eclipse across the united states in 100 years, plus the nasa budget, mars exploration and more beginning new in eastern on c-span. >> at the chicago form on global cities, a panel looked at the roles of cities in globalization in the modern economy. speakers include toronto mayor john tory, a former mayor of rio stationary and former minister of new zealand. it was hosted by the chicago council on global affairs and the financial times. this is an hour and a half. >> ladies and gentlemen, ivo daalder. >> [applause] >> good evening. welcome to chicago and the 2017 forum on global cities. i am the president of the chicago council on global affairs, and it's great to have all of you here. it is difficult to imagine a more timely moment for us to convene this particular forum.

in the years since we last met, here in chicago -- indeed, just in the last few days, we have seen examples of something that is quite extraordinary. cities are important as players on the national stage, bypassing when necessary national governments to look to each other for solutions to global problems. in the last week alone, mayors and city leaders across this country affirmed their support for what had originally been an agreement among nations, the paris climate accord. yet climate change is not an outlier in city to city coordination. quite the opposite. it is happening on issues of inclusion, immigration, health, security. governance and human rights, and indeed so many other critical issues that face our world today. in fact extraordinary is perhaps

the wrong word to describe this trend. direct city to city coordination is emerging and maturing, becoming wonderfully ordinary. why? why is this happening? the answer is that urbanization is the most consequential force shaping our political order in this century. it is undoubtedly the most dynamic force. more than 500 cities around the world have a population of more than one million people. and yet that statistic alone does not capture the staggering pace at which cities are growing. in 1950, one third of the world lived in urban areas. today well over half do. by 2050 it will be over two thirds, 6.3 billion people who will live and work in urban areas.

at this very moment a chicago , sized city is being added to the world's population every two weeks. that is why we need to engage the new people moving to cities and being born there. the next generation about the challenges and capabilities that cities have is even more important. therefore we are delighted today to have so many young professionals with us, including 32 students from global universities around the world. hold great economic power. greater than ever. 80% of the world's economic output comes from cities. but so too do more than 70% of greenhouse gases being admitted in the world. politically and culturally, cities are the vanguards of openness. the champions of globalization.

important qualities in the time when nationalists and anti-global sentiments are reemerging. taken together what these trends mean is clear -- a future dominated by cities is rapidly becoming our present. so as we have done in the previous two years, we are gathered in this global city, here in chicago to discuss the role of global cities in the changing world. this year in some ways it is different from previous years. the questions we hope to answer over the next few days are entirely new for good reason. citiessly we asked if drove the global economy. now we ask how they will continue to do so. before we asked if cities can have a foreign policy. now we are more interested in the example of city diplomacy at their best. before we asked whether such cities can challenge national governments for power on the global stage, today we know they are. we want to know how they will do

so and better the lives of citizens of our cities. there are many ways to start. in fact the council has just released a new report that outlines the priorities for chicago's global strategy. that report, which is available outside, is a great resource for leaders from chicago and global cities on how to organize ourselves and the many ideas we have heard and learned not only from chicago but traveling and having a forum like this about how we can meaningfully create an actionable agenda for global change. i encourage you all to download and read the task force report at your leisure. we also have copies available of a special report on cities published today. many of the journalists here with us are moderating or participating in the panels. they have contributed to the

special section. of course none of this happens by accident. it takes a small city to organize this global city forum. on behalf of the council of global affairs and the chicago financial times, i would like to thank the speakers who were joining us today. more than 50 from all corners of the world. we are able to be here as well in this wonderful setting in which mayors and architects, ceos, educators and journalists and all of you are gathered because forward thinking corporations and organizations believe global issues addressed here today are critical. they are right, and we are glad they are with us here. i therefore want to thank our sponsors. of course also are supporting sponsors, hyatt hotels corporation, motorola's solutions, united airlines, usg corporation. and our foundation sponsors.

thanks to all of you for your support. i also want to thank our international and civil partners who made possible the richness of the content of the next few days. none of this is possible without your presence and your support. finally i want to thank the 500 delegates who join us here from more than three dozen countries. they made the trek to chicago. we gave you the nice weather, which comes free. you have to pay for that. it is part of what we do here in the council. very pleased to have you. thank you as well for everyone who was watching us online. remember tweet early and often. the hashtag is #globalcities2017. we are set to begin what i am sure will be an important series of conversations and discussions. it is our hope what is said here carries over into the forum to enrich discussions and other global cities here in chicago and around the world.

before we start i want to take a moment to remember benjamin barber. a friend and partner who worked with us on cities, and passed away early this year. then -- ben was a pioneering leader of thinking of the roles of cities in the world today. insights he shared in best-selling books, and on this stage during our inaugural forum two years ago. i think he would have enjoyed the program we have planned for you. now it is my great pleasure to welcome the u.s. manager of the financial times, gillian tett. >> [applause] gillian: good evening everybody. welcome to the event. i would like to welcome ivo's areome and say that we absolutely delighted to be

participating in this event. i have always known that ivo is a powerful, influential, effective man. i didn't know he could control the weather gods. this is the third year we have had perfect weather. three out of three is a pretty good score. and it is great because it really does show chicago as to its great advantage. it provides the perfect frame to talk about these incredibly serious issues. as ivo said, talking about cities now is very important. partly because of the great t word. donald trump. we live in an era where cities are suddenly being asked, as of the plan released a few days ago, to carry a lot of the burden of infrastructure. a lot of the burden of economic

