 0Rochester 0 1 0San Jose 0 1 0Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale 0 1 0
70
Shijonawate 1 0 0Sunnyvale 0 0 1Venice 0 1 0Total per answer 8 4 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’.
Table 18 shows the answers to Question 14 of the Survey, which asks: “Has the
infrastructure of your municipality during the 2010-2014 period contributed to your
twinning engagements when compared to your pre-2010 municipality’s twinning
engagements?” Eight of the municipalities answered the infrastructure variables
contributed positively to their respective city-twinning relations; four municipalities
answered negatively; one municipality affirmed that the effect of the infrastructure
variables in its municipality is “Unknown.”
Table 19 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 15 Question 15
Types of answers Other
"No" "Visa
restrictions" "Yes"
Bandera 1 0 0Belfast 1 0 0Chigasaki 1 0 0Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 1 0 0Milpitas 0 1 0Rochester 0 1 0San Jose 1 0 0Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale 1 0 0Shijonawate 1 0 0Sunnyvale 1 0 0Venice 0 0 1Total per answer 10 2 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’.
71
Table 19 presents the answers to Question 15 of the Survey, which asks: “Are
there federal and municipal laws that facilitate or constrain the engagements of your
municipality’s twinning relations and establishment of agreements? If yes, state the laws
and briefly explain how such laws facilitate or constrain the aforementioned
engagements.” There are three types of answer categories that this research employed
in order to represent the subjective written responses of this Survey question, namely,
“No,” “Visa restrictions,” and “Yes.” Thus, ten municipalities stated that there are no
federal or municipal laws that facilitate or constrain their respective engagements of
twinning relations; two municipalities answered that there are “Visa restrictions” instead
of laws. For example, the municipality of Milpitas stated that
[…] The State Department’s travel warning to Americans against traveling to the
Philippines. Milpitas is not able to send students to our sister city Dagupan. This
is not a law, but the constraint is that the liability is to [sic] great should anything
happen to a Milpitas student traveling under this warning.
Likewise, the municipality of Rochester affirmed that
Visa restrictions have a minor impact, and international politics can slow
necessary approvals. Otherwise, the general support of our Federal government
of international sister cities relationships and citizen diplomacy facilitates our
activities (but does not finance or provide other direct support).
Finally, only the municipality of Venice asserted that there are laws that regulate
transnational city-twinning engagements: “National Law n. 131 June 5, 2003,
establishing twinning procedures for Italian Local Authorities.”
Table 20 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 16 Question 16
Types of answers
Other
"Yes" "No"
Bandera 1 0Belfast 1 0Chigasaki 1 0Copenhagen 1 0Delaware 1 0
72
Milpitas 1 0Rochester 1 0San Jose 1 0Schaumburg 1 0Scottsdale 1 0Shijonawate 0 1Sunnyvale 0 1Venice 0 1Total per answer 10 3
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’.
Table 20 presents the answers to the Survey’s Question 16 that asked the
following:
Are there institutions from your municipality or country, which are located
domestically, that serve as a channel of city-twinning interaction with the world?
If yes, state the name of the institution(s) and their contribution to your
municipality’s city-twinning endeavors.
Ten municipalities answered positively, which means that there are institutions from their
municipality or country that serve as a channel of city-twinning interactions with the
world; three municipalities responded negatively. In relation to the group of
municipalities that responded positively, some of them such as Rochester and Delaware
affirmed their city-twinning relations are aided by Universities. For example, the former
municipality stated that “International connections/partnerships of our colleges and
universities frequently help us” and the latter affirmed that “Our sister city relationships
all have a connection to Ohio Wesleyan University [OWU] here in Delaware. OWU will
play a role in all of our relationships.” Additionally, Chigasaki affirmed that the Council of
Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan plays an important role to
the promotion of its city-twinning affairs and Milpitas pointed to Sister Cities International
as an important institution for its city-twinning relations. Furthermore, tourism agencies
promote the city-twinning relations of Belfast’s Tourism Ireland, and Copenhagen’s
Wonderful Copenhagen. In addition, Copenhagen has an investment institution to
facilitate investments in its municipality, namely Copenhagen Capacity.
73
Table 21 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 17 Question 17
Types of answers
Other
"Yes" "No"
Bandera 1 0Belfast 1 0Chigasaki 1 0Copenhagen 1 0Delaware 0 1Milpitas 0 1Rochester 1 0San Jose 0 1Schaumburg 1 0Scottsdale 0 1Shijonawate 0 1Sunnyvale 0 1Venice 0 1Total per answer 6 7
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’.
Table 21 illustrates the answers to the Survey’s Question 17, which asked the
following:
Are there institutions from your municipality or country, which are located
abroad, that serve as a representative channel of city-twinning relations between
foreign municipalities and your municipality? If yes, state the name of the
institution(s) and their contribution to your municipality’s city-twinning endeavors.
Six municipalities answered positively, which means that there are institutions from their
municipality or country, located abroad, that serve as a representative channel of city-
twinning relations between foreign municipalities and their municipalities; seven
municipalities answered negatively. In relation to the group of municipalities that
responded positively, Belfast stated that it has regional government offices that are
located abroad in its sister cities; Chigasaki affirmed that the Japanese consulate
located in its sister city represents its twinning relations; Copenhagen stated that the
Danish embassy, Invest in Denmark, an investment agency that cooperates with
74
Copenhagen Capacity, and VisitDenmark, a tourism agency that cooperates with
Wonderful Copenhagen, are all institutions that are located abroad and serve as a
representative channel; Rochester asserted that U.S. embassies and consulates,
located abroad, participate in the promotion of its twinning engagements; Schaumburg
also answered positively, but did not identify its institutions located abroad; Venice
utilizes international and European networks such as the Conseil des Communes et
Régions d'Europe (CCRE),31 Eurocities and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Question 18 of the Survey asked the following: “In what aspects are your current
municipality’s twinning engagements in today’s world order different from and similar to
your past municipality’s twinning engagements of the Cold War era?” Out of the 13
municipalities, five answered this question, namely Rochester, San Jose, Schaumburg,
Scottsdale and Sunnyvale. Rochester stated that:
Relates to relationship with Krakow, Poland, and Velikiy Novgorod, Russia.
Krakow: Krakow needed US/Rochester connections through Cold War period
from 1973 into early 1990s; that need has disappeared and we have had to shift
basis of relationship, not largely academic v. humanitarian aid and technical
assistance. V. Novgorod relationship has continued through both periods to
emphasize assistance and informations sharing in social services and civil
society institutions; we had to re-establish trust and connections after the
collapse of the Communist government, but the activity focus has remained the
same.
Moreover, San Jose and Sunnyvale provided similar answers. The former affirmed that
there was “No impact,” while the latter, “None during the Cold War era.” Moreover,
Schaumburg affirmed that its twinning engagements in today’s world order has "Better
global understandings due to media, internet, etc.," and Scottsdale stated that its
twinning engagements are "[…] are more numerous" in the current world order.
31 It is also known as the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR).
75
Table 22 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 19 Question 19
Types of answers
Competitive Cooperative Other
Bandera 0 1 0Belfast 0 1 0Chigasaki - - -Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 0 1 0Milpitas 0 1 0Rochester 0 1 0San Jose 0 1 0Schaumburg 0 1 0Scottsdale 0 1 0Shijonawate 0 1 0Sunnyvale 0 1 0Venice 0 1 0Total per answer 1 11 0
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 22 displays the answers to the Survey’s Question 19, which stated:
“Considering the 2010-2014 period, choose your municipality’s most significant
mode/manner of twinning interaction with other foreign municipalities.” One municipality
answered that its most significant mode or manner of interaction was the competitive
manner; 11 municipalities answered that their city-twinning relations reflected the
cooperative manner of interaction; one municipality did not provide an answer.
