The rise of global megacities as independent political actors: The cases of Singapore and Seoul

Download article
Article

The rise of global megacities as independent political actors: The cases of Singapore and Seoul

Turar Ibragimov

Received 04.02.2026, Revised 12.05.2026, Accepted 19.06.2026

https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2026.4

Retrieved from Vol. 2, No. 1, 2026

Pages 36-52

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the institutional patterns underlying the development of political agency in the global megacities of Singapore and Seoul. The methodological basis of the study was a comprehensive comparative political and institutional analysis, utilising qualitative and structural-functional methods for analysing documents and case studies. The analysis confirmed that megacities have acquired the characteristics of independent political actors capable of shaping the international order through institutional, network-based and diplomatic mechanisms. A comparison of the concepts of the global city, urban diplomacy, paradiplomacy, and multi-level and network governance revealed that each of these concepts explained a distinct level of cities’ political activity, whilst their combination formed a comprehensive model of political agency. An analysis of Singapore demonstrated that international influence is achieved through the integration of state sovereignty, strategic planning and a unified system of political coordination. The study of Seoul revealed a different model, in which the lack of international legal personality is offset by active participation in global urban networks, the development of digital governance and the export of governance practices. A comparative analysis of international activity identified differences between the vertical diplomacy of a city-state and the horizontal network of partnerships characteristic of a municipal metropolis. A synthesis of the results revealed that the potential for international scaling was greater in the Seoul model, whilst the Singapore model retained its unique character through the combination of the functions of a sovereign state and a global city. The findings are intended for use by government bodies, municipal administrations, strategic planning centres and researchers in the field of urban governance when developing models of international integration, digital development programmes and strategies to strengthen the political agency of major cities