regeneration and growth. we live in an era where quite inadvertently the administration has put cities and states at the heart of the climate change debate. we live at a time when the question of immigration and the question of how different communities can or cannot live together is crucial. cities are once again at the center of that. last but not least we also live at a time when the question of how we find effective leadership, how we find politicians that people can believe in in these fragmented times is also absolutely centerstage. we were having a discussion in the green room talking about which politicians we did or did not admire. somewhat relevant given the u.k. election. what became clear is many people looked to city leaders of people

they can trust in these troubled times. the keyword trump has put cities on to the center stage but even without donald trump, if you can remember a world without donald trump, cities are incredibly important and growing in importance for all the reasons ivo has just said. it is the 30 are the ft -- it is the third year the ft has been involved in this. so many of the themes are central to the stories on our pages every day. we take pride in that we can cover these issues and cover these debates well. so well in fact that if you are already a subscriber to the financial times, you will now that we have a financial supplement that came out on the question of the future of cities. if you are not a subscriber to also ayet, we have

special promotional deal, which is that we have a newsletter talking about the discussions we are going to be having and you can get a three month free trial subscription through that. that is my one commercial plug. said, we willvo have several ft journalists in the group in the next few days. myself. our chief u.s. commentator. our asia managing editor. we have the mighty martin wolf, her chief economic commentator. and our u.s. news editor. we would love to have a chance to talk to as many of you as possible about these key issues and we just hope that you very much enjoy the debate, create an interesting set of stories for us to write about, and hopefully read about, and kick us off this

discussion, we begin with a cities,lled "open closed borders: a response to globalization." in the supplement we have a column by martin wolf which starts "the world's great cities are inherently dynamic and diverse. they are naturally open to the world. how should they respond if their countries seek to close themselves against outsiders? how should they do view their responsibilities to the world?" that indeed is one of the great questions of the age. i look forward to the next panel to hear some answers. thank you. >> [applause] >> your moderator, ivo daalder. >> [applause]

>> thank you for that kind introduction. it is welcome again. good to see you. i am enjoying here today -- i am joined here today with some very important forces where we can have a good discussion about where cities are heading in an age of globalization. which is in some ways is competing with the way in which our international system has been organized for the past 400 years. an international system based on the interaction of nationstates. we are increasingly seen globalization is posing real questions for not the viability of nationstates, but how do nationstates cooperate

internationally? how do they deal with the challenges that we all face? and how do cities as some national entities offer an opportunity to coordinate and cooperate in dealing with these fashions? and offer solutions? we have with us practitioners and thinkers, journalists and politicians, to ask these kind of questions. people who have served at high levels of government, who have not served in these high levels. people who have served nationally and internationally and at local levels. we have the mayor of toronto since 2014. great to have you with us. martin wolf, who is the chief economic commentator at the financial times, and who has already been cited in in the kickoff here. eduardo paes, the former mayor

of rio de janeiro including during the summer olympics. and the cities climate leadership group, helen clark, former prime minister of new zealand. and former foreign minister and prime minister of sweden. i want to have a discussion here. i really want to talk about this fundamental question of governing a world where political power of cities is not commensurate with economic and cultural power. martin, let me start with you. you wrote in the special section that the financial times put out today, which if you hadn't had a chance to look at, please do. what has the past year revealed to you about the changing global order and the role cities are playing? >> first of all, thank you for the question. before i answer it, it is a great pleasure to be back here

in chicago involved with a program we are running with you. i have always enjoyed enormously being involved with the global council. the start, how many hours do i have? obviously the last year has taught us that we are in a pretty spectacular mess in the west as far as globalization is concerned. quite particularly, in the united states and united kingdom, which one would have regarded as the heartland of international liberalism defined in the english sense of the term liberalism, not the american one. these are not the only countries in which backlashes against

globalization have become significant. we dodged a bullet in france. very plausible the biggest party in italy. that could have big consequences. we have to ask ourselves, what is going on, and what does it mean for cities? the answer i think is that we are now living in aperiod of extreme political fragility in important parts of the western world. and that is because we have not succeeded in persuading quite a large part of our populations that the global order as it evolves has worked to the benefit. root irresponsible politicians have, as you would expect, have exploited this. the particular form of

exploitation takes the form of a return to tribalism. tribal identities linked around ethnicity and nationality. which are by their nature hostile to globalization and the idea of an open society in its many different respects. why is this happening? we have had rising inequality. we have had stagnant wages in the last 10 years. we had a gigantic financial crisis from which in the view of many citizens, and rightly so, the bankers themselves were saved and they weren't. and they don't see this is going to get better. one of the things that is very revealing in both the u.s. and the u.k. is that so many people don't think the future for their children will be better than their own. this is the context.