Table 23 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 20 Question 20
Types of answers
Created new means or
channels of interaction
Contributed to the
increase in the number of agreements
Other
Bandera 1 0 0Belfast 1 1 0Chigasaki - - -
76
Copenhagen - - -Delaware 0 1 0Milpitas 1 0 0Rochester 0 0 1San Jose 1 1 0Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale 1 1 0Shijonawate 0 1 0Sunnyvale 0 0 1Venice 0 0 1Total per answer 6 5 3
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer; there was no connection between the respondent’s answer and the question.
Table 23 displays the answers to the Survey’s Question 20, which asked: “Based
on questions 15 and 16, which of the following impacts has your municipality’s and
country’s institution(s) had upon your city-twinning relations and established or renewed
agreements?” Notice in Table 23 that some municipalities chose one type of answer
while others chose more than one. The institutions mentioned in Questions 15 and 16
positively impacted the municipalities of Bandera, Milpitas and Schaumburg by creating
new means and channels of interaction with the world; the institutions of the
municipalities of Delaware and Shijonawate positively impacted them by contributing to
the increase in the number of established city-twinning agreements; the institutions of
the municipalities of Belfast, San Jose and Scottsdale positively impacted them in both
aforementioned ways; three municipalities, that is, Rochester, Sunnyvale and Venice
provided a subjective written answer in the ‘Other’ (open-ended) field. Rochester stated
that the institutions of its municipality and country had, upon its city-twinning
engagements, a "Minor impact. Personal connections have been the primary driver."
Furthermore, Sunnyvale and Venice had similar answers; the former asserted that there
was no impact, namely “None,” while the latter that there was "No particular difference."
Lastly, two municipalities do not apply to this question.
77
Table 24 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 21 Question 21
Municipality Answer
Bandera "Historical events, immigration from Europe to Texas in the early 1800s, and finding relatives and families still living in Europe."
Belfast "Personal contacts made through Lord MAYORS" Chigasaki "climate, culture"
Copenhagen "The global recession and the following focus on renewed growth made Copenhagen consider an agreement in order to create new opportunities for Danish business."
Delaware "New city-twinning agreements will make our community more attractive to residents and families and bring more international awareness to our community."
Milpitas
“I believe it is the interaction with Milpitas students and families that is the strongest tie to our elected officials. They recognize globalization is the next generations [sic] reality and the need to bring this awareness to the forefront. The benefits to Milpitas officials, families and students is the recognition, which the Milpitas Sister Cities Commission promotes, that we are working towards world peace, one person at a time.”
Rochester
"Local volunteers are available to initiate, maintain, fund, and take the risks of the sister cities activities, making the impact on City Council and the Mayor minimal and supportive of their public image. Volunteers do the work, leaders get the credit. (Too frank?)."
San Jose "Increased citizen involvement in civic engagement internationally. Promote international economic development."
Schaumburg "Reflection of changing population in community." Scottsdale "Desire to bring Scottsdale, Arizona, to the world." Shijonawate "Globalization of the area [region]." Sunnyvale "Requests considered on a case-by-case basis." Venice "Previous meetings with Mayors of Cities with similar problems or territories."
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015
Table 24 quotes the subjective written answers of respondents to the Survey’s
Question 21 in the open-ended answer field. Question 21 states: “Briefly explain what
has influenced your municipality’s officials (those who participated in the city-twinning
agreement(s) such as mayor or vice-mayor, governor or vice-governor, etc.) to engage
in city-twinning/sister city relations during the 2010-2014 period.” The reasons for
influencing municipal officials to engage in city-twinning/sister city relations during the
2010-2014 period are heterogeneous. For example, some of the reasons that influenced
local twinning authorities include: history and immigration, personal contacts, climate
and culture, global recession and international business, international marketing and
awareness of a municipality, promoting the public image of the City Council and the
Mayor, international economic development, changing population, globalization, case-
78
by-case basis for city-twinning, and similar and commons problems shared by other
municipalities.
Table 25 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 22 Question 22
Municipality Answer
Bandera "Better understanding of traditions, culture, history, sports activities, community service improvements, and sharing educational procedures and methods."
Belfast "We are at the early stages of cooperation and hope to lead to trade and increased tourism with our partners. The earliest results have been educational linkages and student and teacher exchanges and joint research."
Chigasaki "We’ve just concluded sister city agreement on 24th of Oct 2014, and this is our first sister city, therefore people from Chigasaki expect and have interest with the future development of this relationship."
Copenhagen "Is part of closer national ties with China and more cooperation with China in general. Denmark is generally focusing more and more on China."
Delaware "Introduced students at our schools to international opportunities they would not have had otherwise."
Milpitas "The impacts are education, awareness of cultural diversity, hospitality and sharing resources."
Rochester "Enhanced our community life in terms of culture, education, sports, and humanitarian aid activities for program volunteers and participating institutions. Little visible, tangible impact on those outside of these participants."
San Jose "Positive impact for citizens and business community, universities, community organizations, etc."
Schaumburg "Better understanding of changing population."
Scottsdale "Helped spread our tourism efforts, also educational channels have been opened as well as medical efforts have been shared"
Shijonawate "地域のグローバル化 Globalization of the area 異文化理解 Cross-cultural understanding 多文化共生 multicultural symbiosis"
Sunnyvale "Exchange of shared cultural, economic, technological, and other knowledge towards improved quality of life for both municipalities."
Venice "Main impacts may be on trades and culture with the common organization of events." Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015
Table 25 quotes the answers of the Survey’s Question 22, which states: “Briefly
explain what impacts has your municipality’s twinning relations and established or
renewed agreements have upon your society (locally and/or nationally) during the 2010-
2014 period.” This questions aims at identifying the impacts of a municipality’s twinning
relations on its own society (locally and/or nationally) during the 2010-2014 period.
There were various types of impacts upon the municipalities’ society. For example,
increase in tourism and, consequently, positively impacting the local economy, high
school students were introduced to international opportunities offered by sister cities’
79
programs, raised awareness of cultural diversity and cross-cultural understanding,
exchange of knowledge and best practices and establishment of new academic and
educational linkages and networks.
Table 26 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 23 Question 23
Types of answers
Yes No Other
"No opinion yet"
Bandera 1 0 0Belfast 0 0 1Chigasaki 1 0 0Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 0 1 0Milpitas 1 0 0Rochester 1 0 0San Jose 1 0 0Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale 1 0 0Shijonawate 1 0 0Sunnyvale - - -Venice 1 0 0Total per answer 10 1 1
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer; there was no connection between the respondent’s answer and the question.
Table 26 displays the answers to Question 23 of the Survey, which asks: “Do you
believe that your municipality’s twinning engagements, together with all other twinning
activities in the world, contributes to the erosion of the domestic-international divide?”
Ten municipalities stated that its city-twinning activities, together with all other twinning
activities in the world, contribute to the erosion of the domestic-international divide. One
municipality understands that the erosion of the domestic-international divide is not an
outcome of city-twinning relations; one municipality provided a subjective written answer
in the ‘Other’ open-ended answer field by affirming that it has “No opinion yet;” lastly,
one municipality does not apply to this question.
80
Table 27 - Answers of the Survey’s Question 24 Question 24
Types of answers
Homogeneous and linear
Regressive and faulty
Indeterminateand uncertain
Bandera 1 0 0Belfast 1 0 0Chigasaki 1 0 0Copenhagen 1 0 0Delaware 1 0 0Milpitas 1 0 0Rochester - - -San Jose - - -Schaumburg 1 0 0Scottsdale 1 0 0Shijonawate 1 0 0Sunnyvale - - -Venice 1 0 0Total per answer 10 0 0
Source: own elaboration based on the answered City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 Note: ‘1’ means ‘yes/positive’ and ‘0’ means ‘no/negative’. In addition, ‘-’ means does not apply due to one or more of the following: the respondent did not provide an answer; the respondent provided two or more variables/answers while this question only asked for one variable/answer.
