NOTES1We found that most studies in this literature streamciteMarshall(1920),whocentersonspecializedproducer communities that diffuse the “secrets” ofindustry, but do not mention Jacobs (1969, 1984,2000), who describes a cosmopolitan and haphazardcity life.2While we do not apply the demographic traditionin this paper, we distinguish between megacities andglobal cities in the empirical section.Global cities and multinational enterprise location strategyAnthony Goerzen et al446Journal of International Business Studies
3This can be considered a special case of the moregeneral notion of co-evolution between MNEs andtheirenvironments(e.g.,Cantwell,Dunning,&Lundan, 2009).4For example, Boeh and Beamish (2012) demon-stratethattraveltimebetweenheadquartersandsubsidiary is a more powerful predictor of firm gover-nance and location choices than is geographic distance.5For more information, visit Publications/IDMK_definition.asp6Note that the investment motives are not mutuallyexclusive;thisenablesustoincludealldummieswithout falling into the “dummy variable trap”.7These cities, which are included for comparisonpurposes, are Guangzhou, Lagos, Calcutta, Dhaka,Karachi, Delhi, Mumbai, Cairo, Tehran, and Rio deJaneiro.Allofthesehavemorethan10millioninhabitants, yet they are not classified as global citiesin the Beaverstock et al. (1999) list.8Specifically, we compared the Beaverstock et al.(1999) list with a 2010 version of the same list, a 2008listfromMasterCard,a2011listfromtheMorifoundation, and a 2012 list from AT Kearney. Out ofthe top 30 cities in the 1999 list, five did not showup in the top 30 of any of the more recent lists(i.e., Caracas, Dusseldorf, Johannesburg, Prague, andSantiago). However, all of these five cities did appearbelow the top 30 in more recent lists, suggesting thatthey did not cease to be global cities, but perhapsmerely have been relegated by other emerging citiesto a lower position in the hierarchy. Similarly, relativeto the 1999 top 30, there was only one new “new”city that appeared consistently in the more recent lists– that is, Shanghai – which advanced from the 42ndplacetothe7thplaceintheGaWChierarchy,following the development of the Chinese economy(Guthrie, 2009). Although not yet in the top tier,change of a similar magnitude could be observed forVienna, which did not appear at all on the 1999 list butwas at 38th place in the 2010 GaWC list, most likelyreflecting the Austrian capital’s development over theprevious decade to become a regional hub by virtue ofade factoposition as bridgehead between eastern andwestern Europe (Musil, 2009).9The term “Matthew effect” was coined by Merton(1968), based on the biblical Gospel of Matthew: “Forwhoever has will be given more, and they will have anabundance. Whoever does not have, even what theyhave will be taken from them” (Matthew 25:29, NewInternational Version).