Dick and Rimmer 1998

Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 12, 2303± 2321, 1998

Beyond the Third World City: The New UrbanGeography of South-east Asia

H. W. Dick and P. J. Rimmer

[Paper ® rst received, December 1996; in ® nal form, November 1997]

Summary. Scholars, as area specialists, have typi® ed south-east Asian cities as Third World cities

and emphasised their uniquely south-east Asian or even national characteristics. This paper will

argue that the early decades of decolonisation which gave rise to this perspective were in fact atransitional phase. In the late colonial period south-east Asian cities were already becoming more

like Western cities. Since the 1980s, in the era of globalisation, this process of convergence has

re-emerged. Clearly, there should now be a single urban discourse. This is not to deny thatsouth-east Asian (or Third World) cities have distinctive elements. The problem is the paradigm

which shuts out First World elements.

The city is the frontier of modern south-east

Asia. In 1975, 22 per cent of the region’ s

population was in urban areas; by 2000, it

will have increased to over 37 per cent; and

by 2025 will exceed 55 per cent (UN, 1995).

Since the 1970s, industrialisation has been

the driving force of rapid urbanisation. In-

dustrialisation and urbanisation have in-

volved dramatic changes in urban form and

land use. The urban peripheries have now

become the locus of job creation, especially

in manufacturing plants and urban population

growth.

These phenomena have been attributed to

the accelerating integration of south-east

Asia into the world economy, the process

known as globalisation. Yet, ironically, the

few attempts to interpret this transformation

in spatial terms have reverted to the

paradigm of a discrete south-east Asian vari-

ant of the Third World city. McGee (1967)

was the ® rst study to identify south-east

Asian cities as a discrete category among

Third World cities.

One of the main themes running through

this study has been the comparison ¼ of

South-East Asian cities with the pattern of

urbanization that has emerged in the West-

ern industrialized societies. The value of

such an exercise lies not so much in the

obvious conclusions that Southeast Asian

cities are different but rather ¼ to estab-

lish the unique elements of SoutheastAsian urbanization (McGee, 1967, p. 171,

italics added).

This view of south-east Asian cities as being

obviously different and having unique ele-

ments has never since been seriously chal-

lenged. McGee (1991) and others have

H. W. Dick is in the Department of Business Development and Corporate History, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052,Australia. Fax: 03-9349-4292 . E-mail: [email protected]. P. J. Rimmer is in the Department of Human Geography,Research School of Paci® c and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia.Fax: 1 61-6-249-4896 . E-mail: [email protected]. Elanna Lowes provided editorial assistance. All ® gures were drawnby Neville Minch, Cartographic Unit, Research School of Paci® c and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.The authors are grateful for the comments of two anonymous referees.

0042-0980 /98/122303-1 9 $7.00 Ó 1998 The Editors of Urban Studies

H. W. DICK AND P. J. RIMMER2304

sought to update the south-east-Asian-city-

as-Third-World-city paradigm by invoking

the desakota model. It is argued that these

new regions of extended urban activity are

characterised by a speci® cally south-east

Asian settlement pattern. However, this

model perpetuates the awkward dichotomy

between the First and the Third World city.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that

globalisation has made the paradigm of the

Third World City obsolete in south-east Asia.

Since the 1980s in most leading cities of

south-east Asia, developers have acquired

massive land portfolios and invested huge

sums of capital to the point, as in Thailand,

of actually destabilising the national ® nancial

system. What has emerged is a pattern of

new town developments integrated with in-

dustrial estates, toll roads, ports and airports.

Although new to south-east Asia, the situ-

ation is familiar enough. Notwithstanding the

very different settlement pattern on which it

is being imposed, the new arrangement

matches very closely with what Garreau

(1991) described in Edge City. It is now

timely to reintegrate debates over south-east

Asian cities with mainstream First World and

global debates.

This paper will ® rst critically survey the

origins and continuing in¯ uence of the south-

east -Asian -city -as -Third-World-city para-

digm and its more recent embodiment as the

desakota model. A much longer-term per-

spective is offered which contrasts the his-

torical patterns of urban development in

metropolitan countries and south-east Asia,

and shows that over the past century or so

there have been alternating phases of conver-

gence and divergence. The restructuring of

urban land use is then reinterpreted in terms

of a rebundling of urban elements, driven by

rising middle-class demand for comfort and

security. Jakarta will be examined as our

case study.

Categorising the South-east Asian City

Analysis of south-east Asia cities within an

explicitly spatial framework traces back no

earlier than the 1940s. Colonial cities were

not perceived to be problematic. The ® rst

studies emerged out of the colonial `schools’

of geography: the British school typi® ed by

Dobby (1950) and Fisher (1964) had a heavy

bias towards Malaya; the French character-

ised by Gourou (1940) and Robequain (1944,

1952) emphasised Indo-China; conventional

American geographers were preoccupied

with the Philippines (Spencer, 1952, 1955;

Wernstedt and Spencer, 1967); and the Dutch

sociological and town planning school ex-

tended little beyond the ® rst tentative anthol-

ogy on Indonesian towns by Wertheim

(1958). This early literature was in general

agreement that in south-east Asia the size of

cities had been inhibited by colonial rule

(Spate and Trueblood, 1942; Fryer, 1953).