Table 27 presents the answers of the Survey’s Question 24, which asks: “Has the
overall trajectory of all your municipality’s transnational twinning relations between the
2010-2014 period been:” and then provides the respondent with the option of choosing
one of the types of answers as shown in Table 27. Ten municipalities answered that the
overall trajectory of all their respective transnational twinning relations between the 2010
and 2014 period has been homogeneous and linear; three municipalities do not apply to
this question.
The last question in the Survey aimed at respectively obtaining a list of the
municipalities’ city-twinning relations in order to be aware and have an updated
database of their sister cities.
Thus, the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015 was mostly based on the five
points of contention of globalization debate, and there were six question-answer
structures. According to the Survey, the Mayor is mainly responsible for singing sister
81
city agreements and after it has been signed, there is no further approval by any other
institutions. There were different 17 areas of cooperation (dimensions) between cities
that twinned; the most frequent ones were the cultural, educational, social, trade and
commerce, and environmental areas of cooperation (dimensions). The conceptualization
of the city-twinning experience equally received the notion of trade/commerce and
culture. Also, sister city agreements are overwhelmingly believed to establish broadly-
based relationships; the ‘long-term’ part of the sister city definition is not consensual
among respondents. Moreover, according to respondents, the conceptualization of city
twinning is multidimensional and multicausal. Concerning periodization, most
respondents do not believe extensity is a barrier to the establishment of sister cities; the
intensity of city-twinning engagements is mostly regular; the velocity of city-twinning
relations is mainly believed to have increased; all infrastructure variables (i.e. airlines,
motor vehicles, telephone/cellphone lines and the Internet) were greatly utilized by all
municipalities and the majority of respondents believe that their respective
infrastructures has positively contributed to their city-twinning relations. Furthermore, the
majority of respondents stated that there are no federal or municipal laws that facilitate
or constrain city-twinning engagements. Additionally, most municipalities have
domestically located institutions that promote city twinning, while more than half do not
have foreign located institutions to accomplish that same task; those institutions,
whether located domestically or abroad, were perceived to have created new means or
channels of interaction with the world and/or contributed to the increase in the number of
agreements by most municipalities. Three out of five respondents believe the end of the
Cold War somehow contributed to city twinning. In addition, the great majority of
respondents asserted that their municipalities manner of interaction in twinning relations
were cooperative. Concerning what influenced city-twinning officials to engage in such
activities, the answers were heterogeneous. Moreover, regarding the question of the
erosion of the domestic-international divide, the majority of respondents believe their
city-twinning activities positively contribute to such erosion. Finally, all respondents
believe that the future trajectory of city twinning is homogeneous and linear.
82
5.1.1 Conceptual insights of the globalization debate on the City Twinning/Sister
City Survey of 2015
This sub-section will analyze and interpret the data presented in section 5.1
through the variables of the globalization debate as presented in the Conceptual
landmark (section 2) and Figure 1.
Given that the five issues of contention of the globalization debate were explained
before being utilized in the analysis of the sister city agreements in section 4.1.1, this
section will not explain them again to avoid being repetitive.
Questions 1, 2 and 5-7 serve to clarify the definition of sister city relationships of
Sister Cities International. Question 1 (see Table 6) of the Survey contributes by
confirming Sister Cities International’s (2014, p. 3) definition of sister city relationships,
which states that it is “[…] a broad, long-term partnership between two communities in
two countries. A sister partnership is officially recognized after the highest elected or
appointed official from both communities sign an agreement establishing the
relationship.” Twelve of the thirteen municipalities only allow the Mayor, Lord Mayor or
Village President, who are the “highest elected or appointed official,” to sign city-
twinning/sister city agreements. Survey’s Question 2 (see Table 7) confirms part of that
definition because 12 municipalities confirmed that after the city-twinning agreement has
been signed by the highest local authority, it does not need to be further signed by any
other person or institution. Based on the Survey, it is appropriate to maintain the part of
the definition that states “highest elected or appointed official.”
Question 5 (see Table 9) of the Survey presents evidence that ten out of the 13
municipalities understand city twinning/sister city to be “broad” relationships as defined
earlier. This means that a sister city relationship, constituted through a city-twinning
agreement, does not have to immediately implement thorough and detailed projects
because the agreement’s dimensions (areas of cooperation) are purposely broadly
defined in order to allow for greater policy adjustments between municipalities when it
comes to creating a specific project of cooperation. Based on such data, it is proper to
maintain the part of the definition that states that sister city relationships are “broad.”
83
Question 6a and 6b (see Table 10) of the Survey further contributes to the
discussion on the definition of sister city relationships by addressing the period of validity
of the agreements; part 6a demonstrates that seven city-twinning agreements,
established or renewed between the 2010 and 2014 period, were permanent. Milpitas’
agreements have an average period of validity of two years if they are new and five
years when renewed. In relation to part 6b, the only difference from part 6a is that the
average period of validity of all of Bandera’s agreements are 4 years; all other seven
municipalities’ twinning agreements, except for Delaware and Chigasaki, were
permanent. Moreover, when the municipalities were asked how long do they consider a
city-twinning agreement to be “long-term” in Question 7 (see Table 11), seven
municipalities defined it as being “permanent” and one municipality as ten years or
more; none of the municipalities considered one year to be long-term and all others
defined it as two, three, four and five years, respectively. Based on such assessment, it
is not safe to affirm or negate the utilization of the “long-term” part of the definition;
however, it is safe to add “or permanent” as part of the definition, that is, “[…] long-term
or permanent partnership […].”
Questions 3 and 4 address the first issue of contention of the globalization
debate, that is, conceptualization (see Figure 1), which seeks to discover whether
globalization is unidimensional or multidimensional. Survey’s Question 3 (see Figure 7
for the 17 different dimensions) clearly demonstrate that city twinning should be
conceptualized and understood in a multidimensional way, encompassing several areas
of cooperation between municipalities and going beyond the economic and cultural
nature. Of those 17 dimensions, culture was the most frequent variable and was chosen
by all municipalities followed by education (12 occurrences), social dimension (10
occurrences), and trade and commerce (9 occurrences). In addition, Question 4 (see
Table 8) substantiates the former question by stating the dimension that had the
greatest weight in conceptualizing city twinning within globalization; three dimensions
were cited as the most important area cooperation of the municipalities’ twinning
engagements, namely trade and commerce, culture and education. Such results are in
favor of the transformationalist school of globalization because the Survey’s data is
84
evidence that city twinning, between 2010 and 2014, should be conceptualized
multidimensionally including, but not limited to, the economic and cultural dimensions.
Question 8 (see Table 12) pertains to the second issue of contention, that is,
causation, which aims to know if the causes of globalization are monocausal or
multicausal. According to the Survey, the causes of city twinning, between the 2010 and
2014 period, were as follows: culture, according to four municipalities, then trade and
commerce, chosen by three cities, and finally education and sports, each chosen by one
municipality. Thus, the causes of city twinning between thee 2010 and 2014 period
could be mainly understood as being multicausal due to culture and, respectively to a
lesser degree, trade and commerce, education and sports. Such evidence is again in
favor of the transformationalist school of globalization.
The objective of Question 9 (see Table 13) is to decide which issue of contention
of the globalization debate (see Figure 1) should be utilized to analyze Questions 11 and
12. Accordingly, if the respondent answered ‘Yes’ to Question 9, Questions 11 and 12
should be analyzed through the third issue of contention, which is the periodization
debate; if ‘No,’ Questions 11 and 12 should be analyzed through the fourth issue of
contention, which is the impacts debate (see Figure 1). Thus, Questions 11 and 12
depend on the answer to Question 9 and, consequently, could belong to the
periodization or impacts issue of contention.
