The Local Politics of 'Going Global': Making and Unmaking Minneapolis-St Paul as a World City

Minneapolis-St Paul is a good candidate for 'world city' status. The metropolitan area ranks 15th in the US in population; ranks 8th in total exports; hosts the headquarters of some of the largest transnational corporations in the world including 3M, General Mills, Target and Cargill; is home to the largest Somali and Hmong populations in the US; and has hosted major global spectacles such as the International Special Olympics and the Super Bowl. At the same time, Minneapolis-St Paul is far from embracing a world city identity. Although seen largely as beneficiaries of globalisation, residents of the Twin Cities routinely elect politicians to both the local and national levels who oppose free trade. Local efforts to make the metropolitan area into a world city, backed mainly by boosters in city and state government as well as large locally based corporations, have met with inconsistent political leadership, a lack of broad business support, and a strong democratic local politics which has limited the power of corporate interests both to direct the region's economic development and to define the content of its international ties. In other similarly sized cities (such as Atlanta or Cleveland) corporate and political leaders have for the most part done as they pleased in building the city's international character, but in Minneapolis-St Paul these actors have been largely defeated by populist politics. The case of the Minneapolis-St Paul world city project demonstrates the ability of a vibrant opposition both to moderate an elite drive to 'go global' and to define urban 'success' and 'prestige' in markedly non-global terms.