what does it mean for the challenges for cities? in some ways, thinking about my own country, the brexit referendum captured this stress between growing tribalism and the outward looking metropolis of london. london's population is mr. wolf: it is, in some ways, the antithesis of the movement which led to brexit, but of course, the people who voted for brexit, in significant ways,

were voting against london, the very thing it embodied, even not paradoxically, but not surprisingly, actually, london is in a normal source of net fiscal transfers to the country, so by depriving london of its position in europe, which i think they are doing, they will greatly impoverish themselves, but the resentments being built up are such that policy is being chosen at the national level, which impoverishes themselves. a city of london creates this. similar things in other societies. that, i think, and i will not go further now, creates immense challenges of the national and city level. i do not personally believe cities can escape from the national context. but they have to be aware of the national context in which they

are operating, and i think a core element is this return of tribalism, which has been shown so clearly in the results of the brexit vote, the presidential election in the u.s., and other things. we have enormous challenges to confront. take us from there. you have been a national leader and a local leader and an international leader, but staying with the local and the national for a moment, cities are often characterized -- artan ehe non-big tha cities thathere are are you elitist, out of touch. where does this perception come according, and what can we do about it? even if it is true, it is not a

very healthy way in which to live. i think there is a tendency to have polymerization in the center and periphery of a society, especially in smaller cities. what we are seeing described,martin has is this having an overlay of globalization affecting the cities, but not much favored the secondary cities and rural areas, which are feeling neglected. what is arbates traditional tension. i think, for the periphery, there is the issue of the scale of the cities. big somehow becomes bad. there is a perception for the cities that they are a dangerous place, and maybe some tragic reason for many. the fact that because of the

scale, they have more political federal the legislatures as well. this builds up a resentment. this big place for these big places are seen as doing better onn i am on my smaller place the periphery, that creates entire msm in. on the issue of elitism, it also cities easy to trash the where the pointy heads are, the universities, the academics. "what do they know about anything?" that is where the big media centers are. populism is very much attacking the media and looking back to the larger phenomenon. that can be representative as pointy-headed. the cities give spice for the expression of more liberal finds inan one often the hinterlands. the multiculturalism, the

space for feminism, lgbt rights. for all of these reasons, i think, we are in a time and place where the traditional sense of periphery divide is exacerbated. what we can do about it of course is a much, much harder issue, but for national governments, and i think for political tendencies that are very concerned about the nationalism and populism we are seeing at the moment, the issue is really how to run economic and social policies which are more inclusive, so you don't set these divisions. that, to me, is the core issue. how do we become more cohesive, more inclusive in the way our countries are run and governed? >> we will come back to this issue of how the city and morehery can come together

and share in the benefits of openness, but staying for a moment with the city -- i want global to john tory -- cities in particular, and years being one of them, proclaim they are open to the world. as martin said, 40% of london's population is foreign-born. in your city, it is even larger than that. >> 51%. >> 51%. they are open, but not particularly open in some ways. in some ways, they are leaving people within their own cities behind. what are the tensions playing out in a global city like that? they ared not even -- not the kind of tribal tensions necessarily. the challenge is that you don't want them to develop. our shared values are broadly shared across the country, including in the big cities. they are rooted in the big

cities where you do have 51% of the population born outside the country. we have somehow managed to have people feel accepted and embraced. if there is a tension, it is not people of different nationalities, skin color, section will or in me -- sexual orientation, or faiths. i will say, by the way, in the context of the periphery and the core, i am probably the single feature inifying canada in that i am the mayor of toronto, the largest and most disliked city in the country. i consider that my contribution to national unity. the tensions are about inclusion versus noninclusion. the fact is that if you look at are not fully integrated and not fully included in the economy or the political and social life of the city where i live or parts of the country, mostly urban, they tended to disproportionately be people who have come from somewhere else. it is a practical problem to

resolve, not because anyone is trying to exclude them. we have been working hard at developing the language and transition courses. the level of education of the people choosing to come to canada is higher than the people already there, and yet when they come to toronto or canada and seek to get recognition for their educational or professional credentials that they have, it is very difficult. some of that is by design. professions put up certain barriers to entry. we are developing transition courses. we are developing community hubs in the neighborhoods where these people live to avoid tension from a lack of inclusion, something as simple as land which courses. how can anyone become fully included if they cannot speak whatever our two official images at all? if you said to me "where is the strain and the challenge for us?" that is where it is. as opposed to the kind of

tribal, you know, more tribal roots of some tensions that exist elsewhere in the world. we went through -- we do not have refugees coming on foot across the border. we took a very open approach, and when it was put forward by leaders, including myself, that we should be open based on all of our past experiences with refugees, this was not a subject of any particular debate in the country. not have the same pressures the countries in europe would have. it is symptomatic of the attitude and values. has different challenges, and one we face is that there is an urban/rural challenge which is in some ways affecting policy and policymaking and voting behavior in brazil. how is this manifested? populisma

that comes with that difference and the challenge with the rapid changes happening in the urban areas in brazil? well, there is always going to be a difference when we speak from the global north and we come to the global south. i mean, i would like to go back a little bit in brazil in history, because we are going period ingreat brazilian politics. three years ago, the country was doing great. if you look at the past two decades, 10 years, inequality has become smaller. it seems we are getting better. the economy was doing well, and then -- i would like to go back a little. in 2013, we had lots of protests. the economy was growing. finally, the country of the future has become a great country, and then everyone went