Questions 10 and 13-19 pertain to the periodization issue of contention, while
Questions 11 and 12 do not necessarily belong in it. Periodization, when applied to city
twinning, aims to discover the new aspects of twinning between the 2010 and 2014
period through a comparison to the pre-2010 period.32
Question 10 (see Table 14) analyzes the extensity of city-twinning relations. Out
of the Survey’s 12 respondents to this question, ten asserted that the extensity
(distance) between their municipalities and their respective sister cities was not an
impediment or difficulty to the establishment of city-twinning relations. Such results are
32 For more information on the periodization issue of contention, see Conceptual landmark in section 2.
85
evidence that extensity has not generally been a barrier to city-twinning relations
between 2010 and 2014.
The analysis of the answers of Questions 11 and 12 (see Table 15 and 16,
respectively) will be sorted into two parts. The first part will analyze the answers of both
questions as part of the periodization debate because some municipalities answered
based on a comparison of their city-twinning experience in the pre-2010 period with the
twinning experience of the 2010-2014 period. The municipalities that answered
Questions 11 and 12 based solely on the 2010-2014 period, will be analyzed as part of
the impacts issue of contention (see Figure 1) later on.
Thus, the first part of the analysis of Question 11 (see Table 15) examines the
answers provided by Bandera, Milpitas, Rochester, San Jose, Schaumburg, Scottsdale
and Venice because such municipalities answered by respectively comparing their city-
twinning experience in the pre-2010 period with the 2010-2014 period. Out of the seven
aforementioned municipalities, three asserted that the intensity of their twinning
engagements were regular; two municipalities considered their twinning intensity to be
occasional and one to be random; Schaumburg provided a subjective written answer
that does not apply to the three types of intensities of twinning engagements, namely
regularly, occasionally and randomly. Therefore, regularity has been the most chosen
intensity of city-twinning engagements between both periods of time, per municipality,
even though there is a small margin of difference between regular and occasional
intensities. Also, the evidence points to the notion that the intensity is not random, given
that only one municipality chose it.
Moreover, the second part of the analysis of Question 11 examines the answers
provided by Copenhagen, Delaware and Shijonawate because such municipalities
answered based exclusively on their twinning experience between the period of 2010
and 2014. Given that their answers do not have a comparison of two periods of time,
this analysis belongs to the fourth issue of contention, that is, impacts (see Figure 1).
Two municipalities considered the intensity of their respective twinning engagements to
be regular; Shijonawate provided a subjective written answer stating that there is no
86
intensity to its twinning relations. Therefore, one of the overall impacts of city-twinning
relations in the period between 2010 and 2014 is characterized by a regular intensity.
Question 12 (see Table 16) is based on the velocity variable applied to city-
twinning relations. The first part of the analysis of this question examines the answers
provided by Bandera, Milpitas, San Jose, Schaumburg, Scottsdale, Sunnyvale and
Venice through periodization because such municipalities answered by respectively
comparing their city-twinning experience in the pre-2010 period with the 2010-2014
period. Out of the above-cited seven municipalities, four respectively considered their
city-twinning relations’ velocity to have increased from the pre-2010 period to the 2010-
2014 period; none of the municipalities considered the velocity of twinning relations to
have decreased; two municipalities believe that there was no change of velocity; one
municipality affirmed that there was “Little change.” One of the reasons that could
explain such increase in velocity is that, for example, in the 1950s city-twinning relations
and communications were much slower, given that Internet was not available and flights
were fewer, slower and more expensive than today. Therefore, the data is evidence that
the velocity of city-twinning relations increased from the early 1950s to 2014.
Furthermore, the second part of the analysis of Question 12 examines the
answers provided by Copenhagen, city of Delaware and Shijonawate because such
municipalities answered based only on their twinning experience between the period of
2010 and 2014. All three municipalities mentioned above considered the velocity of their
city-twinning relations to have increased within the period between 2010 and 2014.
Consequently, it is safe to conclude that the velocity of city-twinning relations increased
during the 2010-2014 period.
Question 13 (see Table 17) was elaborated based on the infrastructure variable
of the periodization debate. Out of the 13 municipalities that answered this question, 12
affirmed to use airlines, eight uses motor vehicles and all 13 utilizes telephone and
cellphones lines and the Internet in its respective sister city relations. In addition, in
relation to Question 14 (see Table 18), eight of the municipalities affirmed that the
above-cited infrastructure variables positively contributed to the engagement and
maintenance of their city-twinning relations between the period of 2010 and 2014; four
87
municipalities affirmed that there was no contribution. Thus, the data is evidence that
infrastructure, between 2010 and 2014, is amply utilized as a means to engage in and
maintain city-twinning relations.
Question 15 (see Table 19) was also elaborated based on the infrastructure
variable of periodization. Held et al (1999, p. 19) affirms that infrastructure could be
“physical, regulative/legal, or symbolic.” Out of the 13 municipalities, 12 do not have
federal or municipal laws that facilitate or constrain the engagements of their twinning
relations and establishment of agreements. Out of those 12 municipalities, two have visa
restrictions. Thus, the infrastructure, in terms of federal or municipal laws, in relation to
the municipalities that answered the Survey and based on their twinning experience in
the 2010-2014 period, greatly contributed to the attainment of new twinning agreements
because there were almost no legal barriers.
The extensity, intensity, velocity and infrastructure variables are important
because when they are combined, they support the evidence that globalization has
increased the number of city-twinning relations and its geographical distribution. For
example, the cheaper airline ticket prices and greater supply (infrastructure) and
geographical distribution (extensity) of airline companies (infrastructure and velocity)
today, when compared to the 1950s, increases the possibility that local authorities will
travel anywhere around the world in order to meet and negotiate on the establishment of
city-twinning agreements.
Question 16 (see Table 20) is based on the institutionalization variable of
periodization. The majority of municipalities, that is, ten out of 13, affirmed that there are
institutions, located domestically, from their respective countries or municipalities that
serve as a channel of city-twinning interaction with the world such as colleges and
universities, Sister Cities International, Council of Local Authorities for International
Relations (CLAIR) of Japan, tourism and investment agencies. In addition, Question 17
(see Table 21) is also based on institutionalization. Six out of 13 municipalities affirmed
that there are institutions, located abroad, that represent their respective countries or
municipalities that serve as a channel of city-twinning interaction with the world such as
regional government offices, embassies and consulates that are located abroad in their
88
respective sister cities, tourism and investment agencies, Conseil des Communes et
Régions d'Europe (CCRE),33 Eurocities and the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Therefore, it is clear that city twinning is institutionalized, both domestically and globally,
and that the institutionalization has become varied when compared to the 1950s.
Question 18 is based on the stratification variable of periodization that seeks to
identify “different patterns of organization, distribution and exercise of power” (HELD et
al, 2003, p. 72). Five municipalities answered this question; for example, Schaumburg
stated that its twinning engagements in today’s world order has "Better global
understandings due to media, internet, etc.” and Scottsdale affirmed that its twinning
engagements are "[…] are more numerous" in the current world order. Both
aforementioned observations are examples of the stratification of city twinning; thus, the
end of the Cold War contributed to the geographical distribution of sister cities
throughout the world and a greater institutionalization and, consequently, organization of
city twinning in a global scope (cf. ZELINSKY, 1991; BUENO, 2012; KALTENBRUNNER
et al, 2013).
Question 19 (see Table 22) addresses the dominant modes of interaction variable
of periodization, which refers to the modes or manners that global interactions take
place over the process of city twinning. Eleven municipalities answered that their city-
twinning relations reflected the cooperative manner of interaction, while one municipality
stated that it was competitive. Thus, it could be deduced that the manner of interaction
of city-twinning relations during the period between 2010 and 2014 is cooperative.
Questions 20-23 belong to the fourth issue of contention, that is, impacts (see
Figure 1); each of those questions were elaborated based on the four types of impacts,
namely, institutional, decisional, distribute and structural impacts. Notice that on Held’s
(et al) (1999) model, as illustrated by Figure 1, the above-cited types of impacts belong
to the periodization issue of contention. This research, however, included them within
the impacts issue of contention.
