Introduction - Methods for Multilevel Analysis and Visualisation of Geographical Networks - page 7

limitations of geographical scales ( Castells , 2000 ), organisational levels of the
“global commodity chain” are currently transforming from local to worldwide
scales ( Whitley , 1998 ).

1.4 Multiscale Networks

The multiscale analysis and visualisation of graphs enhances the study of networks.
A careful visual analysis of the ways in which networks link similar actors provides
insight into the reinforcement of social proximities, specialisations and segregations,
as well as the extent to which transportation, communication, social and economic
networks increase the anisotropy of space.
These networks thus produce a multiscale system. Although Ohmae ( 1990 )
claimed that multinational corporations develop within homogeneous and open
territories, multiscale analysis reveals that these firms transversally weave together
a system of potentially overlapping territories with their own rules and regulations.
The structure of the “transnational field”, which continues to be strongly influenced
by the “international field”, still depends on “the exchange rates, labor and fiscal
regulation, those 'externalities' of which the company can take advantage, and
the size and quality of the market” ( Dollfus , 2001 , pp. 104-105). From this
perspective, the continental level increases its cohesion through the creation of
free-trade zones that reinforce continental systems ( Ohmae , 1995 ; Pomfret , 2007 ;
Rozenblat , 2004 ; Rugman , 2001 ; Yeung , 2002 ), although it is not the only level
from a multidimensional perspective.
Similarly, intense economic specialisation creates groups of cities that are
increasingly interrelated - a tendency that is reinforced by “poles of excellence”
or “poles of competitiveness” policies. The most striking example is financial spe-
cialisation, which has created a “global city” linking New York, London and Tokyo
( Sassen , 1991 ). The financial capitals of the world link themselves to each other
either directly or indirectly by forming specialised and/or geographical subgroups.
“Relay” cities provide “mandatory pathways” between these ensembles of highly
interlinked cities. For example, national capitals host the national head-offices of the
foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations that, in turn, invest in businesses
or organisations elsewhere in the host country. This situation is also observed for
continental centres at a continental level ( Alderson & Beckfield , 2004 ; R. Gould
& Fernandez , 1989 ; Rozenblat , 2004 ; Rozenblat & Pumain , 1993 , 2007 ; Rugman ,
2001 ). Personnel meetings are often held at these “intermediate” head-offices. At
the city level, capitals serve as “bridges” to other national cities; for example,
capital cities provide preferred locations for representational offices (e.g., Brussels
in Europe). Through this role of “display relay” to the country's other cities,
proportionally more relevant relationships - upstream and downstream as well as
national and international - are concentrated within the capital city. Serving as a
“relay” or “bridge” provides the capital city with better access to the entire network,
as well as increased control over information transfers ( Burt , 2005 ). Additionally,