out on the streets and everyone was protesting against the politicians. nice to have so many people. there is the issue of the world cup and the olympics and things like that. by the end, that is something that has come between the global south and the global north. big problem which is that the moral of representative democracy -- we still choose our leaders in the same way we did centuries ago. i mean, obviously, it got better with voting. there are no more slaves. informationmore people have more access to politicians, to what we do, and this has become a thing that i cities,hen you look at

it can mean a big difference between a rural area in the cities. i thinko call it -- we're coming to a point and that is an out occasion. we are -- that is an adaptation. we are coming to a point where cities are the place where direct democracy can come back. people are always wanting to discuss. in 2013, they did not go out in the streets of brazil to complain about the services because it was better than it was before. it can always get better. people were complaining against the lack of representation. this can make a big difference. at this moment, and i am optimistic about what is going .o happen in the near future everywhere else, if you look at if you look at

south america, especially, you will see lots of populists. i don't want to say bad things about venezuela, but coming from the left, it comes from the right, it comes from everywhere. by the end, i think this is a transition period, and i think cities will play major role of fighting against this populism. change,way things can are aentative democracies great machine to change what is going on. >> i want to talk a little bit about sweden, but also the beyond that. many ways gone through all these stages. large refugee populations in the 1990's, and again in recent years. the social and economic dynamic has changed over time. the difference between city and on city has not been -- and non-

city has not been as great as perhaps the u.k. and the u.s. reflect a little bit on that, but also as part of a transition to not only where are we, but what can we do about it. what are some of the challenges big cities are facing that maybe cities are better placed to tackle them the nationstate per se. >> first, i think -- which is to state the obvious -- it is not a question of cities or nationstates or global organizations or whatever. it has to be all of them. cities are very important. if you talk about megatrends in global development, icy two megatrends that are going to be dominant. one is digitalization. we are at the end of the industrial age and the beginning

of the digital age. that is going to shape everything, everything, in the decades and possibly centuries ahead. we are in terms of technology roughly where the industrial age with the second-generation steam engine. to be enormously important. the other megatrend is urbanization. we can talk about the divide between rural areas of peripheries and cities, but the fact, all across the world, is that people are moving into cities. i think i heard you say that two thirds of the global population are going to be in cities. talk about sweden or canada or brazil or new zealand. in africa, cities -- it is not that politicians are forcing people to go into cities. people find that even if things can be difficult in cities -- which they can be -- they prefer life there for x members of different reasons.

and so, essentially, it is then cities inlutions for cities. that will have to be done in the different backgrounds in the in x membersntries of respect. some issues will be the same. if we look at it long-term. issues that need to be addressed have to be addressed at the city level. to take a couple of them, the digital issues. we are going to see the impact of them more profamily on the profoundly on the city level. driving, andelf things like that. roughly one third of the area of los angeles is taken up by highways or parking spots. if you take away the cars and

transformshared, it the urban mandate. that will happen in cities. we talk about cities in mumbai. they will catch up very fast with the digital age. the divide we might see between toronto and mumbai will be less. that is one issue. the other one, very much debated these days. sustainability, energy issues, obviously. we are probably going to return to that. another one -- not to be forgotten -- are the security issues. we can talk about the threat of terrorism and things like that, national police forces and things like that, but at the end of the day, local policing, local security is very local. to way which you organize -- take one example without going into details or insulting to many people -- like belgium.

that is one nation state. the difference in which they organized forces in brussels and in antwerp, completely different systems. inpletely different effects terms of the security they are able to provide. and here, cities do it, and cities do it differently, and here, need to learn. sweden, a happy, nice country up in the north. it has to be said that once upon a time, and it still might be the case, that probably more people of swedish ancestry are probably chicago than in all of sweden, but certainly in stockholm. we had a time when life in sweden was worse and people thought chicago was better. whether that is still the case, i don't know. gone through major

challenges of course in development as well in terms of urbanization and the population of rural -- and depopulation in rural areas. machination of four doing, -- people were logging. there were no machines. they were doing it year round. then, machines appeared in the 1950's and the 1960's. large parts of sweden were virtually depopulated. urban areas.to the there was an amount of tension there, but we've sorted it out. then as we alluded to we haveion, the figures are slightly different from the toronto figures, where you said that people that are coming to toronto or canada are of a higher level of education. it has something to do with the canadian system, it has to be said. our system is that we allow refugees, and they are coming often with an education -- not

always, always. some of them are coming with very low levels of education, and we do have an integration problem. we do have a challenge. have we mastered that foley? no. we are broadly ok is not enough. 80%,se if you succeed with but fail with 20%, you still have a massive problem. you need to succeed with 95% or something like that. there is no question that immigration has contributed to the vitality of our cities and the vitality of our economy. drawbridge is a tendency in politics, but that is not going to happen. mr. daalder: thanks. i think we have a diagnosis. the question now is how do we solve it? let us move to addressing the problems that we have seen.