33 It is also known as the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR).
89
Question 20 (see Table 23) seeks to identify the institutional impacts variable of
globalization, as part of the impacts issue of contention,34 on city twinning. Most
municipalities agreed that institutional impacts on city twinning created new means or
channels of interaction with the world and/or contributed to the increase in the number of
sister city agreements during the period between 2010 and 2014. In addition,
institutional impacts have been attested by the analysis of Questions 16 and 17.
Question 21 (see Table 24) is based on the decisional impacts variable of
globalization, as part of the impacts issue of contention,35 on city twinning. Decisional
impacts refer to how globalization influences the preferences and choices of decision-
makers. As explained in section 5.1, the reasons influencing municipal officials to
engage in city-twinning/sister city relations during the 2010-2014 period are numerous
and heterogeneous, which includes history, migration, climate, culture, global recession,
international economic development, similar and common municipal problems. Such
variables are multifaceted and diverse, which are coherent with the transformationalist
school of globalization. Thus, globalization influences subnational agents, such as
mayors, to the point that they consider the benefits of engaging in city twinning and
establishing sister city agreements in order to solve local problems.
Question 22 (see Table 25) is based on the distributive impacts variable of
globalization, as part of the impacts issue of contention,36 on city twinning. The city-
twinning relations of all 13 municipalities had several impacts on their respective
societies such as increased tourism and, consequently, the local economy, high school
students were introduced to international opportunities offered by sister cities’ programs,
awareness of cultural diversity and cross-cultural understanding, and establishment of
new academic networks. Thus, between 2010 and 2014, city-twinning relations have
heterogeneously and positively impacted the municipalities’ society.
34 Originally, Held et al (1999) placed this variable within periodization. This research places it under the
fourth issue of contention, that is, impacts (see Figure 1). 35 See previous footnote. 36 See previous footnote.
90
Question 23 (see Table 26) is based on the structural impacts variable of
globalization, as part of the impacts issue of contention,37 on city twinning. The structural
impacts since the end of the Cold War on city twinning have been, inter alia, the
increase in the number of city-twinning relations in a global scope, their geographical
distribution and a greater institutionalization of sister cities throughout the world.
Furthermore, given that there are views that the activities of a sovereign nation-state
should only be represented abroad by traditional state-centric diplomacy, Question 23
aims to discover if city twinning contributes to a specific structural impact, that is, the
erosion of the domestic-international divide. Ten out of 12 municipalities that answered
this question positively affirmed that city twinning does contribute to the erosion of the
domestic-international divide. Therefore, the various global activities of subnational
governments, such as city twinning during the period between 2010 and 2014, is one
example of the erosion of the division between domestic and international levels of
activities.
Question 24 (see Table 27) address the fifth and last issue of contention of the
globalization debate, that is, trajectory. Out of the thirteen municipalities, ten answered
this question; all ten municipalities considered the trajectory of their respective city-
twinning relations between the period between 2010 and 2014 to be homogeneous and
linear. Thus, a homogeneous and linear trajectory is in favor of the hyperglobalizer
school of globalization.
Question 25 aimed at respectively obtaining a list of the municipalities’ city-
twinning relations in order to be aware and have an updated database of their sister
cities. The next section will present the final conclusions to this research.
37 See previous footnote.
91
6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Paradiplomacy as a broad phenomenon of subnational governments’ external
activities has not frequently been the object of research and analysis of academia. City
twinning (sister cities), as part of one of several paradiplomatic activities, has been
researched even less than paradiplomacy as a general phenomenon. A fundamental
work that reviewed English literature on paradiplomacy and, to some degree,
systematized that research topic has been Kuznetsov’s research and classification of
the eleven different areas or dimensions of the paradiplomacy discourse that social
scientists, from different backgrounds, utilize to study such subject, namely: 1.
Constitutional dimension, 2. Federalist dimension, 3. Nationalism dimension, 4.
International Relations dimension, 5. Area/border dimension, 6.
Regionalization/globalization dimension, 7. Security/geopolitical dimension, 8. Global
economy dimension, 9. Environmental dimension, 10. Diplomacy dimension, and 11.
Separatist dimension.
This research discovered that there are several different areas of cooperation
(dimensions) that sister cities engage and participate in after establishing sister city/city-
twinning agreements (see Figure 6 and 7). Each of those areas of municipal
cooperation, in future studies, could be classified into Kuznetsov’s eleven areas or
dimensions of paradiplomacy when possible. Some areas of cooperation between sister
cities, such as health and sports, do not properly fit into Kuznetsov’s classifications;
given that such classifications are a reflection of social scientists’ publications on
paradiplomacy, more research could be done to accommodate the various sister cities’
areas of cooperation within more than the eleven paradiplomacy discourse dimensions.
Furthermore, in relation to paradiplomacy within the globalization debate, the
paradiplomacy phenomenon is better explained through the transformationalist school of
globalization, which asserts that it is both an agent and product of the transformational
forces of globalization. In addition, paradiplomacy is supported by a multidimensional
conceptualization and multiple causes; paradiplomacy has reached developed and
emerging countries (extensity) with more regular and permanent flows (intensity) and
with a higher velocity through new and improved infrastructure; it has been
92
institutionalized around the world and, as a result of the end of the Cold War,
paradiplomatic activities has expanded and intensified (stratification); the mode of
interaction of subnational governments’ foreign activities has, since its point of inflection
at the end of the Cold War, been competitive and cooperative and, therefore, the
periodization of paradiplomacy is a specific attribute of the most recent phase of
contemporary globalization. Moreover, globalization’s decisional impacts make
subnational governments consider the benefits of participating in paradiplomatic
activities; institutional impacts have created new channels of interaction for
paradiplomacy and its outcomes affect, inter alia, the economy of its regions/cities
(distributive impacts); additionally, the structural impacts of paradiplomacy indicate the
erosion of the division between domestic and international affairs. Thus,
paradiplomacy’s impacts could be summarized as the diffusion of power and political
authority and the erosion of the separation of domestic and international relations. Last
but not least, based on Bueno’s case study of Brazilian and U.S. subnational
governments’ paradiplomacy, the trajectory of their respective paradiplomatic
engagements is indeterminate and uncertain.38
In relation to sister cities/city twinning, most of its literature consider globalization
to be sufficient to explain the causes and current activities of the sister city
phenomenon. The literatures’ application of the theory of globalization on sister cities’
activities have been superficial and require a more rigorous globalization explanatory
approach to analyze city twinning and, therefore, this research paper utilized Held’s (et
al) globalization debate as a model (see Figure 1) to discover and analyze the
tendencies of subnational governments’ external activities in city twinning (sister cities).
City twinning in the 1950s sought to establish mutual understanding and
friendship between municipalities of World War II’s war-torn countries in order to create
and maintain peace and avoid future armed conflicts. At least since the 1990s, sister
cities have engaged in new twinning activities such as commercial and economic areas,
tourism, urban planning, the environment, education and etc. 38 See Appendix D for a table of final considerations on the application of the five points of contention of
the globalization debate on paradiplomacy and city twinning.
93
With reference to the definition of sister city relationships,39 the “highest elected or
appointed official” and “broad” aspects of the Sister Cities International definition should
be maintained. More municipalities around the world need to be consulted in order to
ascertain or negate the usage of “long-term” in the definition. In addition, “or permanent”
should be added to the definition as follows: “[…] long-term or permanent partnership
[…].” Additionally, based on the City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015, this research
proposes that city twinning/sister city could be defined as: A sister city is a relationship
and partnership that is established by a permanent or temporary agreement, between
two communities in two countries, by the highest elected or appointed official from each
community, with the aim to cooperate in broadly-defined areas.
