Jennifer Robinson's "Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development" challenges the traditional dichotomy between global cities in wealthy nations and third-world cities in poorer countries, arguing that urban theory should not be based on the experiences of a few wealthy cities. Instead, she proposes a cosmopolitan comparative approach that includes a wide range of urban settings. Robinson critiques the Western-centric view of modernity and development, showing that modernity and tradition are interdependent. She argues that urban innovation is often the result of cosmopolitan interdependence rather than Western modernity. Robinson also critiques the world cities literature for focusing on a narrow sector of the global economy and neglecting many cities. She advocates for a city development strategy that considers the diversity of needs and activities within a city. Robinson calls for theoretical frameworks that appreciate the diversity of cities, focusing on the intertwining of social welfare and economic activities. She argues that policy makers and academics should question their understanding of city life by revisiting it through the lens of poor cities. Robinson's work challenges the binary thinking that has shaped the classification and study of cities, but she focuses primarily on the dichotomy between the West and the rest. By focusing on the hierarchical categorization of cities as developed or undeveloped, she implicitly reproduces the marginal position of non-English and non-American Western geographers. However, she also highlights the importance of considering smaller cities, towns, and villages, as their silencing reinforces the modernist notion that innovations occur in cities. By breaking down the binary between urban and rural geographies and bridging the divide between Anglo-Saxon and Continental urban theories, it is possible to fully appreciate the scope of Robinson's arguments.Jennifer Robinson's "Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development" challenges the traditional dichotomy between global cities in wealthy nations and third-world cities in poorer countries, arguing that urban theory should not be based on the experiences of a few wealthy cities. Instead, she proposes a cosmopolitan comparative approach that includes a wide range of urban settings. Robinson critiques the Western-centric view of modernity and development, showing that modernity and tradition are interdependent. She argues that urban innovation is often the result of cosmopolitan interdependence rather than Western modernity. Robinson also critiques the world cities literature for focusing on a narrow sector of the global economy and neglecting many cities. She advocates for a city development strategy that considers the diversity of needs and activities within a city. Robinson calls for theoretical frameworks that appreciate the diversity of cities, focusing on the intertwining of social welfare and economic activities. She argues that policy makers and academics should question their understanding of city life by revisiting it through the lens of poor cities. Robinson's work challenges the binary thinking that has shaped the classification and study of cities, but she focuses primarily on the dichotomy between the West and the rest. By focusing on the hierarchical categorization of cities as developed or undeveloped, she implicitly reproduces the marginal position of non-English and non-American Western geographers. However, she also highlights the importance of considering smaller cities, towns, and villages, as their silencing reinforces the modernist notion that innovations occur in cities. By breaking down the binary between urban and rural geographies and bridging the divide between Anglo-Saxon and Continental urban theories, it is possible to fully appreciate the scope of Robinson's arguments.