you,n, just starting with it seems to be we have this tension on the one hand about the economic and cultural importance of cities on the one hand and the lack of their political power on the other. you mentioned london versus the periphery and the importance that london wants for the entire country. london is a good example. is there a way it can use its economic clout better to effectuate changes in policy in the nation that are more in line with the way in which london would like to go? we have seen brexit as one of those examples. is there a way we could redistribute power from the national level or where it seems to reside to cities in order to effectuate change that benefits all? asked to when i was write a column that appears in our special report, it forced me

to go back to think about some questions that have interested me for a large part of my life about long period history, and it iso i thought -- relevant to this -- i have been profoundly persuaded by the work of jacobs, whom i regard as a privileged to was know, that cities were the great invention of the neolithic era -- obviously, very small by contemporary standards. but economic progress has always occurred in cities. has always occurred in cities. they put forward a wonderful argument which i think is completely persuasive that cities even invented agriculture.

we can discuss that. it is a completely persuasive argument, by the way. she was a genius. do not underestimate her. the point is that when cities formed in the early period of human development, many of them were political entities, so the city state is not just an episode, in the very beginning, in samaria, city states were a dominant entity, so city power and power were the same thing. west, in asia, city states have played a simply staggering role in our cultural development from athens to rome, three italy, and so forth. and then i started thinking .bout how did this change today, singapore is the only city state of any independence. all the cities we are talking about, even ones of immense

scale -- city regions which generate in some cases close to half of the gdp of the country, are embedded in countries, in territories, and the most powerful states in the world, -- the reason we emphasize them -- they shape the world system because they shape the u.s., china, india, are of a scale that dwarfs even their cities. so political power ended up in countries which contain often many cities, and whose interests are often as expressed in their political systems very separate from those of their global cities, whose economic role, in my view, is as dominant as ever, and their political role is remarkably insignificant. now, so, what do we do about this? i do not think it is plausible

ies, which lack armies and tribal loyalties, which i rather liked, are going to rise up and say "give us independent!" i wrote a column once for the ft in which i argued -- and i believe it passionately, by the way -- that it would be a very good thing if london became singapore, if it became an independent city state, but i do not expect the british government to a seed to that and i do not expect the british people to agree to that. we're not going to have political independence. we are not going to be able to frame the legal environment within which this all occurs. i think we do not emphasize this enough. a lot of these discussions are about how the city should deal with one another. begun increasingly to think that one of the things that cities have to do is to

take the argument to their countries. that is to say, they have to persuade the people who are not living in the great metropolitan that very existence benefits them and that they are open to them. from that point of view, by the way, and this is one big issue which i have thought very hard on in britain, they have to show that people can come and live in them. one of the reasons people cannot live in them is that there is no housing in them, and the housing in almost major city is so expensive as to be on thinkable for most citizens to live there on that they want to live in the most extreme squalor. one thing they have to do is to get engaged nationally. the other thing of course they can do is they can become models in reasonablether harmony and effectiveness in very different people, models of what their countries should become. whichan pursue policies

are designed to show that global goals are still achievable, climate change is an important example of that. they can work hard at their level to show how you integrate people from abroad, and also people from other parts of the country. they can become integration machine, and they should, i think, cultivate relationships with one another, but crucially, with the city regions of which they are part, so they try to spread their influence and their thoseunities, not just to inside, but the people who are very close to them and feel from them. there is a complex set of things within this context without being able to run countries, because they are not going to run them. they could probably do that to ameliorate the situation in which we find ourselves. mr. daalder: reflect on what

talkedsaid, because you about the difference between the center and the periphery, and martin is saying the center cannot get away from the periphery. the periphery is part of it. but it can find a way to bring the periphery into the political and economic advantage of the center city in this case. reflect on that, the urban /rural divide that you have. how do you bring them in and make them feel it is an advantage to be part of this open, plausible paulison -- cosmopolitan city than to think we are better cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. what does a practical politician do in order to get that kind of agenda implemented? was atuse my leadership the national level, i look at it from the point of view of what should national governments be doing?

noninclusive dimensions of policy i do think national governments have an obligation to try to ensure that the magnets of growth, which is cities, do not monopolize all the prosperity and opportunity in the country. there is a responsibility try to share prosperity, if you like, and more widely than we are seeing. the urbanization trend, which will feature third of the population and cities by 2050. to put that in numbers, if we have a global population of 7.5 billion now, and it is heading for 10 billion by 2050, my understanding is that all of that extra population is going to be absorbed in cities. it is going to be bigger, and given the trends we are talking about now, even more powerful. the role of national governments in trying to spread prosperity a thing becomes even more accentuated.

i absolutely agree with martin that there are things cities could do to affirm their own that,proposition to showing the interdependence between periphery and city. the goods get out to market, how the people transport themselves in and out of the periphery. it is generally through the major city transit hubs. where are goods processed? if you are part of the value chain what happens in the cities to your goods and services matters a great deal. the cities could market a lot more their value and the linkages and interdependencies which there are within the national society and economies. malcolm's point on housing is a important one. we are seeing the global cities become places where only those with considerable means can afford to live. the answer to that will partly lie with cities and how they

zone and the extent to which they have a commitment to social housing and mixed income housing. there is a responsibility with central governments. often these trends of unaffordability have been exacerbated by central governments taking away the level of housing subsidy or whatever support which enables those who do a lot of that work in the cities, the service workers to be able to live. in summary, the responsibility is on national governments and cities themselves to sell themselves and i think cities can be the model of what we would like our world to be. more inclusive, more tolerant, more excepting, more open, innovative. we have to have some shared prosperity and benefits. >> thanks very much. i should mention we will open up the floor pretty soon. we will open it up digitally

