[Paper published in International Development Planning Review, 29 (4)]
Spatial transformation in peri-urban areas has provided an emerging picture of the growth of many metropolitan regions in developing countries. In this paper, we present a new perspective on this transformation from the viewpoint of the developing and transitional countries of East Asia, and suggest its potential implications for planning and governance. Drawing from number of earlier studies in Indonesia, China, Thailand and the Philippines, first, we reveal the uniqueness of peri-urbanisation in these countries in relation to its dependence on the metropolitan centres, capital accumulation and dynamic coexistence of urban and rural livelihoods. Although we acknowledge the growing contribution of peri-urban areas to regional economies, this is still at the expense of spatial cohesion, regional sustainability and quality of the physical environment. It is argued that these undesirable consequences have been a reflection of fragmented institutional landscapes, particularly at the regional level. In order to address this institutional fragmentation, we suggest a need to transform current domestic planning systems, strengthen collaborative approaches, promote innovative institution-building and consider rescaling of governance.Keywords: East Asia; institutional change; peri-urban areas; peri-urbanisation; planning adaptation.
4 comments:
Well, thats great!
Now, you can contribute to our urban development, here, in Indonesia. :)
Anyway, lam kenal... Hebat euy.
Bagi2 donk ilmunya.
eh kang, saya cari paper yang ini ga ada euy di perpus saya
minta dunks...
sama yang Planning Institution in Transition of Indonesia (ada sih di library, cuma ga bisa didownload euy)
japri ya...
nuhun
Congrats, yah! Another good work of yours. Nanti saya baca juga artikelnya..
Nice writing.. One of the main characteristics of regional-system in most South-East Asian countries is the existence of desakota (MacGee's definition) area. It's "born" from the development planning sytem focused in macro-economic growth (central place theory). It had caused enormous regional disparities in many developing countries including Indonesia. So, I think the desakota area must be seen as an impact of problem rather than a development "style" occuring in the SEA countries... The solution that Douglass and Friedmann offer is to focus in increasing added value (activities) in rural areas so that creating more balancing rural-urban interaction...
Post a Comment