December 10, 2025

The increasing role of cities in global governance has sparked debates about how urban centres navigate international relations. With globalisation accelerating inter-city interactions, city networks have emerged as crucial platforms for policy exchange, advocacy, and cooperation. Despite claims that cities are rising as independent global actors, national governments continue to exert significant influence over international policymaking. This tension between urban agency and state sovereignty is particularly evident in Singapore, a city-state that occupies a unique position in this global hierarchy. Unlike most cities that operate within national frameworks, Singapore enjoys full sovereign authority, allowing it to engage in global diplomacy and international affairs in ways that other cities cannot. 

In ‘National Sovereignty Across City Networks: Singapore and the Diplomacy of a Global City-State’ (Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 2024), Dr Ricardo Martinez (NUS Asia Research Institute) and Professor Tim Bunnell (NUS Geography and NUS Asia Research Institute) explore Singapore’s exceptional role in city diplomacy. They examine how Singapore selectively engages with city networks, leveraging its status as both a city and nation-state to shape global urban governance. They contend that while city networks provide avenues for collaboration among municipalities worldwide, Singapore’s participation is guided by a hierarchical logic that prioritises state-based diplomatic channels. They contrast Singapore’s privileged position with the constrained agency of other cities, which necessitates reliance on transnational networks to gain political visibility and influence. 

Interestingly, the researchers find that Singapore is highly selective in its engagement with city networks, preferring those that align with its strategic interests. Unlike many global cities that actively seek membership in multiple networks, Singapore participates in only a few, such as C40 and the Resilient Cities Network, while bypassing others like the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). This selective approach reflects Singapore’s broader strategy of positioning itself as a model of urban governance rather than merely a participant in global city collaborations. Moreover, Singapore’s ability to mobilise national diplomatic resources, such as leveraging its foreign affairs ministry, gives it an advantage that other cities lack. 

The case of Singapore highlights the enduring dominance of nation-states in international governance, challenging the narrative that cities are emerging as independent global actors. While city networks serve as crucial platforms for urban policy exchange, they remain structurally constrained by state-centric frameworks. For policymakers, this raises questions about the extent to which city networks can genuinely alter power dynamics in a world still largely governed by nation-states. 

Read the article here.