because we are living in a digital world rather than virtually. you can accessen our webpage if you put that into your browser and your smartphone, you can type in vote ons there and questions you think we should ask and we will turn to that in a minute. i want to go from the nation to an international perspective on how cities can cope with these issues and increasingly cities are looking not just to their national governments or to their peripheries, they are looking to counterparts in other parts of the world to address the problem. in order to find solutions. you are active in something you have called urban diplomacy is an initiative. describe what it is you're trying to do specifically with those issues and the impact you are seeing as it relates to

overcoming some of the divisions and tensions that you find in your own city and society. >> happy to address that, one thing we did in article uncle big cities had a caucus of the biggest cities which represented a huge proportion of the members of parliament. we put all the parties, put their feet to the fire and we maintain unity. successful because they could not avoid us, we were together and we represent the population of the country. it was not so much and to convince people, it was a matter of convincing the politicians who we were electing and it worked and because we stayed united it worked very well. on the question you asked, we have the good fortune in canada where a lot of what we would do through urban to promisee is i

think cities should be in and world,al -- in an ideal there should be consistency and on things like open trade, climate change, open immigration and so on, we have the good fortune that most of the cities and country, all of them have used and values and aspirations that are consistent with the national aspirations in their regard. there been diplomacy today has a lot more to do with the practical delivery of services and the solution of some of the problems we have talked about. who integrates refugees? the policy, who integrates them, cities do. who builds public transportation, who fixes the environment? in large measure big -- in terms of the day today retrofitting of buildings, to get cars off the

road. do people invest in cities or do the invest in countries? there is no hard and fast rule but they are investing in city regions area -- city regions, not countries. i do not mean this to be disrespectful of our national government. they are ripping us off when it comes to the fact that we have those responsibilities we do not have the ability, we are subservient and do not have the ability to raise money we are responsible for doing. learn more from a meeting with rahm emanuel in chicago or with the mayor of jerusalem about all those things i just mentioned. i'm going to learn from meeting with most people in the national government or other national governments. they're not delivering the services on a day-to-day basis, we are. from talking to anybody that i find the urban diplomacy allows us the sit in a room

with people who have like responsibilities and compare how you're doing it. that is where the rubber meets the road and almost every one of these interests -- issues. on everything else that matters to people and make them whole and the context of our country, it is in cities. >> that is a good segue to your experience, take that one wheree of sustainability cities have come together because they are the ones who are responsible for the problem. but responsible for its solution . can you talk a little bit about how you cooperated together, how you try to influence national governments on these issues because that is a key issue. how you learned, take the point, learning from other cities in a practical way to achieve real results. makes it was good that john tory spoke for me.

we could make a sweet transition here. presentation, i will talk about that. [inaudible] i left office, i am not looking for more power here. remember what i said first, there is a problem with the representative democracy. isch level of government leading the everyday problems of the people. which is the level of government that is doing more and more with the issues that matters to people. listen and i do not think we need to get rid of national governments.

there needs to be a transition, there needs to be a change their where most of the revenues, most of the taxes do not go to the central governments. that is something, that is a model that is not working anymore. it will keep not working. decentralize. we need to give more power to mayors, and the world will become urbanized because the cities are fantastic -- a experience. people like to live in cities. that is why the world's been doing more urbanized. institutions. in talked a little bit about urban city diplomacy or whatever. i remember it was created almost 16 years ago, but in 2012 we had this -- that's the picture there -- we had this summit in rio.

that was in 1992. national states got together in rio. no decision. they could not agree with certain commas or periods on the tax. mayors got together and there , are actions that we copied from toronto and new york and copy from chicago. a bunch of great experiences. when we look at the figures, cities can do 40% of the tax. -- of the task. paris, there was an agreement. -- when we went to paris, there was an agreement. it seems like there wasn't a disagreement anymore. president trump went last week are out of the paris agreement. i can guarantee you the united deliveringapable of

what was the paris agreement. i know the american mayors are very committed to that. if mayors get together and and get things done, i really believe there is , despitebe a point the fact that diplomacy is different, but there will be a point where most of the changes, the world that we want to live in will be run by cities and mayors. they will play a major role and that is why i am optimistic. things will get better.

i think this will get local governments to be more powerful and the changes will be stronger. to thent to go back slightly less optimistic version of the one eduardo just put on the table. one portly, our national politics are divergent. in some places. certainly, we saw it in the brexit vote in the u.k. and the vote here in our country. -- if you belive you believee -- if there is some division between the national politics and the way big cities are approaching the problem, how do you overcome that problem? have independent city states. that is a given. had you make sure the national

politics continue to have the open markets and bordersopen mad minds that we used to have in our western politics? how do we have cities and nations come together in the right way? is this something just in the transition phase that we shouldn't worry about? how do you see it? everything is in a transition phase because we are in transition from where we are to where we are going. yes, we are in a transition phase. we are in a bigger transition days. if you look at this particularly from the european point of view, the development of our political institutions, we have been living through the area of the nationstates when that has been

dominant. more power has been concentrated in nationstates. that is from the french revolution --from french revolution and onwards. we have seen that reflected in a number of elections, but we see there is a need for more powers. more powers of things that need to be sorted out. global trade, sustainability, those things are in if we go back a couple of decades. there is a need to devote power. there is a demand from people and there is a need because need to beproblem's addressed and different ways. that means we do have tension not astionstates being dominant as they were but still

dominant in the perception of people who say that in elections. regionalfor more of a of regional autonomy. i think this is one way of sorting out the problems that indicates the tensions that could be there. at the end of the day, what you want is for cities or nations to sort out the problems they have to meet the demands they desire for security or public services or jobs. having the appropriate political structure is key to making that possible. political structures will have to be slightly different in the future then what was dominating in the european development for 200 years or something like that of until now. this is slightly philosophical.