Furthermore, concerning the globalization debate, both the obtained sister city
agreements and municipalities’ understanding of the city-twinning phenomenon,
according to the Survey, indicate that cities’ engagements in transnational twinning are
conceptualized multidimensionally given that city twinning has different objectives such
as the economic, cultural, environmental, educational areas, among others, and
therefore, cannot just be understood unidimensionally (see Figures 6 and 7). In addition,
the causes of city twinning cannot be limited to economic or cultural explanations, rather,
there are multiple causes to it such as cooperation on education and environmental
related issues, desire to attain peace, economic benefits and cultural reasons, among
others (see Figure 7 and Table 12). A multidimensional conceptualization and
multicausal understanding of city twinning is in accordance to the transformationalist
school of globalization.
In relation to the periodization (see Figure 1) of sister cities, the high number of
city twinnings, that is, over 11,000 between 1950 and 1990, more than 15,000 between
1950 and 2013, and the analyzed agreements and surveys within the period between
2010 and 2014, in this research paper, strongly indicate that the extensity or distance
39 A sister city […] relationship is a broad, long-term partnership between two communities in two
countries. A sister partnership is officially recognized after the highest elected or appointed official from
both communities sign an agreement establishing the relationship (SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL,
2014, p. 3).
94
was not a difficulty or barrier. Concerning the particular period between 2010 and 2014,
municipalities twinned with each other from a combination of six different continents,
which also indicates that extensity is not an impediment to engage in city twinning. Also,
such high numbers of city twinnings, whether being settled for the first time or renewed,
occur in a yearly basis and, thus, is evidence that the intensity of twinning engagements
is regular, instead of occasional or random, both before and after 2010. Additionally, the
velocity of cities’ engagement in twinning activities has increased from the 1950s to
2014 due to modern transport and communication technologies that were too simple or
nonexistent in the immediate post-World War II scenario; the velocity variable is better
understood when supported by the infrastructure variables.
Still as part of periodization, most or all municipalities utilized a combination of the
following infrastructure variables in their respective city-twinning engagements: airlines,
motor vehicles, telephone and cellphone lines, and the Internet. Such infrastructure
increased the velocity of city-twinning relations. Another type of infrastructure has a
regulative or legal meaning; thus, another reason for the increase in the number of city-
twinning engagements all around the world is that the overwhelming majority of the
surveyed municipalities do not have federal or municipal laws to hinder subnational
governments’ foreign activities.
In addition, in the 1950s, there were fewer institutions that promoted sister city
affairs in a global scale when compared to more recent times, such as between 2010
and 2014. Today, city twinning is institutionalized, both domestically and internationally,
by tourism and investment agencies, universities, regional government offices,
consulates and embassies, and dedicated institutions such as Sister Cities International,
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations of Japan, Council of European
Municipalities and Regions, and Eurocities. Furthermore, in reference to the stratification
of sister cities, nowadays they have been increasingly organized through
institutionalization and geographically distributed to all six continents (Africa, Asia,
Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America) when compared to the 1950s.
Moreover, the modes of interaction of city twinning in accordance to the Survey, both
95
before and after 2010, has mostly been cooperative and, sometimes, perceived by the
municipalities as competitive.
Concerning impacts as part of the fourth issue of contention of the globalization
debate, globalization’s institutional impacts on city twinning created new means or
channels of interaction with the world and contributed to the increase in the number of
sister city agreements during the period between 2010 and 2014; globalization’s
decisional impacts on city twinning influenced Mayors to the point that they considered
the benefits of engaging in city twinning and establishing sister city agreements in order
to solve local problems or achieve a specific objective or interest between 2010 and
2014; globalization’s distributive impacts on city twinning resulted, according to the 13
municipalities that answered the Survey, in several heterogeneous impacts to the cities,
between 2010 and 2014, such as the improvement of the local economy and increase of
local tourism, among other reasons (see Table 25); globalization’s structural impacts on
city twinning, since the end of the Cold War until 2014, has been the increase in the
number of city-twinning engagements and agreements in a global scope, their
geographical distribution to six continents and greater institutionalization of sister cities
both domestically and throughout the world. Consequently, this research’s data on sister
cities as well as Zelinsky’s and Kaltenbrunner’s (et al) works indicate that transnational
city twinning contributes to the erosion of the division between domestic and
international levels of activities.
Finally, the trajectory of city twinning between 2010 and 2014, according to the
Survey, is homogeneous and linear, given the constant increase of sister city
agreements and is in favor of the hyperglobalizers’ school of globalization. However, it is
uncertain and unpredictable whether or not sister city agreements will be renewed or, in
case they are permanent, remain active or become dormant. The latter observation
favors transformationalists’ understanding of the trajectory of globalization.
Thus, the research and analysis of city twinning between 2010 and 2014, through
the globalization debate, discovered that subnational governments, such as Mayors,
tend to continue engaging their municipalities in transnational city twinning with
preponderance in the areas of culture, education, social activities, trade and commerce,
96
tourism, business and goodwill exchanges (best practices). Therefore, the tendencies of
engaging in transnational city twinning between 2010 and 2014, in different continents,
are explained by the forces of contemporary globalization, in its transformationalist
approach, upon the external activities of subnational governments.40
40 See Appendix D for a table of final considerations on the application of the five points of contention of
the globalization debate on paradiplomacy and city twinning.
97
REFERENCES
ADELCOA, Francisco; KEATING, Michael. Introduction. In: ADELCOA, Francisco.
Paradiplomacy in action: the foreign relations of subnational governments. London;
New York, NY: Routledge, 1999.
BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1977.
BUENO, Ironildes. Paradiplomacia econômica: trajetórias e tendências da atuação
internacional dos governos estaduais do Brasil e dos Estados Unidos. Brasília: Editora
Verdana, 2012.
CEMR; Twinning for tomorrow’s world: practical handbook. [s.l.], 2007. Available at:
<http://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/twinning_for_tomorrows_world_
en.pdf>. Access on: 24 Mar. 2015.
CHUNG, Mona; BRUNO, Mascitelli. The role of sister city relationships in the
enhancement of trade: Latrobe City (Australia) and Taizhou (China). In: GBATA 2008:
Global Business And Technology Association Tenth International Conference, 10.,
2008, Madrid. Conference. New York, N.Y.: Global Business And Technology
Association, 2008. p. 232-238. Available at:
<http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30018334>. Access on: 19 Sep. 2014.
CLARKE, Nick. Globalising care? town twinning in Britain since 1945. Geoforum. [s.l.],
v. 42, n. 1, 29 Nov. 2011. Available at:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718510001296>. Access on: 04
Sep. 2014.
CORNAGO PRIETO, Noé. Diplomacy and paradiplomacy in the redefinition of
international security: dimensions of conflict and co-operation. In: ADELCOA, Francisco.
Paradiplomacy in action: the foreign relations of subnational governments. Routledge,
1999.
CREMER, Rolf D.; BRUIN, Anne De; DUPUIS, Ann. International sister-cities: beyond
the global-local interface. Auckland, N.Z: Dept. of Commerce, Massey University at
Albany, 2000.
98
DUCHACEK, Ivo. Perforated sovereignties: towards a typology of new actors in
international relations. In: MICHELMANN, Hans J; SOLDATOS, Panayotis. Federalism
and international relations: the role of subnational units. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1990.
HANDLEY, Susan. Take your partners: the local authority handbook on international
partnerships. 2006. Available at:
<http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=175d8d6b-49f4-47fa-acb2-
a5476d5b84b4&groupId=10180>. Access on: 24 Oct. 2014.
HELD, D. et al. Global transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1999.
HELD, D. et al. The global transformations reader: an introduction to the globalization
debate. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
JOENNIEMI, Pertti; SERGUNIN, Alexander. Another face of integration: city twinning
in europe. Research Journal of International Studies, 2011. Issue 22, p. 120-131.
______. Laboratories of European integration: city-twinning in northern Europe. LAP
Lambert Acad. Publ., 2012.
JOHNSON, Janet B.; JOSLYN, Richard; REYNOLDS, H. T. Political science research
methods. Washington, D.C: CQ Press, 2001.
JUPP, Victor (Org.). The Sage dictionary of social research methods. London: SAGE
Publications, 2006.