This phenomenon became apparent in the

mid 1950s when geographers and sociolo-

gists began to analyse demographic data,

beginning with Key® tz (1953) and Ginsburg

(1955).

By the 1960s, attention had shifted to the

explosive population growth of south-east

Asian cities (Breese, 1966). The issues were

now those of rural±urban migration. Dis-

cussion centred on concepts such as `para-

sitic cities’ and `pseudo-urbanisation’

(Hoselitz, 1954; Dwyer, 1962; McGee,

1967). However, re¯ ecting their different

colonial experiences and the fragmentation

of writing by local and colonial languages,

south-east Asian cities were still seen as

having little in common. Thus McGee (1967)

was a seminal work in establishing a certain

common identity that located south-east

Asian cities as a category within the litera-

ture on the Third World. McGee identi® ed

the south-east Asian city as having three

main elements. In contrast to colonial

sources and re¯ ecting contemporary trends,

he discounted the element of eÂlite garden

suburbs while emphasising the elements of

kampung and squatter settlements.

In the 1970s, interest turned to the em-

ployment consequences of migration in terms

of the new paradigms of `formal±informal

sector’ and `petty-commodity production’

(Sethuraman, 1975; McGee, 1978; Dick

and Rimmer, 1980; Forbes, 1981; Rimmer

BEYOND THE THIRD WORLD CITY 2305

and Forbes, 1982). During the 1980s, the

focus had moved to `world cities’ which

were the product of the international division

of labour, the internationalisation of ® nance

and the global network strategies of multina-

tional corporations (Friedmann and Wolff,

1982; Sassen, 1991; Knox, 1995; Knox and

Taylor, 1995). By the early 1990s the impact

of these global forces on local cultural ident-

ity and urban change in south-east Asia were

being explored (Askew and Logan, 1994; Lo

and Yeung, 1995; McGee and Robinson,

1995).

Ginsburg et al.’ s (1991) The Extended

Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia

therefore is a curious throwback. Seeking to

rediscover Asia’ s urban geography, the book

attacks ª the persistence of the rural±urban

paradigmº . However, it is not rooted in the

contemporary literature but in debates over

rural±urban transitions of the 1950s and

1960s. Its central hypothesis is that there has

been ª the emergence of what appear to be

new regions of extended urban activity sur-

rounding the core cities of many countries of

Asiaº . New and different kinds of settle-

ments in Asia are seen as

complex and compound regional systems

consisting of central cities, fringe areas of

those cities, exurbs, satellite towns, and

extensive intervening areas of dense popu-

lation and intensive traditional agricultural

land uses in which wet paddy tends to

dominate (Ginsburg, 1991, p. xiii).

This settlement pattern has been made poss-

ible by a simple ª transportation revolutionº

of improved all-weather roads and ª cheap

intermediate transportation technology such

as two-stroke motorbikesº (Ginsburg, 1991,

p. xiii±xiv; McGee, 1991, p. 5).

This process of `settlement transition’ in-

volving the urbanisation of the hinterland

without massive in-migration was referred to

by McGee (1989, 1991) as kotadesasiÐ kota

in Bahasa Indonesia for town, desa for vil-

lage and si to denote process. Later, the term

for these new regions of economic interac-

tion was rearranged as desakota for the

settlement and desakotasi for the process

(Ginsburg, 1991). Desakota areas have six

main features:

Ð a dense population engaged in smallholder

cultivation, commonly of wet rice;

Ð an increase in non-agricultural activities;

Ð a well-developed infrastructure of roads

and canals;

Ð a reservoir of cheap labour;

Ð highly integrated `transactive’ environ-

ments in terms of movements of people

and commodities; and

Ð a state perception as being `invisible’ or

`grey’ zones (McGee, 1991, p. 15±18).

According to Ginsburg et al. (1991), this

settlement transition and pattern differ in

signi® cant ways from both those in the de-

veloped world and those in other developing

countries. However, an equally valid case

could be made that there is much in common.

What matters is not the speci® c points of

similarity and difference, which may change

over time, but whetherÐ in the long runÐ the

process is best understood by south-east

Asian experts in terms of their own area

studies literature; or by a wider debate within

the mainstream urban literature. The logic of

globalisation, and indeed of academic schol-

arship, is in favour of the latter.

South-east Asian Cities in a Global Con-text

Following the opening of the Suez Canal in

1869, south-east Asian cities were subject to

most of the same in¯ uences as metropolitan

cities and became much more Westernised.

However, the path of urban development did

not always run parallel between metropolitan

and south-east Asian cities. There have been

extended phases of convergence but also

periods of divergence.

Figure 1 shows the phases of convergence

and divergence between south-east Asian cit-

ies and metropolitan cities. Taking the latter

as the yardstick, the ® gure shows a time-

scale down the vertical axis with city size

scaled by population, in orders of magnitude.


Figure 1. A model showing phases of convergence and divergence in the development of south-east Asiancities against the yardstick provided by metropolitan cities.