the importance of cities , they are the nationstates in europe. a few people have heard about the holy roman empire of the german nation, but it was there for 1000 years. there wereity, different cities that were united by the same rules for commerce and trading groups and developing technologies and things like that. these are fairly glorious. in terms of development, but it was looser on that particular area. i think we are returning to that. here in allenge

governance sense is that you you global challenges and require global cooperation treaty cities are not participating in that level of government this is perhaps a challenge we face. is there a way in which the it canent structure says bring power down? u.n.hey bring it up to the level and the eu level. in some ways, international organizations need to become ifn to non-national voices, not non-national books. that is where the tension is starting. ed if you look at what happen in the meeting of the united nations, mayors are meeting there.

when you look at paris, it was a completely different environment. if it might because get to the mayors, it can get us into trouble. again, it is a way of getting closer to the reality. nk institutions are much more open to mayors now. i think part of this is the s view.the new, -- crisi openness andabout a sense of sharing of the world as where we want to go, then the igical consequence is -- would go back but it doesn't really matter -- the world in is "abovereignty

solute" and is concentrated in nationstates, which are structures designed for obedience, and that concept -- which is clearly what has returned in the brexit vote and in the last election here, no doubt about it -- what happens when you are frightened. that is one conception, which to be the absolutely wrong conception. that is not the way we can continue. the right way, if we need to continue as a species well and successfully, we have to diffuse that measure. this is not how it always was. in which power is ,istributed horizontally

starting at the global level and all the way down to localities. for the nationstates and those who rely on the nationstate to this concept is terrifying. i think we -- that i absolutely have no doubt this is where we have to go. the european union was a great attempt to achieve that. that's one of the reason why i find the brexit vote so horrifying. in some ways, the united states. as a federal state is a great attempt to do this. can we make is, this where power is divided in a horizontal way? different way of organizing the world. if we do not organize the world that way, i think we will destroy ourselves. >> let it go to some of the

questions that have been asked. one of those is on the role of the private sector, which we really focused on the public sector here. but the role of the private sector, which, in some ways is not bound by national boundaries. have the private sector be a force to help address part of these problems? theill have to rely on private sector being a economic force. what is the role of the private sector in making the case for cities coming more powerful? on?o you want to take that perhaps maybe incorporating into it the way in which cities are adopting the global agendas. two significant once

that came out of 2015. the parent -- the paris climate agreement and sustainable development. they can't be implemented unless cities do the heavy lifting because the size and the scale of the global cities in the world economy. while cities are not represented citiesu.n., without the being active, nothing much is going to happen great -- to happen. we have seen encouraging trends in the interest of the global private sector. partya climate change every year, as i have for the last eight years during the global private sector is there and constructively there. -- make it criticisms from you may get criticisms from some ngos. there are some natural

alliance is there between the global cities, the global private sector seeing things have to be done to move with the times. the leadership in the cities and the global iva sector will carry it through. >> what i think is going to happen automatically is this will be a driver. look at what is happening now with the development. momentlk about it for a and it will be different five years from now. phenomenon.ban the leadership of airbnb, you look at cities, be that chicago, shanghai, stockholm. you look at airbnb the same.

if you're in the business of agriculture or machinery, you might have a different perspective. otherwise, they will see these developments and they will compare the markets and they will look at opportunities in respectively of national borders. they are driving it and the it and the digital age will be fosters. -- be fostered. change,ing of climate the development of the new methodologies with respect to energy. willll come to pride -- it come from private ingenuity and capital. i think we need to get over the fear and anxiety. everybody is going to get ripped off and so on and so on. i think we have to remember, when the government do is they don't have a lot of ingenuity when it comes to development and new products, but they do have

the upper hand in terms of regulating those things. you can remember the government have the upper hand but then harvest the ingenuity. is there a role or should there be a role? we cannot cope with the transition to the digital age solving problems like climate change without discipline from the private sector, properly overseen by those with the position to do so. i always find difficulty. suppose what i feel -- it is clear the private sector's capitalism is global. marx wrote about this. across naturally go borders. we have a very global capitalist system at the moment. it brings these benefits we talk about.

by many of theen people who are angry, and understandably so. it started with the people who bandoned them.- a when mr. trump get on the phone is is you shouldn't take your factory to x, he is responding to a need. i think the job of the private sector is more complex than this. they have to be global because they are. they have to see the world abandon, but they can't the people of the countries in which they operate and for which they began. if they do, they will be seen and they are seen as fundamentally as loyal. -- disloyal. -- will give you one answe i will give you one answer.

