**5. Discussion**

The network analysis carried out for the Spanish Network of Smart-Cities (RECI) indicates that the latter is not able to involve a significant amount of its members. A high percentage of member cities only participate in a single Smart City project or in no project at all. The centrality measures computed in the analysis show a network characterized by a combination of low centrality scores and a high level of inequality. Only a handful of cities are able to have a brokering role, but they very rarely find themselves in this situation. As for the degree measures, complemented with the overall Gini index, we obtained a picture where inequality is indeed a key feature of the city network. Therefore, the data revealed that a small number of cities concentrate most of the connections, well above the other member cities. Moreover, they mostly correspond to Spain's larger cities, such as Madrid, Barcelona or Malaga, suggesting that cities that are already more powerful obtain better structural advantages from participating in the network. Thus, the network actually reinforces the existing hierarchies of cities, instead of leveling the field for medium-sized cities.

Concerning the role of companies, the core of Smart City development within the RECI network consists of a small number of corporations, with Spanish-capital multinational firms having the strongest presence. They represent key economic sectors with a strong technological component, from telecommunications (Telefónica and Abertis) to energy (Iberdrola and Endesa) and urban services and infrastructure (Acciona and Ferrovial). In this sense, the Spanish ecosystem of Smart City projects seems an opportunity to reinforce national companies, but only those with a strong international dimension. These elements are reflected by the Gini coefficient, with a small number of companies benefiting from the structural advantages of the network. This indicates that structural advantages are more available to the biggest companies, while medium-sized and national companies seem to have a poorer access to the network's possibilities. Moreover, the brokering role of bigger national companies seems to act as a hub for non-Spanish multinationals to gain access to the national market. Rather than having links with other non-Spanish firms, they tend to be related mostly with Spanish multinationals. Thus, the high proportion of international firms that are present in at least two cities reinforces the claim that participating in RECI's member cities is a way of accessing Spain's growing Smart City market, which, according to specialized reports, can reach billions of euros in the next years.

Thus, firms seem to benefit more from the network than cities, even though the original goal of the RECI is to strengthen cities' capabilities. In fact, this kind of institutionalized networks seems to strengthen a small group of cities and companies enjoying greater structural advantages, reinforcing the concentration dynamic and increasing the inequalities in the development of Smart Cities in Spain. As for non-central actors, neither medium-sized cities nor Spanish capital firms seem to obtain the same benefits from participating in the network, the exception being foreign-capital firms that may see an opportunity to access an emerging regional market. These contradictory outcomes show the necessity to move beyond discursive analysis based on the acceptance or rejection of the rhetoric underpinning Smart City discourse, based on market notions such as competitiveness, survival and efficiency. In order to understand how more progressive, inclusive and sustainable smart strategies can be deployed, it is necessary to explore the geographical relationalities in which the actually existing Smart City is produced [50] and, more particularly, the necessity to link place-based dynamics with supra-local network developments [15]. To sum up, this evidence has implications for the design and evaluation of actions aimed at developing Smart City initiatives. Our findings point to the necessity of establishing clear goals and indicators of evaluation when adopting Smart City initiatives. Otherwise, unexpected outcomes may arise which are actually detrimental to the formal objectives of the institutional policy.