The horizontal dimension shows the nature

and intensity of interaction between metro-

politan and south-east Asian cities. Periods

of weak interaction are denoted by dotted

lines, periods of strong interaction by bold

lines.

This ® gure is distinguished by three separ-

ate phases of globalisation de® ned by the

intensity of technology transfer:

1. Convergence between urban forms in

metropolitan countries and south-east

Asia from about the 1880s to the 1930s

was brought about by the increase in pol-

itical and economic control exerted by

metropolitan powers through colonial

rule, trade, investment and new transport

technologies.

2. Divergence in urban forms between


Asia occurred from the 1940s to the

1970s as a consequence of the breakdown

of colonial political and economic control

and the installation of indigenous admin-

istrations; marked by the disintegration of

transport systems.

3. Convergence between urban forms in


Asia was renewed in the 1980s by in-

creasing trade and investment and the ap-

plication of telecommunications and

high-speed transport.

The effects of these trends on urban land use

in south-east Asia during these three phases

are now elaborated.


Convergence: Pre-colonial City to Late-

colonial City

The early south-east Asian cities were built

around the palace of the ruler, surrounded by

compounds of the aristocracy and their de-

pendents, and commercial quarters (Chinese

and Indian). Typically, they were without

walls (Reid, 1993). Settlements clustered

around the compound of the leading aristo-

crats. Their often large populations were con-

cealed by groves of trees. In appearance and

morphology there was more in common with

suburban garden cities of the 20th century

than with contemporary walled cities of Eu-

rope and China. In the 19th century, the best

examples of such cities were Bangkok and,

perhaps on a smaller scale, Phnom Penh and

Luang Prabang.

Walled cities were introduced to south-

east Asia by the Europeans. The ® rst of these

were Malacca in 1511 and Manila in 1570,

followed in 1619 by Batavia (now Jakarta)

(BlusseÂ, 1986). In 1810 the Europeans aban-

doned the old walled city of Batavia to the

Chinese and moved to create a new city on

higher ground.

The model south-east Asian city of the

19th century was Singapore, founded in 1819

at a time of British naval supremacy. Singa-

pore was protected by a fort and gun batter-

ies, but was not a walled city. In terms of

population and economic activity, it was

more a Chinese than a British city. There was

also a group of Malay settlements clustered

around the palace of the nominal Malay

ruler. Thus, from the outset Singapore exem-

pli® ed the plural character of most south-east

Asian cities. As colonial rule was consoli-

dated over the course of the 19th century, the

European model town came to dominate all

other cities with the exception of Bangkok.

The British took over Rangoon (1834) and

the French seized Saigon in 1859.

During the 19th century, the growth in

international trade and investment along with

the consolidation of colonial rule provided

channels for technology transfer. This was

most direct between metropolitan cities and

the main south-east Asian cities. It can be

seen most clearly in transport technology.

The new industrial revolution technologies of

steamships, railways, electric tramways and

motor vehicles were introduced to south-east

Asian cities with very little time-lag. By the

1920s, towards the end of the colonial pe-

riod, the European enclaves of south-east

Asia’ s main cities looked remarkably like

contemporary Western cities. This can be

seen most easily in the `International Style’

in urban architecture and design (King,

1990).

By the 1900s, most of the world’ s port

cities had a Victorian facË ade. This included

the basic infrastructure of docks, steam rail-

ways, electric tramways, telegraph, roads and

bridges. In south-east Asia, such a port city

was Singapore with its Tanjong Pagar docks,

modern of® ce buildings, warehouses

(godowns), roads, railway station and electric

tramways (AOHD, 1981; Allen, 1983). A

perusal of travel guides of the late colonial

period shows that Europeans and Americans

could travel comfortably by sea and visit, or

carry on business, in south-east Asian cities

without any knowledge of the local cultures

or languages. The exotic East was there in

the background but at a comfortable cultural

and social distance. These cities were access-

ible and safe to Westerners. It was because of

colonialism and empire that these cities be-

longed to the West.

By the late 19th century, almost all south-

east Asian cities had a distinct central busi-

ness district dominated by European ® rms.

The exception was Bangkok, where these

activities were dispersed along the river. Ad-

jacent to the central business district (CBD)

was a much more populous Chinese quarter.

This quarter was physically distinct and was

characterised by long rows of shop-houses.

In cities such as Saigon, Singapore and Sura-

baya, the Chinese quarter was located on the

other side of the river or canal. Surrounding

the CBD and the Chinese quarter, the indige-

nous population lived in single-storey,

wooden-framed dwellings with woven

matting walls.

Around the turn of the century, south-east

Asia’ s port cities were also `walking cities’


(Rimmer, 1986). The shift away from

crowded and unsanitary towns can be traced

back as far as the 18th century, when leading

European of® cials and merchants built coun-

try houses within comfortable riding distance

of the city (Abeyasekere, 1987; BlusseÂ,

1986).

Until late in the 19th century, transport

was too primitive to allow daily commuting.