one responsibility they had is to pay tax. the taxn't just exploit system, they created the tax system. let us be clear for their benefits. this is absolutely subversive of democratic governments and it is not tolerable. [applause] >> i will say, that is the big focus. i watch in our own city was really happening. we represent much more of the solution we are talking about. two-personing from businesses and four-person businesses. global capitalism is big differences that are global by definition, but there are more of these small, local businesses where people figure it is better to create a job instead of not knowing how to get one. i think that is part of the transition referred to earlier on as part of the digital age. of them become global

overnight. even small businesses can be global. that is a genuine part of the digital revolution. >> it does raise a final question that i want to pick up from the audience. it raises the question of leadership. we have two national leaders and two local leaders. >> the only one that is in power -- [laughter] >> we have experience at the local level. of leadership at the local level, desiring to change? does that need to change? it used to be that you came from the bottom and became a city councilmember, then a mayor, then the governor, then a senator, then the vice president or president. what kind of leadership we need

to address the kinds of questions we have been discussing here for the last hour? four here whom i know have the answer. >> i would go to what i said in the beginning. being a leader, being a office,an, running for you need to get closer to people. i think we came to a moment were politicians were too far away realities, and that is a big problem. the higher you go it will be tougher. going to local politics. i don't mean you need to be a city councilmember than a mayor whatever.gressman, otherwise, president trump would it be the president of the united date. the thing up -- the united

states. think workingi at the local level makes you become a better leader. i think the leadership of the city really matters and i think the government really matters too. the cities of the smaller countries, like my own, need to be well governments. they need to be able to perform, as we would ask that many nations it to do. neednk leaders in cities to really be seen and a way of premieres. they need to set the tone of tolerance and inclusion in their cities. they need to set the vision of what the city can be economically and socially.

they need to practice inclusive government. they need to be accountable. we're setting quite a high standard, more than just being this elected chair of the council. it is somebody who can stand up take a vision of where the city can go. >> i think in order to be an effective national leader, you localo have a bit of experience, local politics, absolutely. i think -- i wouldn't say absolutely necessary. you need to have a global perspective. or global.uropean, the cities are becoming far more global. i started in politics by being elected to the stockholm council. some of them were boring. i have absolutely no influence over anything because it was run

by local urography, but i did learn a number of things, also by challenging the local bureaucracy. i benefited from that when i was dealing with legislation later on. locallected me to the whatever it was called, the community leadership. departmentstribute between the priest. i learned a lot. you learned a bunch of international things, which are equally boring. i think it is incredibly important upon structure. think it is very difficult to govern the city well if it is not integrated with the city region in which it is. i can give many examples.

i thought about this a lot. the structure in new york city is very difficult. it is divided amongst many states and it sucks. when problem in london is the greater london area is much too small. the region is where it could be solved, but it is not under its control. city regions have to be governed as regions. importantlievably that the cities need the relevant supplies to solve their problems. your mistaken attempt at independence. nevermind. [laughter] >> we won't go there.

governants -- governments are jealous of fiscal power. written is extreme, but far too much is concentrated at the national level. it is hard if you don't control the revenue. i know a bit about india because i worked on it. this is a monstrously big problem in india because it is of the level at which plenty this and revenue comes. the chinese do it better. the structural questions are very important if we are going to get the future cities to work. >> i disassociate myself with the comments of helen and martin. have the quality of leadership necessary to get the job done. first.ple look

they look first to the cities to solve any problem. they are oblivious to and themrated by you telling it is some other local was --ents who is governan responsible for thatce -- governance responsible for that. in our country, eight cents of the dollar is collected by the responsibilities of the city. fiveve to rely on -- iris -- i described myself as a little boy in short pants. they and the people expect us to do these things. that has to be addressed. it is not a matter of who is in office.

thank you so much for getting us started today. [applause] next thursday on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and in depth look at the over your epidemic including ohio attorney general who is suing several drug companies for their marketing of opioid painkillers. >> what is different about this problem is how pervasive it is. it is everywhere. it is in our smallest communities and our cities and our most affluent suburbs. >> friday at 8:00, a profile interview with tom price. >> i think my passion for trying to help people and a healthy society, this just feels like the culmination of a life's work. the 20 plus years in critical

practice caring for patients which were rewarding overlapped with the 20 plus years i had in the representative life, the state, senate, and in congress. to have the opportunity at this pivotal time in our nations history and a health care system we have to leave this remarkable department is as fulfilling as anything. >> 8:30 p.m. with the supreme court justice elena kagan. >> you said we are not a pure democracy, we are a constitutional democracy. that means the judiciary has an important role to play in policing the boundaries of all the other branches. that can make the judiciary and unpopular -- an unpopular set of people when they face of the governor or president or congress, no, you cannot do that because it is not within your

constitutional powers. >> watch on c-span and the c-span.org and listen using the free c-span radio app. >> on thursday, a memorial service was held in charlottesville, virginia. heather heyer was killed saturday when a driver hit her. she was 32 years old. this is just over an hour. >> hi. my name is kathy, and heather's mother and i have been best friends for a while. we are so close we call each other sisters. so i have been asked to welcome every one of you here today. we are here to remember heather heyer. and to say goodbye.