References
  1. Act of the Republic of Korea No. 4371 “On Special Cases Concerning the Administration of Seoul Special Metropolitan City”. (1991, May). Retrieved from https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=47153&type=sogan&key=15.
  2. Acuto, M., Kosovac, A., & Hartley, K. (2021). City diplomacy: Another generational shift? Diplomatica, 3(1), 137-146.
  3. Acuto, M., Pejic, D., Mokhles, S., Leffel, B., Gordon, D., Martinez, R., Cortes, S., & Oke, C. (2024). What three decades of city networks tell us about city diplomacy’s potential for climate action. Nature Cities, 1(7), 451-456. doi: 10.1038/s44284-024-00081-1.
  4. Alkanalka, M. (2024). City diplomacy against the global climate change threat: U20 case study. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 23(89), 37-50. doi: 10.17755/esosder.1268184.
  5. Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2014). The political economy of city branding. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203782187.
  6. Attorney-General’s Chambers. (2025). The legislative process: How laws in Singapore are made. Retrieved from https://www.agc.gov.sg/our-roles/drafter-of-laws/the-legislative-process/.
  7. Baek, S. (2026). Seoul 100-year plan: From typological to topological urban identity. Frontiers of Architectural Research. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2025.12.006.
  8. Barcelona City Council. (2024). Retrieved from https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/digital/en/news/news/barcelona-continues-to-consolidate-itself-as-a-hub-for-technological-entrepreneurship-in-europe-1398993.
  9. Barcelona City Council. (2026). Retrieved from https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/turisme/en/latest-news/news/barcelona-celebrates-20-years-of-digital-innovation-alongside-the-mobile-world-congress-1605429.
  10. Boquet, Y. (2024). Sustainable urbanisation in Southeast Asian megacities: The contrasting cases of Singapore and Manila. In B.R.K. Sinha (Ed.), Urban dynamics, environment and health (pp. 81-106). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-5744-6_2.
  11. Bouteligier, S. (2013). Inequality in new global governance arrangements: The North-South divide in transnational municipal networks. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(3), 251-267. doi: 10.1080/13511610.2013.771890.
  12. Byun, M., & Yoon, J. (2023). The Seoul institute annual research digest & abstracts 2021·2022. Retrieved from https://global.si.re.kr/bbs/view.do?key=2411060012&pstSn=2502030017.
  13. C40 Cities. (2024a). Retrieved from https://www.c40.org/news/c40-cities-2024-in-focus/.
  14. C40 Cities. (2024b). What happened at COP29 in Baku? Retrieved from https://www.c40.org/news/what-happened-at-cop29-in-baku/.
  15. C40 Cities. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.c40.org/about-c40/.
  16. Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore. (2025). Retrieved from https://knowledgehub.clc.gov.sg/liveability-framework/integrated-master-planning-and-development/.
  17. Cha, H.-Y. (2025). Seoul and global city networks: A study of Seoul’s engagement with C40 and U20. Seoul: Seoul National University Repository.
  18. COP29 Declaration on Multisectoral Actions Pathways (MAP) to Resilient and Healthy Cities. (2024). Retrieved from https://cop29.az/en/pages/cop29-declaration-on-multisectoral-actions-pathways-map-to-resilient-and-healthy-cities.
  19. Côté, C., Estrin, S., & Shapiro, D. (2020). Expanding the international trade and investment policy agenda: The role of cities and services. Journal of International Business Policy, 3(3), 199-223. doi: 10.1057/s42214-020-00053-x.
  20. Dang, Q.A. (2025). Learning cities: National concepts and practices in selected Asian and European countries. In S.Ó Tuama, E. Agbessi & T. Neylon (Eds.), Global perspectives on learning cities (pp. 23-40). Singapore: Springer.
  21. DIFC. (2025). Record 20th anniversary year results solidify DIFC’s position as region’s number one global financial centre. Retrieved from https://www.difc.com/whats-on/news/record-20th-anniversary-year-results-solidify-difcs-position.
  22. Egyed, I., Horeczki, R., & Rácz, S. (2024). Urban empowerment factors and issues in the context of international networks. Strategic Papers on Northern Hungary, 21(4), 97-108. doi: 10.32976/stratfuz.2024.44.
  23. Eurocities. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://eurocities.eu.
  24. European Commission. (2024). Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/eu-funded-ai-innovation-powers-new-era-cooperative-smart-city-development.
  25. Fernández de Losada, A. (2022). City diplomacy and the war in Ukraine: Towards a municipalism of blocs? Retrieved from https://www.cidob.org/en/publications/city-diplomacy-and-war-ukraine-towards-municipalism-blocs.
  26. Global Power City Index 2024. (2024). Retrieved from https://www.mori-m-foundation.or.jp/pdf/GPCI2024_summary.pdf.
  27. Goode, K., Kim, H.M., & Deng, M. (2023). Examining Singapore’s AI progress. Retrieved from https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Examining-Singapores-AI-Progress.pdf.
  28. GovTech Singapore. (2026). International collaboration. Retrieved from https://www.tech.gov.sg/products-and-services/collaborate-with-us/international-collaboration/.
