York,” Frank Sinatra sang of the city that has attracted so many of the world’s most ambitious people, from artists and performers to businesspeople and bankers.
In a sense, this is not a difficult phenomenon to explain; metropolises like New York City, with their multicultural populations, multinational corporations and multitude of talented individuals, are rife with opportunities.
However, the impact of large cities runs deeper than economic or even cultural power; cities can fundamentally change people’s lives — and even the people themselves.
In 2010, Geoffrey West, together with a team of researchers, discovered that several socioeconomic measures — both positive and negative — increase with the size of the local population. The larger the city, the higher the average wage, productivity level, number of patents per person, crime rate, prevalence of anxiety and incidence of HIV.
When a city doubles in size, every measure of economic activity increases by about 15 percent per capita. That is why people move to the big city; indeed, it is why cities thrive.
This law remains constant across city sizes, and it is not unique. A growing body of evidence suggests that similar functions govern even more aspects of urban life than the research by West’s team indicated.
How can cities as ostensibly different as New York, with its towering profile, and Paris, characterized by wide boulevards, function so similarly? If, as William Shakespeare suggested, a city is nothing but its people, the answer may lie in the characteristic patterns of connection, interaction and exchange among residents.
HIV — indeed, any sexually transmitted disease — provides a particularly vivid example of the way that social networks shape urban life, as it spreads through linkages of sexual partners. Ideas — and the innovations that result from them — spread in a similar manner.
Just a few years ago, a broad investigation of these complex social networks would have been virtually impossible. After all, the available tools — isolated laboratory experiments and written questionnaires — were both imprecise and difficult to apply on a large scale.
The Internet has changed that. By enmeshing billions of people in seamless connectivity, online platforms have transformed the scope of social networks and provided new tools for researchers to investigate human interaction.
An entirely new field of study is emerging at the intersection of data analytics and sociology: computational social science. Using data collected online or through telecommunications networks — the wireless providers Orange and Ericsson, for example, have recently made some data available to researchers — it is now possible to address, in a scientific way, fundamental questions about human sociability.
A recent paper (of which one of us, Carlo Ratti, is a coauthor) uses anonymized data from telecommunications networks across Europe to explore how human networks change with city size. The results are striking: in large cities, people not only walk faster (a tendency recorded since the 1960s), but they also make — and change — friends faster.
This phenomenon is likely rooted in the fact that, in accordance with West’s findings, the total number of human connections increases with city size. London’s 8 million inhabitants regularly connect with almost twice the number of people as Cambridge’s 100,000 residents. This increasing exposure to people — and hence to ideas, activities and even diseases — could explain the impact of city size on socioeconomic outcomes.
However, another tendency is also consistent across cities of all sizes: people tend to build “villages” around themselves. This behavior is quantified as the networks’ “clustering coefficient” — that is, the probability that a person’s friends will also be friends with one another — and remains extraordinarily stable across metropolitan areas. Simply put, humans everywhere are naturally inclined to live within tight-knit communities.
Of course, this idea has been suggested before. The urbanist Jane Jacobs, for example, described the rich interactions occurring in New York City neighborhoods — what she called an “intricate ballet, in which the individual dancers and ensembles all have distinctive parts which miraculously reinforce each other.”
What computational social science offers is the prospect of quantifying such observations and gaining insights that could shape the design of urban environments in the future.
The question is whether these insights could also unlock the power of human interactions in small towns, enabling them to access some of the social and economic advantages of a large city. In this sense, it is critical to recognize the fundamental difference between “urban villages” and their rural counterparts.
In the latter, social networks are largely predetermined by family, proximity or history. City dwellers, by contrast, can explore a wide variety of options to create custom-made villages according to their social, intellectual or creative affinities.
Perhaps that is why Sinatra left his hometown of Hoboken, New Jersey. Only in a city like New York could he find the Rat Pack.
Carlo Ratti directs the Senseable City Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and heads the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Future Cities. Matthew Claudel is a research fellow at the Senseable City Laboratory.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US