Port cities were still walking cities, that re-

lied heavily on water as the means of trans-

porting goods and people. In Singapore, the

hackney carriage and the jinrikisha were in-

troduced in the 1880s, allowing Europeans to

house themselves in the cooler environs of

the hills (Rimmer, 1990). In Java, the ® rst

housing estates for Europeans were devel-

oped during the 1890s in both Jakarta and

Surabaya (Abeyasekere, 1987). In Manila,

the Americans, who arrived in 1898, almost

immediately sought to develop a suburban

lifestyle. Along the main roads all of these

cities had tramways linking the European

and Chinese quarters, and the port (Roschlau,

1985). This trend was facilitated by the elec-

tri® cation of tramways and ® rst-class com-

partments. By the eve of the First World

War, Europeans were already importing mo-

tor cars.

This trend was accelerated during the

inter-war years. By the 1930s, most south-

east Asian cities had bifurcated into distinct

upper and lower towns. The lower town,

having lost its European population, re-

mained the central business district and Chi-

nese quarter. The upper town consisted of

European garden suburbs oriented around

family life. These included the amenities of

hotels, clubs and entertainment and modern

prestige shopping centres.

The new garden suburbs of the wealthy

European community were land±extensive.

Indigenous society was controlled in the in-

terests of the Europeans. Legislation, the col-

onial bureaucracy and police force were used

to enforce town planning and zoning laws to

keep petty traders from European main roads

and footpaths. There was a high level of

social comfort for the European population

as they were protected from unauthorised

intrusion. Crime rates were low. By virtue of

colonial power, Europeans were able to en-

joy an American style of suburban living

insulated from a `Third World’ environment.

Its distinctively colonial feature was rigid

ethnic segregation.

Divergence: Late-colonial to Third World

City

The exclusive colonial city began to break

down during the Japanese occupation of

1942±45. The relapse of colonial control al-

lowed cities to become porous to rural±urban

migration. Informal-sector employment op-

portunities proliferated and squatters began

to build their shacks throughout the city on

any unoccupied land. Urban populations be-

gan to soar with the in® ll of already-settled

areas and accretion of settlement on the pe-

riphery. In the 1950s and 1960s, these cities

changed and became increasingly alien and

dangerous for Westerners. Political unrest,

® rst against colonial rule and later between

communists and non-communists, was the

main factor for this change.

This is precisely the point (the 1950s and

1960s) at which literature on Third World

cities was developed (McGee, 1967). The

preoccupation with rural±urban migration,

squatters and the informal sector gave rise to

a view of south-east Asian cities (other than

Singapore) as being dysfunctional. Evidence

of urban breakdown marked by the overload-

ing of infrastructure, congestion, overcrowd-

ing, poverty and pollution appeared

overwhelming. South-east Asian govern-

ments looked to be unable to manage cities.

By the 1960s, south-east Asian cities had

come to look like other Third World cities

and to be regarded as a distinct urban

category.

In hindsight, judgements of south-east

Asian cities may be more positive. Despite

massive problems, south-east Asian cities

have continued to function and to sustain a

remarkable rate of industrialisation and econ-

omic growth. Looking back from the mid

1990s, it is easier to appreciate that much of

the post-colonial in¯ ux of population was an


adjustment to a big disequilibrium. The

breakdown of the colonial order meant the

collapse of the segregated colonial city. As

the European population lost its power and

privileges, not least over land use and per-

sonal privacy, people moved with impunity

into low-density urban space. Only much

later did indigenous administrations try to

regain lost ground by planning cities accord-

ing to the needs of the new political and

economic eÂlites. The only city where this

occurred as a relatively smooth transfer of

power was in Singapore. In Singapore, there

was no transitional phase of planning

anarchy.

Convergence: Third World City to Global

City

By the 1980s, the growth processes in south-

east Asian cities were again converging to a

remarkable degree with those of the First

World and, in particular, those of the US.

There is a rich and growing literature that

challenges conventional ideas of urban form

in the US. Gated communities, shopping

malls, edge cities and the decline of public

space are issues in the deconstruction of the

very notion of `the city’ (Christopherson,

1994; Davis, 1990; Garreau, 1991; Gottdi-

ener, 1991, 1994, 1995; Gottdiener and

Kephart, 1991; Jacobs, 1984). This vigorous

questioning would seem to be in a world

remote from south-east Asia. And yet, high-

rise of® ces, gated residential communities,

giant shopping malls and freeways have al-

ready taken root in south-east Asia and have

become key elements in the restructuring of

urban space. Although there remain separate

debates and literatures for the US and south-

east Asia, in reality many issues are the

same.

Rising real incomes and the rapidly ex-

panding urban middle class have created a

new urban dynamic in south-east Asia. Al-

though there is no reliable way to measure

the size of the middle class in Thailand,

Malaysia and Indonesia, it is probably at

least one-third of the population of Bangkok,

Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta (Hewison, 1996;

Hughes and Woldekidan, 1994; Robison and

Goodman, 1996). Since the 1980s, the swol-

len middle class has attracted investment in

multiple satellite towns surrounding the old

central business district. This is especially

true of Jakarta, Manila and Singapore.

