Trade flourished, and London became a market-driven commercial and financial hub for world trade. Manufacturers established themselves in the city centre and markets developed around them supported by a growing number of banks. The city centre, therefore, was a series of markets and had few residential zones; warehouses formed a prominent part of the landscape. Imperial London also witnessed the growth of a market in stocks and shares located at the London Stock Exchange, and the establishment of large insurance companies such as Lloyds of London. London’s rising financial sector was represented by the Bank of England, which issued loans to new colonies whilst giving security to the blossoming economy of Great Britain. The City’s role as a cultural centre was represented by huge investment in museums and theatres and its dominant global position was expressed through monuments depicting colonial glories and exhibitions showcasing British power.
Whilst there was growth of commerce alongside growth of the City’s financial sector, trends later developed in the form of rapid suburban growth aided by improved infrastructure in and around London. The London County Council (LCC) took on numerous housing projects peaking at 16,000 units that gradually expanded outwards form the City and were facilitated by improvements in communications, a tramway system and the electrification of the railways. “As the new century dawned, London’s position at the hub of the world’s largest empire gave work to half a million in the docks and in import-related occupations….London continued to grow; between 1911 and 1939 its population increased from 7.25 to 8.73 million entirely in the outer ring beyond the LCC boundaries.” (Porter, 1994:32) Urbanisation during this period was undoubtedly fed by the provisions created by empire, manifested in a country with a confident and specialised role in the world economy. In this system, London occupied “the nodal point of a colonial urban system in which the economies of the metropolis and of such distant cities as Calcutta or Sydney and their respective hinterlands complemented one another and were heavily interdependent.” (Sheppard, 1998:313)
The testing of imperial London’s power by two world wars and the following dissolution of empire were to dramatically change the face of the City. These influences forced upon London the devastating effects of ‘The Blitz’ and the processes of relinquishing power to the colonised nations, which had for so long been the source of London’s wealth. Inevitably London’s power began to decline and it was challenged with finding new ways to rebuild and to grow. “[London] was sustained by surplus extracted from the colonial economy. With the demise of the colonial power, it lacked the economic base to meet the social costs it generated. [This resulted in] problems of housing, a shortage of economic resources…and a lack of the institutional infrastructure to deal with social, administrative and political needs.” (King, 1990:45) Disappearance of hegemonic power systems took place, and the nation-state grew in significance as a unit of analysis. Within these nation states the seats of power were able to control their own destinies and determine growth within their own political boundaries; this growth was facilitated by the freer flow of goods and capital through the nation state’s principal cities.
The dissolution of empire and the effects of the Second World War led to a dramatic shift in the nature of London’s economy which ultimately affected its growth. The collapse of the manufacturing industries is a case in point, and from the mid-1950s people began to suffer job losses in this area. “Between 1971 and 1975 19 per cent of manufacturing jobs disappeared…between 1978 and 1981 some 98,700 jobs in manufacturing and production were lost.” (Coupland, 1992:26-27) Commerce also declined in central London and as unemployment rose a deprived inner city began to emerge.
London’s problems were exacerbated not only by the housing problems caused by wartime damage, but by the closure of the docks, which had survived the war but could not survive the break-up of empire. “The Empire…had long ensured London’s position as the world’s premier port [.] Independence, however, loosened old trading ties; no longer was trade automatically routed through London, and new nations created trading preferences of their own, selling direct to America, Germany and Japan. During the 1960s Commonwealth trade was halved, and London shrank as an entrepot.” (Porter, 1994, 348) The closure of this critical dimension of London’s power represented symbolic as well as industrial and demographic decline. Moreover, while disintegration of manufacturing in London can be attributed to varying factors such as economic recession, the closure of the Docks are inextricably linked to the dissolution of the British Empire. The closure also affected activities linked to the Docklands: transport, warehousing and food processing industries and systems were damaged and the City’s economic woes took shape in the form of rapid demographic change. As people moved outward from Greater London the population began to decrease, from 8,600,000 in 1939 to 6,300,000 in 1991, a trend which continues today. The unemployment rate in the industrial areas of inner-London rose to 14 per cent in 1981, while a new trend of mass immigration from the Commonwealth changed the ethnic composition of London’s population and reflected London’s increasing diversity.
