「世界城市」的研究成為近來西方都市與空間研究的熱門話題，本文引用
Friedmann (1995) 所建議的二個類型的分析：一是「世界城市的範型」，二是「世
界城市的假說」。延伸這個分類的方法，本文認為這二項不同的研究類型在後續
的研究中給予不同名詞的定義：一是所謂的世界「城市」，主要在於討論城市所
具有的世界城市特徵，以及在全球城市系統所佔有的地位；另一個研究定義則是
所謂的全球化的城市，它所說明的是藉由不同的政治、社會、經濟和文化等面向
提供城市研究的框架。若從研究標的所發展的取向而言，前者代表了藉由全球化
所凝聚的趨同效果，它說明了將世界中的所有城市藉由全球城市體系的效果放置
在不同層級和不同面向，卻同一定義的世界城市範疇中；後者則從個別的城市條
件與動態出發，說明這些城市與全球性之間的糾葛與邏輯，以及邁向全球化的趨
異過程，其中近來許多學者所提供的空間再層域化研究正代表了這個趨勢。本文
的結論則藉由兩個不同類型研究的比較，建議在世界城市理論氛圍下發展「非世
界城市」研究的可能性。

“World City” has dominated at the urban and spatial research in the West for a couple of decades, Friedmann (1995) grouped this empirical research into two groups:one is “world city paradigm”; and the other is “world city hypothesis”. Based onmFriedmann’s argument of these two theoretical frameworks, this paper tries to denominate and accentuate the two different research themes: one is so-called “world city-ness”, mainly analyzing the condition of world city and evaluating the position of
global urban system for each candidate city; and the other is “globalizing city”,providing a research framework for urban study from different aspects, such as economy, politic, society, and culture etc.. The former delivers a result of convergence under globalization effectively, which embodies the qualified city an identity of world
city, according to different global urban hierarchies, and different aspects, but same term; and the latter, starting from each city’s policy dynamic, gives an account of complexities and logic between city and globalism, and a divergent process of going to global, thus introducing “rescaling” as a sample. Beyond this comparison between
these two divisions, this paper concludes by emphasizing the potential concepts of non-world city for exploring a new way in urban and regional studies.