Cities beyond compare?

Calls for more substantively multipolar, comparative and cosmopolitan modes of urban theory-making have been circulating for more than a decade now, and they have begun to spawn a range of alternative approaches to urban studies. But in practice, the challenge of more worldly, comparative theorization has been unevenly met, often more through difference-finding and deconstructive manoeuvres than through projects of urban-theoretical renewal and reconstruction. The provisional outcome has been interpreted as an impasse in urban theory; some are even reporting its death. While these reports are surely premature, there are risks as well as opportunities in the embrace of particularism and polycentrism in urban studies, especially if this impedes: first, the effective realization of comparative methodologies; second, the theoretical interrogation of pan-urban processes and patterns, relationally understood; and third, constructive dialogue across theoretical traditions, notably at the interface between political economy and postcolonialism.