The dynamics of London’s decline began to influence new processes of growth, both physical and economic. The new industries that grew up in London were connected to its role as an information city and there was an escalation in the significance of the cultural production sector. Tourism became a major source of income for London. Systems of land-use planning began to determine London’s physical growth, with the establishment of the Green Belt designed to fix an area of permanent countryside around the city in a policy to shift 1,033,000 Londoners and workplaces beyond its boundaries. This policy may have hindered urban sprawl, but it has also led to new types of growth in the form of an ‘Outer Ring’, as towns on London’s periphery have had to adapt and grow due to the population exodus from Greater London. “Altogether, this ‘Outer Ring’ added nearly one million to [London’s] population in the decade 1951-61, representing two-fifths of the net growth of the British population.” (Hall, 1977:24)
The growth of the ‘Outer Ring’ coincided with various strategies by the LCC including the development of tower-block estates, a move that would later lead to rising social problems in the areas in which they were built. There continued to be a rise in office space in the inner city, as London’s financial sector remained strong alongside an influx of the middle classes into inner-suburb precincts. Consequently improvements in housing took hold mainly in areas such as Notting Hill, Paddington and Mile End. The 1960s were witness to the increased significance of London as a cultural centre and the City became an international heart of fashion, music and design. “[T]he City grew impressively from the 1960s, thanks to a combination of accident, expertise, language and geography.” (Porter, 1994:374)
Redevelopment of London began with the comprehensive reconstruction of Tower Hamlets and in more recent times with the controversial redevelopment of the Docklands. The scale of redevelopment of the Docklands is characterised by the construction of Great Britain’s tallest building: Canary Wharf. The area creates office space for 40,000 to 60,000 workers and symbolises the emergence of a new and modern London, one that is predominantly concerned with business and finance, and one that continues to exude success due to these sectors.
From this discussion we can clearly see the importance of London’s imperial status in relation to its growth. Dissolution of empire has indeed been critical to the growth of world cities as they have become more freely exposed to the processes of globalisation and have had greater control of their position in the world economy. This contention can be exemplified by the current position of world cities, such as New York and Singapore in the economic world order and the growth of former colony’s capitals as they engage in directing their own futures, levels of trade and spatial organisation. London, however, is an exceptional case. As an imperial city it was largely dependent on its colonial territories for sustaining its own growth and power. “Whereas eighty or ninety years ago, London was at the core of the world system, a generator of powerful economic, political and cultural forces pushing out to the periphery, today it increasingly contends with equally powerful economic, political, and cultural forces pressing in from ‘outside.’”(King, 1990:73) This change has increased the vulnerability of London’s economy. “All other world cities have…had to adapt to the internationalization of the world economy – Paris and New York, for instance; but what distinguishes London is the degree of its former imperial dominance, and the extent to which internationalization has brought foreign ownership, and hence dependence.” (Sheppard, 1998:359) Modern London now has to compete with other primary cities which have not had to undergo such a dramatic transition in their character and global position.
Significant redevelopment has taken place in recent years and London continues to exemplify the ‘world city’. Its prominent role in Europe, its historical importance, imposing architecture, economic wealth and position as seat of power all contribute to make London one of the major cities of the world. The importance of dissolution of empire to many world cities is demonstrated by the increased flow of capital, labour, goods and services which have enabled them to grow. Imperial London already contained these processes which were fundamentally linked with its dominant global role, it is therefore, increasingly dependent and vulnerable within the new world economic order. However, the disintegration of its imperial role has not been completely negative to London’s growth, the City has just had to find time and method to help adapt and reposition itself within a new global system. Within this system London has now found a specific function as a global centre for banking and financial trading, which increasingly determine its international role and its patterns of modern growth.
2,096 words.
Bibliography.
Coupland, Andy: ‘Every Job an Office Job.’ And ‘Docklands: Dream or Disaster?’ In Thornley, Andy (ed) (1992) ‘The Crisis of London.’ Routledge.
Friedmann, J and Wolff, G. (1982) ‘World City formation: an agenda for research and action.’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research: 6.
Hall, P (1977 2nd edition) ‘The World Cities.’ Weidenfield and Nicholson, London. Ch 2.
King, AD (1990) ‘Global Cities: Post-Imperialism and the Internationalization of London.’ Routledge.
Porter, Roy (1994) ‘London: A Social History.’ Penguin, London.
Shappard, Francis (1998) ‘London: A History.’ Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wells, H.G. (1908) ‘Tono-Bungay.’ London: Oldhams Press.