KALTENBRUNNER, Andreas. et al. Not all paths lead to Rome: analyzing the network
of sister cities. 2013. Available at: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6900v1.pdf>. Access on: 25
Mar. 2015.
KEATING, Michael. Regions and international affairs: motives, opportunities and
strategies. In: ADELCOA, Francisco. Paradiplomacy in action: the foreign relations of
subnational governments. London; New York, NY: Routledge, 1999.
KUZNETSOV, Alexander S. Theory and practice of paradiplomacy: subnational
governments in international affairs. London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2015.
99
NICOLSON, Harold George. Diplomacy. New York; Toronto; London: Oxford University
press, 1965.
O’TOOLE, Kevin. Kokusaika and internationalisation: Australian and Japanese sister city
type relationships. Australian Journal of International Affairs. [s.l.], p. 403-409. Nov.
2001.
RODRIGUES, Gilberto. A inserção internacional de cidades: notas sobre o caso
brasileiro. In: VIGEVANI, Tullo; WANDERLEY, L. E. et alli (Org.). A dimensão
subnacional e as relações internacionais. São Paulo: Educ/Unesp/Edusc, 2004.
SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL. 2014 membership directory. 2013. Available at:
<http://cld.bz/bookdata/47N7DGu/basic-html/page1.html>. Access on: 24 Mar. 2015.
______. 2015 membership directory. 2014. Available at: <https://user-
2221582232.cld.bz/Sister-Cities-International-2015-Membership-Directory>. Access on:
24 Mar. 2015.
______. Peace through people: 50 Years of Global Citizenship. Louisville (Ky.: Butler
Books, 2006. Available at: <https://user-2221582232.cld.bz/Peace-Through-People#5/>.
Access on: 24 Mar. 2015.
SOLDATOS, Panayotis. Cascading subnational paradiplomacy in an interdependent
and transnational world. In: BROWN, Douglas; FRY, Earl (eds.). States and provinces
in the international economy. Los Angeles: Institute of Governmental Studies Press,
University of California, 1993.
ZELINSKY, Wilbur. The twinning of the world: sister cities in geographic and historical
perspective. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 81, no.1, 1991.
100
APPENDIX A - TIMETABLE
Source: own elaboration.
101
APPENDIX B - CITY TWINNING/SISTER CITY SURVEY OF 2015
City Twinning/Sister City Survey of 2015
International Relations course of the Catholic University of Brasília by Nathan Cazé
([email protected]) General directions: Insert your answer inside of the boxes. General note 1: If your municipality has established twinning/sister city agreements during the 2010-2014 period or renewed a pre-2010 agreement during the 2010-2014 period, you may answer this Survey. General note 2: You do not have to identify yourself. Adding your name and official position at the end of this Survey is optional. Part I Section 1: City-twinning/sister city authorities 1. List the official position(s) of those that can legally sign city-twinning agreements in your municipality. Note: For example, mayors, vice-mayors, governors, vice-governors, etc.
2. After the city-twinning/sister city agreement has been signed by everyone involved in it, does the agreement need to be approved by any other institution(s) of your municipality or country? If yes, please explain.
102
Part II Section 1: Conceptualization of the city-twinning phenomenon 3. During the period of 2010-2014, which of the following dimension(s) did your municipality’s twinning engagements have? Note 1: You may choose more than one variable and add more variables. Note 2: Dimensions are broad classifications. a. trade and commerce
b. cultural
c. social
d. political
e. environmental
f. educational
g. other (Please specify)
4. Which of the above dimensions had the greatest weight in conceptualizing the overall twinning experience of your municipality during the period of 2010-2014? Note: Choose only one. a. trade and commerce
b. cultural
c. social
d. political
e. environmental
f. educational
g. other (Please specify)
103
5. Do you agree that city-twinning/sister city agreements establish broadly-based relationships?
a. Yes
b. No
c. other (Please explain)
6. Considering that each city-twinning agreement has a period of validity, what is the average amount of years of:
a) your municipality’s twinning agreements during the period of 2010-2014?
b) all your municipality’s twinning agreements?
7. Which of the following amount of years do you consider a city-twinning/sister city agreement to be long-term?
a. 1 year
b. 2 years
c. 3 years
d. 4 years
e. 5 years
f. other (Please specify)
104
Section 2: Causes 8. Which of the following dimensions best reflect what caused your municipality to establish or renew twinning/sister cities agreements during the period of 2010-2014? Note 1: If there is more than one variable, choose the most significant one. Note 2: Dimensions are broad classifications. a. trade and commerce
b. cultural
c. social
d. political
e. environmental
f. educational
g. other (Please specify)
Section 3: Periodization Directions 1: Periodization explores how history is periodized in order to answer the question of ‘what is new about contemporary city twinning/sister cities.’ Thus, some the following questions will put into perspective two periods of time, namely, a comparison of your municipality’s twinning experience between the 2010-2014 period with the pre-2010 period. Directions 2: If your municipality does NOT have pre-2010 twinning agreements, ignore the comparison and ONLY answer the question based on the 2010-2014 period. 9. Has your municipality established or renewed city-twinning/sister city agreements before 2010? Note: If your municipality does NOT have pre-2010 twinning agreements, ONLY answer the question based on the 2010-2014 period. a. Yes
b. No
105
10. Which of the following reflect in what way did the extensity (distance) between your municipality and its twin cities/sister cities, during the period of 2010-2014, affect the outcome of establishing city-twinning agreements?
a. the extensity was an impediment or difficulty to establish twinning relations
b. the extensity was NOT an impediment or difficulty to establish twinning relations
c. other (Please explain)
11. Comparing the pre-2010 period with the 2010-2014 period, which of the following best reflect the intensity of your municipality’s foreign engagements in seeking to establish or renew city-twinning relations and agreements? Note 1: If your municipality does NOT have pre-2010 twinning agreements, ONLY answer the question based on the 2010-2014 period. Note 2: You may add more variables. a. regularly
b. occasionally
c. randomly
d. other (Please specify)
12. Comparing the pre-2010 period with the 2010-2014 period, has the velocity of your municipality’s city-twinning’/sister cities’ foreign relations increase, decrease or other, due to modern global systems of transport and communication (e.g. motor vehicles, airplanes, Internet etc.)? Note 1: For example, in the 1950s, city-twinning relations and communications were much slower, given that Internet was not available and flights were fewer, slower and more expensive than today.
106
Note 2: If your municipality has no city-twinning/sister city relations before 2010, please analyze the velocity factor during the period of 2010-2014. a. velocity increased
b. velocity decreased
c. other (Please explain)
13. Choose the following transport and communication infrastructure variables that your municipality utilizes in its twin city/sister city relations:
a. airlines
b. motor vehicles (e.g. cars)
c. telephone and cellphone lines
d. Internet
e. all of the above
14. Has the infrastructure of your municipality during the 2010-2014 period contributed to your twinning engagements when compared to your pre-2010 municipality’s twinning engagements? Note: For example, the 1950s city-twinnings’ infrastructure decreased the velocity of its global interactions due to the unavailability of some of today’s infrastructure technologies such as Internet and faster airplanes and cheaper airline tickets. a. Yes
b. No
c. other (Please explain)
107
15. Are there federal and municipal laws that facilitate or constrain the engagements of your municipality’s twinning relations and establishment of agreements? If yes, state the laws and briefly explain how such laws facilitate or constrain the aforementioned engagements.
16. Are there institutions from your municipality or country, which are located domestically, that serve as a channel of city-twinning interaction with the world? If yes, state the name of the institution(s) and their contribution to your municipality’s city-twinning endeavors. Note: For example, your municipality may have offices or institutions, located domestically (inside your country), that represent your municipality’s city-twinning interests.
108
17. Are there institutions from your municipality or country, which are located abroad, that serve as a representative channel of city-twinning relations between foreign municipalities and your municipality? If yes, state the name of the institution(s) and their contribution to your municipality’s city-twinning endeavors. Note: For example, your municipality may have offices or institutions, located abroad, that represent your municipality’s city-twinning interests in other countries.
