**2. Literature Review**

The Smart City paradigm is often optimistically presented as a strategic driver for success in the global network of city competition [19]. With the dominance of information and communication, and technologies as the key strategic vector of economic growth, cities must become "smart", integrating innovative hardware, software and the intensive use of big data and social networks [20]. It can be argued that the rhetoric of the Smart City is the evolution of those positions claiming the need for cities to become competitive agents attracting talent and fostering a creative environment, with economic innovation as the only path towards minimally inclusive societies [21,22]. The "smart" strategy would allow cities not only to compete in a globalized market but also to become more efficient and sustainable, offering economic progress and well-being not only to the more skilled segments of the workforce.

Indeed, this vision follows the dominant approach in urban studies and globalization. It is argued that cities can be better understood as nodes of a network [23,24]. Instead of classical hierarchical models, Castells [25] defined cities participating in global networks as "spaces of flows". Within contemporary capitalism, the network approach can reinterpret Friedman's definition of cities [26] as basing points of "spatial organization and articulation of production and markets". In the public policy sphere, the metaphor of cities as nodes in a network has resulted in an optimistic expectation about the emergence of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and contemporary globalization taking over the determinant role that "place" had traditionally played in shaping the potential success of cities [21,27]. To do so, cities must cooperate with public and private organizations providing infrastructure and an adequate environment to promote start-ups and attract innovative firms.

In contrast, critical studies highlight that, as a consequence of this dominant Smart City rhetoric, the goal of urban sustainability and economic development becomes the commodification of the city and urban policy [7,28]. The existing evidence suggests that being "smart" and integrated into global flows is associated with higher levels of wealth and competitiveness, and to stronger positions in the global network of cities. For instance, Caragliu and Nijkamp [1] find that the intensity of ICT use is correlated with urban wealth, while, in a similar vein, Wall and Stavrapoulos [15] show that GDP levels and the attraction of foreign direct investments are associated to the "smartness" of a city. The intense pursuit of public policies aimed at increasing the competitive capacities of cities might then show that embracing the standardized practices of Smart Cities would not alter existing hierarchies. On the contrary, the consolidation of this paradigm can reinforce the power of big firms instead of balancing the potential of cities, an even deepen the existing inequalities. All in all, big firms are well equipped to succeed in this competitive, innovative and technological paradigm. Cities' and firms' networks reflect the structure of the current process of globalization, but they are fundamental agents of globalization that play a key role in defining which cities become global [17,29]. Indeed, the study of city and corporate relations as a dual network has suggested that inequality is greater among cities than among firms, with the former more conditioned by their geographical situation and other classical factors than an optimistic view of ICTs would allow, while the latter more flexible in seeking competitive advantages.

Thus, whether the Smart City epitomizes a deregulated global capitalism, increasing inequalities, commodification, privatization and deregulated and depoliticized public institutions is a matter of controversy. There are critical voices that refer to the Smart City paradigm as an empty concept, reflecting the worldview of the neoliberal project [6,19,30]. Under such a dominant market-oriented conception of global networks, cities can become an instrumental device for the intra-national expansion of corporations. From this perspective, cities would have a subordinated role in the configuration of current geographies of globalization, with the Smart City rhetoric permeating urban strategies not only in large but also medium-sized cities.

However, there is limited evidence on how this emerging paradigm affects regional or national networks (see, for instance, [31] for a longitudinal perspective on Smart City networks in China). Research has often focused on global city networks and big firms from advanced business services, and much less on medium-sized and technology-oriented enterprises. Other contributions focus on qualitative case studies or small comparative analyses [32,33], but little has been done on regional networks taking into consideration medium-sized cities and firms. In this sense, the research presented here provides evidence on how cities and firms operate in an institutionalized national network. In doing so, it adds some insights that can be useful to explore the limits and possibilities of the deployment of Smart City strategies to develop local/national smart technologies and economies.