As shown in Figure 2A, the old relation-

ship between the lower town and the upper

town had been a simple one of daily com-

muting. The proliferation of multiple urban

centres in the 1980s diminished the import-

ance of the movement into and out of the

CBD in favour of increasing movements be-

tween urban centres around the urban fringe

(Figure 2B). This new pattern was facilitated

by rapidly increasing rates of vehicle owner-

ship, which freed the middle class from de-

pendence on public transport. One symptom

of this new pattern was the proliferation of

suburban centres. However, this second and

more complex system of multiple centres

proved to be an unstable transitional form.

The logic and momentum which generated

activity and movement between satellite

towns necessarily generated expansion

beyond them into cheaper peri-urban land

(Figure 2C). In effect, the city is now being

turned inside out. The share of movements

into and out of the old CBD is now declin-

ing. Commuting is occurring over greater

distances and along increasingly congested

roads. The locational incentives that arise

from the urban land market are to locate or

relocate workplaces on or beyond the urban

fringe. A growing proportion of commuter

movements are therefore oriented away from

the CBD.

In the extended metropolitan area, settle-

ment has spilled beyond recognised urban

boundaries and even beyond contiguous ur-

ban areas, especially along main highways

(referred to by McGee as desakota). Facto-

ries are now located where they can draw

labour from surrounding villages. There is no

sharp rural±urban dichotomy. No longer is it

functional to bring labour to the city. It is

easier to take work to rural areas to avoid

social overhead costs as bulging cities

outstrip their modest infrastructure.


Figure 2. Turning the city inside out.

Rebundling Urban Elements

A new starting-point may be to recognise

that many of the elements of the south-east

Asian city are not only familiar, but are also

common to the Western city. The elements

include, for example, the home, which may

be taken as the trip origin, and the destina-

tions of of® ce, shops, restaurants, schools,

hospitals, sports centre, hotel and cinema


Figure 3. Unbundled cities.

(Figure 3). These are linked by the same

technologies of the motor car and public

transport. They may, however, be arranged

or bundled in different ways. In other words,

the city may be viewed in abstract as a set of

elements which over time can be bundled,

unbundled and reassembled in new urban

forms. This process is restructuring, but in a

speci ® cally urban context.

In historical perspective, the impulse for

restructuring urban space in south-east Asia

was the development in the 1960s of the ® rst

homogeneous new middle-class communi-

ties. These could be observed in Singapore,

Kuala Lumpur (Petaling Jaya) and Manila

(Makati). In Jakarta, the new town of Kebay-

oran Baru was under construction in the

1950s, but urban middle-class development

slowed down in the 1960s because of the

national economic crisis. As these `new

towns’ acquired a threshold population of

mobile consumers with relatively high dis-

posable incomes, there arose market opportu-

nities for entrepreneurs to build workplaces,


and shopping and entertainment facilities in

adjacent locations well beyond the old town

core. In the 1970s and 1980s, as real incomes

grew rapidly because of export-oriented in-

dustrialisation, new centres proliferated

around the urban fringe (Figure 3). Foreign

aid funds were invested in new freeways and

toll roads to link these centres (see Figure

2C).

During the 1980s, there were signs that

private urban development had reached new

thresholds of investment and land area. Hith-

erto, the process could still have been de-

scribed as suburbanisation. Entrepreneurs for

the most part continued to invest in discrete

facilities such as hotels and of® ce blocks,

each of which generated custom for others.

The innovation of the 1980s was the recogni-

tion by some of the richest south-east Asian

businessmen that enhanced pro® tability

would ¯ ow from bundling as many as poss-

ible of these discrete facilities into integrated

complexes. These complexes comprise ho-

tels, restaurants, shopping malls and of® ce

towers (Figure 4). Such integrated projects

enjoyed enhanced pro® tability because each

facility fed the other, by attracting and circu-

lating custom. The externalities were thereby

internalised. These projects required the abil-

ity to mobilise huge sums of risk capital to

buy up land and ® nance construction in

anticipation of the market.

The problem of these integrated projects

was to attract suf® cient custom to earn a

pro® t from the huge initial outlays. Because

consumers lived in discrete communities,

and by virtue of vehicle ownership enjoyed

the freedom of choice between competing

centres, there was no captive market. As

competition drove new developers to open

ever more luxurious complexes with hitherto

undreamed of facilities (such as bowling al-

leys and skating rinks), existing developers

were at risk either of not recovering their

outlay or of failing to enjoy the anticipated

return. The solution, which became charac-

teristic of the 1990s, was to buy up even

larger tracts of land for integrated residential

and commercial complexes (Figure 5). The

externalities are therefore internalised: facili-

ties help to sell houses and the captive resi-

dential clienteÁ le sells facilities. A developer

owning 10 hectares can build a suburban

block, with 100 hectares, an entire suburb;

but with 1000 hectares or more, a new town.

The dramatic increase in the scale, range

and sophistication of facilities for the urban

middle class has been accompanied by the

emergence of new institutional forms. Fore-

most among these is the `gated community’ .

The 20th century phenomenon of suburbani-

sation was a shift in residence from tra-

ditional or European two-storey dwellings to

detached single-storey bungalows or man-

sions; these were set amidst spacious lawns

and gardens in quiet shady streets, recognis-

ably the `garden suburb’ of Britain or the US

(King, 1990).