18. In what aspects are your current municipality’s twinning engagements in today’s world order different from and similar to your past municipality’s twinning engagements of the Cold War era? Note: If your municipality has engaged in city-twinning relations during the Cold War era, you may answer based on that experience. If your municipality has NOT engaged in city-twinning relations during the Cold war era, you may skip this question and move to the next one.
109
19. Considering the 2010-2014 period, choose your municipality’s most significant mode/manner of twinning interaction with other foreign municipalities.
a. competitive
b. cooperative
c. other (Please specify)
20. Based on questions 15 and 16, which of the following impacts has your municipality’s and country’s institution(s) had upon your city-twinning relations and established or renewed agreements? Note: For example, your municipal or national institutions may positively impact the twinning relations of your municipality by creating new channels of interaction with the world and increasing the number of foreign municipalities’ twinning contacts with your municipality and, consequently, contributing to the increase in the number of established city-twinning agreements. a. created new means and channels of interaction with the world
b. contributed to the increase in the number of established city-twinning agreements
c. all of the above
d. other (Please explain)
21. Briefly explain what has influenced your municipality’s officials (those who participated in the city-twinning agreement(s) such as mayor or vice-mayor, governor or vice-governor, etc.) to engage in city-twinning/sister city relations during the 2010-2014 period (e.g. globalization, benefits, necessity, etc.).
110
22. Briefly explain what impacts has your municipality’s twinning relations and established or renewed agreements have upon your society (locally and/or nationally) during the 2010-2014 period.
23. Do you believe that your municipality’s twinning engagements, together with all other twinning activities in the world, contributes to the erosion of the domestic-international divide? Note: There are beliefs that the activities of a country should only be represented abroad by traditional state-centric diplomacy. The various global activities of subnational governments, such as city-twinning, is one example of the erosion of the division between domestic and international levels of activities. a. Yes
b. No
c. other (Please specify)
Section 4: Trajectory Note: The trajectory factor aims to discover the ‘direction of global change’ in relation to twin cities/sister cities.
111
24. Has the overall trajectory of all your municipality’s transnational twinning relations between the 2010-2014 period been:
a. homogeneous and linear
b. regressive and faulty
c. indeterminate and uncertain
d. other (Please explain)
112
Part III
Section 5: List of city-twinning relationships
25. Please list your municipality’s twin city/sister city relationships within the period of 2010-2014 by stating the twinning agreements’ city, country and year; the agreements could also have been renewed during that period of time.
(optional) Name:
(optional) Official position:
Please send this Survey to Nathan Cazé on the following e-mail: [email protected]
Thank you!
113
APPENDIX C - TABLE OF SURVEYS SENT AND RECEIVED
Municipality Country of
municipality Continent of municipality
Survey sent
Survey answered
Albuquerque USA North America
Yes No
Alytus Lithuania Europe Yes No
Amman Jordan Asia Yes No
Angers France Europe Yes No
Ankara Turkey Asia Yes No
Ashkelon Israel Asia Yes No
Austin USA North America
Yes No
Bandera USA North America
Yes Yes
Beaufort USA North America
Yes No
Beaufort-Isere France Europe Yes No
Beijing China Asia Yes No
Belfast United Kingdom Europe
Yes Yes
Bellingham USA North America
Yes No
Bengaluru India Asia Yes No
Bensenville USA North America
Yes No
Boston USA North America
Yes No
Brasilia Brazil South America
Yes No
Brussels Capital Region Belgium Europe
Yes No
Brussels city Belgium Europe Yes No
Buffalo USA North America
Yes No
Cape Town South Africa Africa Yes No
Central Highlands Australia Oceania Yes No
Chattanooga USA North America
Yes No
Chengdu China Asia Yes No
Chigasaki Japan Asia Yes Yes
Cognac France Europe Yes No
Colorado Springs USA North America
Yes No
Copenhagen Denmark Europe Yes Yes
Delaware USA North America
Yes Yes
Dublin United Kingdom Europe
Yes No
Durham USA North Yes No
114
America
Elk Grove USA North America
Yes No
Fountain Hills USA North America
Yes No
Gainsville USA North America
Yes No
Guachené Colombia South America
Yes No
Guadalajara Mexico North America
Yes No
Guam Territory USA North America
Yes No
Hackney United Kingdom Europe
Yes No
Haikou China Asia Yes No
Hangzhou China Asia Yes No
Hanover Park USA North America
Yes No
Hempstead USA North America
Yes No
Honolulu USA North America
Yes No
Hyderabad India Asia Yes No
Iizuka Japan Asia Yes No
Kamakura Japan North America
Yes No
Kochi India Asia Yes No
Kolkata India Asia Yes No
Kunming China Asia Yes No
Laredo Texas USA North America
Yes No
Los Angeles USA North America
Yes No
Lusaka Zambia Africa Yes No
Manta Colombia South America
Yes No
Marion USA North America
Yes No
Martinez USA North America
Yes No
McAllen USA North America
Yes No
Medellin Colombia South America
Yes No
Mexicali Mexico North America
Yes No
Milpitas USA North America
Yes Yes
Modesto USA North America
Yes No
Muscatine USA North Yes No
115
America
Naperville USA North America
Yes No
Nashville USA North America
Yes No
Norfolk USA North America
Yes No
Oakland USA North America
Yes No
Omaha USA North America
Yes No
Omura Japan Asia Yes No
Padilla Colombia South America
Yes No
Parma USA North America
Yes No
Patzcuaro Mexico North America
Yes No
Paynesville USA North America
Yes No
Paynesville Liberia Africa Yes No
Pensacola USA North America
Yes No
Pharr USA North America
Yes No
Pinecrest USA North America
Yes No
Prague Czech Republic Europe
Yes No
Prairie View USA North America
Yes No
Puerto Tejada Colombia South America
Yes No
Raleigh USA North America
Yes No
Rochester USA North America
Yes Yes
Rome Italy Europe Yes No
Sacramento USA North America
Yes No
Safranbolu Turkey Asia Yes No
Saint Peter USA North America
Yes No
San Carlos USA North America
Yes No
San Diego USA North America
Yes No
San Jose USA North America
Yes Yes
San Luis Potosi Mexico North America
Yes No
Schaumburg USA North America
Yes Yes
116
Scottsdale USA North America
Yes Yes
Sebastopol USA North America
Yes No
Shijonawate Japan Asia Yes Yes
Stresa Italy Europe Yes No
Sunderland United Kingdom Europe
Yes No
Sunnyvale USA North America
Yes Yes
Takeo Japan Asia Yes No
Tamworth Australia Oceania Yes No
Tavares USA North America
Yes No
Tokai Japan Asia Yes No
Toledo USA North America
Yes No
Torino Italy Europe Yes No Town of Speedway USA
North America
Yes No
Tshwane South Africa Africa Yes No
Tsukuba Japan Asia Yes No
Vaasa Finland Europe Yes No
Venice Italy Europe Yes Yes
Vienna Austria Europe Yes No
Villarrica Colombia South America
Yes No
Virginia Beach USA North America
Yes No
Washington, D.C. USA North America
Yes No
West Palm Beach USA North America
Yes No
Wolfsburg Germany Europe Yes No
Xiangyang China Asia Yes No
Xi'na China Asia Yes No
Yantai China Asia Yes No
Yeongcheon South Korea Asia Yes No Source: own elaboration based on data obtained from Sister Cities International (SCI) and Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) of Japan.
117
APPENDIX D – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE FIVE POINTS OF CONTENTION OF THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE ON PARADIPLOMACY AND CITY TWINNING
Source: own elaboration.
118
Source: own elaboration
119
ANNEX A - CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SISTER CITIES VISUALISED ON A WORLD MAP
Source: Kaltenbrunner et al, 2013, p. 6.