  29. Greater London Authority. (2025). Digital and data programmes. Retrieved from https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/business-and-economy/mayors-priorities-londons-economy-and-business/smart-london/digital-and-data-programmes.
  30. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://icleicanada.org/about-iclei/our-network/.
  31. ICLEI East Asia. (2024). 2024 SHRDC international training programmes. Retrieved from https://eastasia.iclei.org/2024-shrdc-international-training-programs/.
  32. Joo, Y.-M. (2023). Developmentalist smart cities? The cases of Singapore and Seoul. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 27, 164-182. doi: 10.1080/12265934.2021.1925143.
  33. Kamiński, T., & Matiaszczyk, N. (2023). City networks as tools of city diplomacy: The case of Seoul. In OBIC book series (pp.43-63). Budapest: Budapesti Gazdasági Egyetem. doi: 10.29180/978-615-6342-64-5_2.
  34. Kim, Y.E., Kim, S., & Lee, J.S. (2025). Economic prosperity characteristics in depopulating cities: Evidence from 146 cities in South Korea. The Annals of Regional Science, 74, article number 62. doi: 10.1007/s00168-025-01388-0.
  35. Kundu, D., Pandey, A., Kintrea, K., Everatt, D., & Wang, Y.P. (2026). Rethinking urban policies in the Global South: Challenges and prospects. In D. Kundu, D. Everatt, K. Kintrea & Y.P. Wang (Eds.), Urban policy for sustainable development in the Global South (pp. 1-22). Singapore: Springer.
  36. Lee, H.-C. (2025). City-driven regionalism in Asia: From nation-state limits to urban leadership. International Area Studies Review, 28(4), 405-423. doi: 10.69473/iasr.2025.28.4.405.
  37. Lee, M.-G. (2025). Characteristics and development directions of Seoul’s city diplomacy towards Beijing. Retrieved from https://global.si.re.kr/bbs/view.do?key=2411060001&pstSn=2506270006.
  38. Liando, D.M., Ganaie, N.A., & Yuslaini, N. (2026). Smart City 2.0 governance policy model: Institutional configurations and the politics of urban inclusion in India, Singapore, and Indonesia. Frontiers in Political Science, 8, article number 1730870. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2026.1730870.
  39. Lim, S.S., & Chng, G. (2024). Verifying AI: Will Singapore’s experiment with AI governance set the benchmark? Communication Research and Practice, 10(3), 297-306. doi: 10.1080/22041451.2024.2346416.
  40. Marks, G., & Hooghe, L. (2003). National identity and support for European integration. Retrieved from https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/11155.
  41. Martinez, R., & Bunnell, T. (2024). National sovereignty across city networks: Singapore and the diplomacy of a global city-state. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 42(7). doi: 10.1177/23996544241226855.
  42. Matviienko, O. (2025). State sovereignty: Problems, principles of implementation and globalisation. Cultural Almanac, 1(13), 233-238. doi: 10.31392/cult.alm.2025.1.25.
  43. Metropolis. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.metropolis.org/who-we-are/about-metropolis/.
  44. Musthofa, B.M., Pranita, D., Nanda, S.S., & Koo, C. (2025). Urban political economies of sustainable tourism: Comparing Jakarta and Seoul. Journal of ASEAN Studies, 13(2), 289-324. doi: 10.21512/jas.v13i2.14403.
  45. National Climate Change Secretariat. (2026). Retrieved from https://www.nccs.gov.sg/who-we-are/inter-ministerial-committee-on-climate-change/.
  46. OECD & UN-Habitat. (2024). Global state of national urban policy 2024: Building resilience and promoting adequate, inclusive and sustainable housing. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/4db6994c-en.
  47. OECD. (2023). Smart city data governance: Challenges and the way forward. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/e57ce301-en.
  48. OECD. (2024). OECD regions and cities at a glance 2024. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/f42db3bf-en.
  49. OECD. (2025). Implementing the OECD recommendation on regional development policy toolkit. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  50. Ordinance of the Republic of Korea No. 7781 “Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Charter of Autonomy”. (2020, December). Retrieved from https://legal.seoul.go.kr/legal/english/front/page/law.html?pAct=lawView&pPromNo=4694.
  51. Panke, D., & Stapel, S. (2024). Multi-level governance. In P. de Lombaerde (Ed.), Handbook of regional cooperation and integration (pp. 417-430). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781800373747.00028.
  52. Prime Minister’s Office Singapore, Strategy Group. (2026). Who we are. Retrieved from https://www.strategygroup.gov.sg/who-we-are/.
  53. Prime Minister’s Office Singapore. (2024). Retrieved from https://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/pm-lawrence-wong-at-the-launch-of-smart-nation/.
  54. Riedemann, B. (2025). Daring Cities 2024: Powering collective action to respond to the climate emergency. Bonn: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.
  55. Sassen, S. (2001). Global cities and global city-regions: A comparison. In A.J. Scott (Ed.), Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policy (pp. 78-95). Oxford: OUP Oxford.