Such low-density open living is attractive

only in a situation of good public security, as

in the colonial era. In post-independence

south-east Asia, the street is typically per-

ceived as a source of danger. Decorative

fences and hedges are no longer a deterrent

to thieves. Open suburban living thus

becomes very insecure. One solution, es-

pecially for expatriates, was the compoundÐ

that is to say, a group of dwellings with a

single controlled point of entry. An increase

in scale allows controlled access and pa-

trolled security to be provided to an entire

suburb. By the logic of the market, in which

the richest people sought the highest level of

personal security, real estate developers were

almost obliged to construct gated communi-

ties. In the late 1960s, gated communities

appeared in Manila; in the late 1970s, in

Jakarta; and by the 1980s, in Surabaya. In

Singapore, where security was least problem-

atic, the equivalent communities were high-

rise condominiums. These have become

popular for expatriates in Jakarta and Manila.

The other new institutional feature is the

shopping mall. South-east Asian cities had

long been familiar with shopping streets,

multistorey markets and department stores.

In the late colonial period, prestige shopping

districts became differentiated from low-cost,

downtown retailing. Shopping malls or

plazas were much larger in scale and inte-


Figure 4. Semi-bundled cities.

grated many retailing and entertainment

functions within a single complex, linked to

multistorey carparking. They were designed

to encourage access by the mobile high-

spending middle-class population and to dis-

courage patronage by ordinary people who

were for the most part window-shoppers. The

step up from shopping-centres-cum-plazas

to plaza-cum-malls can be dated to the 1980s

in Manila, Bangkok, Jakarta and Kuala

Lumpur.

A Jakarta Case Study

This new pattern of urban development is

well illustrated by Jakarta. Figure 6 shows

how `new town’ projects and industrial es-

tates have developed ribbon-like along the

toll roads feeding into the city’ s outer ring

road. Since the 1980s, Bekasi to the east,

and Tangerang to the west, have become

the main concentrations for the growth of

manufacturing employment and population.


Figure 5. Bundled cities.

Projects located in the hilly terrain south of

Jakarta are more in the nature of resorts and

less closely tied to employment centres

and toll roads.

The new urban developments are on a

huge scale. The entire area of the Capital

City Region of Jakarta, roughly equivalent to

the area within the outer ring road is 66 000

hectares. By October 1996, over 90 000

hectares outside the Capital City Region had

received government approval for urban de-

velopment (Kompas, 1996). Of this total,

only 13 300 hectares had been built upon by

1997.

The balance constitutes a land bank in the

hands of developers estimated to meet the

supply of suburban residential land until the

year 2018. Most of this land bank is con-

trolled by a few large private business

groups. Three of the largest projects

(between 5000 and 6000 hectares) are all

currently in progress. However, the largest

project of some 30 000 hectares has yet

to begin construction and, in view of the


Figure 6. Jakarta: new towns and industrial estates approved and under construction. Note: JakartaWaterfront City, Teluk Naga, Bukit Indah City and Bukit Jonggol Asri are not shown.

recent currency crisis, is likely to be long

delayed.

Table 1 lists residential projects over 500

hectares by location and size. Until the mid

1980s, 500 hectares was a very large project.

Pondok Indah (460 ha), a mainly expatriate

gated suburb in south Jakarta, and Citra

Garden (480 ha), a middle-class project in

several separate blocks near Jakarta Inter-

national Airport, are good examples from

this period. These projects were essentially

dormitory suburbs with some associated

facilities. For example, Pondok Indah con-

tained a golf course and international school

and later a shopping plaza. However, most

facilities were being built only when the area

had been fully occupied and connected to an

outer ring road. In terms of the classi® cation

above, they can be regarded as `semi-

bundled’ .

In 1984 a consortium of leading develop-

ers (including participants from the two ear-

lier projects) took the gamble of acquiring

6000 hectares of land to the west of Jakarta

and in 1989 they launched the ® rst genuine

new town project, Bumi Serpong Damai. The

golf course and gated community were de-

veloped ® rst; as the density increased, other

facilities such as schools, of® ces and shop-

ping mall were gradually added. Ultimately,

this project will include a 300-hectare central

business district and 200-hectare business

park with a projected employment of

140 000 people.

Even more ambitious projects are the new

towns of Lippo Karawaci (2360 ha) and

Lippo Cikarang (5500 ha) in west and east

Jakarta respectively (Lippoland, 1996). Since

1991/92, the Lippo Group have sought to

build as many facilities as possible at the

outset. By 1997, Lippo Karawaci had a cen-

tral business district with multiple of® ce

towers, a 100 000 square metre shopping

mall (the largest in Jakarta), two condo-

minium towers (52 and 42 storeys), a 328-

bed international hospital, a private school

and university, the essential golf course and

country club and ® ve-star international hotel.


