recipient of globalization but is in fact a much more complex process occurring at
many scales including at the level of national, regional, and local spaces.
This argument is captured neatly by Forbes who suggests that these macrorepresentations of globalization “. . . subsume the internal dynamics of urban development, the subtleties of local politics, the resilience of urban patterns of life, the
tensions embedded in fractured social structures, the multiple strands of modernity
and resistance to the imposition to change” (Forbes 1997). This is supported by
research by Leaf (1994, 1996, 2008) and Kusno (2000, 2010) arguing that the
growth of so-called “global spaces” such as the suburban developments in the fringe
of Jabotabek and the creation of commercial business districts within the inner core
represent the modernity and development upon which the legitimacy of Suharto’s
New Order society rested. At the same time, the persistence of the so-called
“disarticulated spaces” continued to resist this process.
At present, this urbanization view essentially uses the development modes of the
twentieth century, heavily reliant on oil/gas-dependent energy systems (Freud and
Martin 1999) and increasing incorporation into the global economic system, in a
process that is often labeled “globalization” (McGee and Watters 1997). This
developmental mode encourages the formation of large extended urban regions
that expand along arterial transport corridors from the urban cores of mega cities
to secondary cities that form an essential component of the mega-urban regions.
These urban regions often come to dominate the urban hierarchy both at a global and
at a national level (Scott 2001) and that have been variously described as mega-urban
regions, megalopolises, extended urban regions, metropolitan regions, and urban
agglomerations. The varying definitions also present problems of international
comparison. For example, in China, these urban regions were first identified by
Zhou (1991) as “Interlocking Metropolitan Regions,” a term that has some similarities with the concept of “Megalopolis” coined by Jean Gottman (1961) to describe
the belt of urban activity that stretched from Boston to Washington in the United
States. But Zhou also recognized that there were many differences between China
and the United States because of the intensity of agricultural activities and high in
situ population densities in China. He used a series of criteria to define these regions,
which include:
1. two or more cities with populations of one million or more that act as
growth poles
2. important ports or communication centers
3. convenient lines of communication that act as a development corridor between
the poles and ports
4. numerous small- and medium-sized cities along both sides of the corridors and
5. intensive interaction between rural and urban areas.
In China, in the early 1990s, Zhou identified four Interlocking Metropolitan
Regions (IMR): Shenyang-Dalian in the central and south regions of Liaoning
province; Beijing-Tianjin in the North China Plain; Nanjing-Shanghai-Hangzhou
in the Yangzi delta; and Hong Kong-Guangzhou in the Pearl River Delta. In the
20 years since then, these interlocking metropolitan regions have grown in number
2 The Management of Urbanization, Development, and Environmental Change in. . .
21
many scales including at the level of national, regional, and local spaces.
This argument is captured neatly by Forbes who suggests that these macrorepresentations of globalization “. . . subsume the internal dynamics of urban development, the subtleties of local politics, the resilience of urban patterns of life, the
tensions embedded in fractured social structures, the multiple strands of modernity
and resistance to the imposition to change” (Forbes 1997). This is supported by
research by Leaf (1994, 1996, 2008) and Kusno (2000, 2010) arguing that the
growth of so-called “global spaces” such as the suburban developments in the fringe
of Jabotabek and the creation of commercial business districts within the inner core
represent the modernity and development upon which the legitimacy of Suharto’s
New Order society rested. At the same time, the persistence of the so-called
“disarticulated spaces” continued to resist this process.
At present, this urbanization view essentially uses the development modes of the
twentieth century, heavily reliant on oil/gas-dependent energy systems (Freud and
Martin 1999) and increasing incorporation into the global economic system, in a
process that is often labeled “globalization” (McGee and Watters 1997). This
developmental mode encourages the formation of large extended urban regions
that expand along arterial transport corridors from the urban cores of mega cities
to secondary cities that form an essential component of the mega-urban regions.
These urban regions often come to dominate the urban hierarchy both at a global and
at a national level (Scott 2001) and that have been variously described as mega-urban
regions, megalopolises, extended urban regions, metropolitan regions, and urban
agglomerations. The varying definitions also present problems of international
comparison. For example, in China, these urban regions were first identified by
Zhou (1991) as “Interlocking Metropolitan Regions,” a term that has some similarities with the concept of “Megalopolis” coined by Jean Gottman (1961) to describe
the belt of urban activity that stretched from Boston to Washington in the United
States. But Zhou also recognized that there were many differences between China
and the United States because of the intensity of agricultural activities and high in
situ population densities in China. He used a series of criteria to define these regions,
which include:
1. two or more cities with populations of one million or more that act as
growth poles
2. important ports or communication centers
3. convenient lines of communication that act as a development corridor between
the poles and ports
4. numerous small- and medium-sized cities along both sides of the corridors and
5. intensive interaction between rural and urban areas.
In China, in the early 1990s, Zhou identified four Interlocking Metropolitan
Regions (IMR): Shenyang-Dalian in the central and south regions of Liaoning
province; Beijing-Tianjin in the North China Plain; Nanjing-Shanghai-Hangzhou
in the Yangzi delta; and Hong Kong-Guangzhou in the Pearl River Delta. In the
20 years since then, these interlocking metropolitan regions have grown in number
2 The Management of Urbanization, Development, and Environmental Change in. . .
21