  56. Schenk, T. (2017). Singapore: Adapting a strong city-state. In Adapting infrastructure to climate change (pp. 50-99). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315638973.
  57. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2019). WeGO-ASEAN mayoral conference. Retrieved from https://world.seoul.go.kr/wego-asean-mayoral-conference/.
  58. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2021). Framework ordinance on informatisation. Retrieved from https://legal.seoul.go.kr/legal/english/englishList.do.
  59. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (n.d.a). Seoul urban planning: Seoul 2040 comprehensive plan. Retrieved from https://english.seoul.go.kr/policy/urban-planning/seoul-urban-planning/.
  60. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (n.d.b). Vision & governance: Smart city council. Retrieved from https://english.seoul.go.kr/policy/smart-city/vision-governance/.
  61. Shin, H.B., & Gimm, D.-W. (Eds.). (2025). Situating megaprojects in Asia’s political economy of urbanisation. In The political economy of megaprojects in Asia (pp. 1-22). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315115078-1.
  62. Singapore Cooperation Programme. (2025). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://scp.gov.sg/startpublic/FAQ.
  63. Smart Nation Singapore. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/about/our-vision/sn2/.
  64. Sousa, R.G., Galina, S.V.R., & Lourenção, M. (2025). Unpacking the role of place branding and smart cities in attracting foreign direct investment: Theoretical perspectives and future research paths. Journal of Place Management and Development, 18(2), 279-299. doi: 10.1108/JPMD-06-2024-0066.
  65. Strategy Group, Prime Minister’s Office. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.strategygroup.gov.sg/.
  66. Swiney, C.F. (2020). The urbanisation of international law and international relations: The rising soft power of cities in global governance. Michigan Journal of International Law, 41(2), 227-278.
  67. Tavares, R. (2016). Paradiplomacy: Cities and states as global players. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  68. UCLG-MEWA. (n.d.). UCLG World Organisation. Retrieved from https://uclg-mewa.org/en/organization/uclg-world-organization/.
  69. UN-Habitat. (2024a). Retrieved from https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2024/11/pressrelease_outcomes_of_ministerial_meetings_on_urbanisation_and_climate_change_1.pdf.
  70. UN-Habitat. (2024b). World cities report 2024: Cities and climate action. Retrieved from https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report-2024-cities-and-climate-action.
  71. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). The Paris agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.
  72. United Nations Statistical Commission. (2020). Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/51st-session/documents/BG-Item3j-Recommendation-E.pdf.
  73. URA. (2025). Gazette of master plan 2025. Retrieved from https://www.ura.gov.sg/news/media/pr25-64/.
  74. URA. (n.d.a). Long-term plan. Retrieved from https://www.ura.gov.sg/land-planning/long-term-plan/.
  75. URA. (n.d.b). Master plan. Retrieved from https://www.ura.gov.sg/land-planning/master-plan/.
  76. Vaňová, A., Vitálišová, K., & Rojíková, D. (2023). Prospects of systems of megacities and individual megacities with respect to regional economy. In T.M. Vinod Kumar (Ed.), Indo-Pacific smart megacity system (pp. 163-206). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-6218-1_2.
  77. WeGO. (2024). Retrieved from https://we-gov.org/news-2023/the-wego-secretariat-is-at-the-2024-smart-city-summit-expo-scse/.
  78. WeGO. (2026). Retrieved from https://we-gov.org/news-2023/wego-kicks-off-2026-with-diplomatic-corps-wego-advisory-board-members-and-wego-members/.
  79. Wong, C., Hesse, M., & Sigler, T.J. (2022). City-states in relational urbanisation: The case of Luxembourg and Singapore. Urban Geography, 43(4), 501-522. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2021.1878331.
  80. Woods, O., Chang, I.-C.C., & Shin, H. (2025). Remaking the smart city through the COVID-19 pandemic: Seoul, Singapore, Taipei. Applied Geography, 174. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103773.
  81. World Cities Summit. (2024). Retrieved from https://www.worldcitiessummit.com.sg/qql/slot/u337/Partners%20%26%20Media/Media%20Releases/World%20Cities%20Summit%202024%20Returns%20for%20the%20Ninth%20Edition%20in%20Singapore.pdf.
  82. Xiao, R., Murayama, Y., Qin, K., Su, J., Gao, Z., Liu, L., Xu, G., & Jiao, L. (2024). Urban expansion in highly populous East Asian megacities during 1990-2020: Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, and Shanghai. Ecological Informatics, 83, article number 102843. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102843.
  83. Z/Yen Group & China Development Institute. (2025). The global financial centres index 37 (GFCI 37). Retrieved from https://www.zyen.com/publications/professional-articles/the-global-financial-centres-index-37/.
Suggested citation
Ibragimov, T. (2026). The rise of global megacities as independent political actors: The cases of Singapore and Seoul. Journal of Global Political Transformations, 2(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2026.4