Table 1. New towns approved or under construction around Jakarta, June1997

Area LaunchedProject (ha) (year)

North JakartaJakarta Waterfront City 2700 NA

West Jakarta (Tangerang)Teluk Naga 8000 NABumi Serpong Damai 6000 1989Kota Baru Tigaraksa 3000 1987Citra Raya (Citra Grand City) 3000 1994Lippo Karawaci 2630 1992Bintaro Jaya 1700 1979Gading Serpong 1000 1993Kota Modern 770 1989Alam Sutera 770 1994

East Jakarta (Bekasi)Lippo Cikarang 5500 1991Kota Baru Cikarang 5400 NAKota Legenda 2000 1994Bukit Indah City 1200 1996

South Jakarta (Bogor)Bukit Jonggol Asri 30 000 1996Bukit Sentul 2000±2400 NACitra Indah 1200 1996±97Kota Wisata 1000 1997Telaga Kahuripan 750 NATaman Metropolitan 600 NA

Sources: Various.

The projected population for 2020 is 1 mil-

lion people. These projects are unambigu-

ously `bundled’ cities which contain all

signi® cant elements under the control of a

single developer. This is clearly First World

not Third World.

The scale of these leading new town de-

velopments will make it dif® cult for the

semi-bundled developments of less than

2000 hectares to be viable as genuine new

towns. Competition will force some projects

launched as integrated towns to be scaled

back to residential suburbs that feed adjacent

business districts. The biggest rewards will

go to those developers who had the foresight

to choose the best locations and have the

deepest pockets to carry the huge initial out-

lays on infrastructure.

Jakarta is not an isolated example. Indone-

sia’ s second city of Surabaya has a 2000-

hectare new town under construction as well

as several adjacent semi-bundled projects of

several hundred hectares. In Bangkok, large

® rms such as Bangkok Land, Tanayong and

Land and House have built huge complexes

around the city’ s outskirts. Even Ho Chi

Minh has a new town project of 2300

hectaresÐ Saigon South is a joint venture

between Taiwanese interests and the Peo-

ples’ Committee of Ho Chi Minh City.

The Driving Force

The elements and the patterns that are now

observed in new towns and settlements

around the main cities of south-east Asia

resemble those observed in the US. At ® rst

sight, this American architectural `imperial-

ism’ seems implausible. If there were to be a

convergence between south-east Asian and


Western cities, one would surely look for a

model towards Europe, with its intensive

agriculture and high-density cities. Aside

from America’ s cultural dominance, there

seem to be two main reasons why south-east

Asia is borrowing institutions more readily

from the US. The ® rst is the highly skewed

distribution of income in Asia between the

expanding middle class and the bulk of the

population. The second, and associated rea-

son, is the perceived low level of public

security. In the US the respective features are

poor minority populations and urban ghettos.

The driving force behind the new urban

geography of south-east Asia is the avoid-

ance of social discomfort. In Indonesia and

Malaysia, racial antagonism between the

Chinese and Indonesians/Malays encouraged

wealthy Chinese to seek the security of gated

communities. In the Philippines, there is also

the fear of kidnapping. However, more and

more middle-class indigenous Indonesians,

Malays and Filipinos are also choosing to

live in such secure communities, primarily

to protect their property against theft. As

people acquire more private possessions,

their level of insecurity rises.

The common experience which draws to-

gether the separate urban experiences of

North America and south-east Asia is the

perceived deterioration in personal security.

In the US, the fear of public spaceÐ in fact,

the fear of the city itselfÐ is grounded in

racism and drug-related crime. In south-east

Asia, the immediate threat is less apparent.

However, rising real household incomes and

the emergence of an identi® able middle class

have been accompanied by a growing differ-

entiation from, and fear of, the rest of the

inchoate urban mass. In countries such as

Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines,

where the middle class is disproportionately

ethnic Chinese, that fear has a palpable racial

edge. Gated residential communities, condo-

miniums, air-conditioned cars, patrolled

shopping malls and entertainment com-

plexes, and multi-storeyed of® ces are the

present and future world of the insecure

middle class in south-east Asia.

This preoccupation with comfort and se-

curity is re¯ ected in attitudes towards public

space. In Europe, despite the popularity of

the motor car, public space remains an inte-

gral part of social life. In the US, and in-

creasingly in south-east Asia, public space

has become an area of uncertainty. Middle-

class people, therefore, seek to control their

environment by insulating themselves from

the uncertainties of casual social interaction

with the poor. They live in air-conditioned

houses in gated communities, travel in pri-

vate air-conditioned vehicles to air-con-

ditioned of® ces and shopping malls. Home,

of® ce and mall are increasingly patrolled

by private security personnel backed up by

overhead video cameras.

The level of insecurity in the street is an

important motive for patronising shopping

malls. Other factors are the convenience of

park’ n’ shop and the opportunity to shop, eat

or play in a socially comfortable, air-

conditioned environment that eliminates the

aggravations of pickpockets, jostling, name-

calling and the challenge of the crowd. The

attitude is reminiscent of 19th-century atti-

tudes towards the threatening London crowd,

which was regarded as being uneducated,

uncouth and unpredictable. The attitude of

the middle class in south-east Asia towards

the urban mass is also not so very different

from that of the colonial Europeans to their

indigenous subjects. A common language

does not bridge the cultural gap or the econ-

omic divide.

The desire of middle-class south-east

Asians for security and social comfort has,

therefore, given rise to market opportunities

for well-funded entrepreneurs to borrow ur-

ban elements from the US. This has occurred

because those businessmen have visited or

have studied in the US and are familiar with

those models.

In fact, the technology transfer has worked

through an even more direct mechanism.

Most developers of these large projects have

hired master planners, design consultants,

managers and advisers, property specialists

and architects from the US and occasionally

also from Australia, Canada, Japan and Sin-

gapore. In Jakarta, for example, Lippo


Kawaraci hired at the outset a team of ex-

perts from the US. Other Jakarta examples

are Alam Sutera (SWA Group, California),

Bumi Serpong Damai (John Portman and

Associates, US, Paci® c Consultants Inter-

national Japan), Bintaro Jaya (Development

Design Group, Baltimore, US) and Cikarang

Baru (Klages Carter Vail and Partners, US).

Even the promotional brochures reveal a

style and nomenclature that is characteristi-

cally Western. Western retailers such as Wal-

Mart, J. C. Penney and TOYS `R’ US and

food franchisers such as KFC, McDonalds,

Pizza Hut and Wendys are becoming familiar

tenants in the large shopping malls.

This heavy reliance on foreign expertise

for both master planning and the design of

individual elements leads to a social and

cultural dissonance with the rest of the city.

Although most of these new towns are lo-

cated close to toll roads, other links with the

road network and with the public transport

system remain tenuous. Similar problems ap-

ply to other infrastructure links. Little atten-

tion is given to the housing and welfare of

the lower-paid, unskilled workforce that can-

not afford to live on these middle-class or

luxury housing estates. The consequence is a

separating out of two societies. In the US the

disintegration of the city is a recent, and to

many people, an alarming phenomenon. In

south-east Asia, it is familiar to anyone of the

older generation. Formerly, it was the situ-

ation identi® ed as colonialism; nowadays,

the distinction is primarily one of wealth and

status.

Nevertheless, the situation is a logical out-

come of market forces. Developers make

their pro® t by careful market research and

providing people with what they want. Those

of higher incomes naturally exercise the

greatest in¯ uence on the market. Many of

these potential buyers do not wish to live

in socially mixed and claustrophobic com-

munities like the kampung. They can now

afford to realise their suburban dream of a

happy and independent middle-class family,

living in comfort in a secure and green en-

vironment beyond the pollution of the inner

city.

Conclusion

Rapid urbanisation has been a worldwide

phenomenon since the industrial and trans-

port and communications revolution of the

19th century. The tempo of trade, investment

and technology transfer quickened more than

a century ago in the era of high imperialism,

long before globalisation became the catch-

word of the 1990s. In the heyday of colonial-

ism, between the late-19th century and the

1930s, south-east Asian cities became much

more like Western cities; especially with the

separation of central business districts and

garden suburbs. There was very little lag in

technology or modern design between the

colonial mother country and the colony. This

period may be considered as one of conver-

gence.

After the 1940s, in the period of decoloni-

sation, south-east Asian cities became dis-

tinctively Third World cities. Western

in¯ uence waned (Singapore and Kuala

Lumpur) or disappeared (Jakarta). Because

the literature on south-east Asian and Third

World cities began at this time, there has

been a false presumption that their urbanisa-

tion can be studied as a separate phenom-

enon. This paper argues that this phase of

divergence was an unusual and transitory

experience. Consequently, this inward-look-

ing, specialist literature with its echoes of

Orientalism, is a misleading guide to under-

standing the modern development of south-

east Asian cities. In a new phase of rapid

technology transfer and economic growth,

south-east Asian cities are again showing

clear evidence of converging with Western

patterns of urbanisation. South-east Asian

cities should now be viewed with a fresh and

observant gaze.

All the main trends in Western cities in the

19th and 20th centuries have eventually be-

come formative in¯ uences on the develop-

ment of south-east Asian cities (Table 2).

What has differed over time and between

cities is the length of the lag and the extent of

the in¯ uence. Any attempt to explain either

the historical or contemporary urbanisation

of south-east Asia as a unique phenomenon


Table 2. Main trends in metropolitan cities and south-east Asian cities during the 19th and 20th centuries

Period Metropolitan countries South-east Asia

Pre-19th century Walled city Patron±client city. Aggregation ofpalace and surrounding compoundsof aristocrats and commercialquarters (Chinese, Europeans,Indians, etc.) (e.g. Bangkok)

19th century Compact cities (new-rich Compact cities (expansion ofbuild country villas) European quarter)

Early 20th Suburban city (radial Colonial city ethnic divide (lowercentury version); ® xed route public town of business, Chinese quarter,

transport kampongs; upper town of Europeangarden suburbs, shoppingcentre/hotel district)

Post-Second Post-suburban city New towns (public initiatives)World War (decentralisation of work, Kebayoran (late 1940s)

shopping and recreation, Quezon City (late 1940s)automobile age) Petaling Jaya (mid 1950s)

Makati (1960s)Toa Payoh, Singapore (1970s)Shah Alam (1980s)

1980s Post-modern metropolis. Semi-bundled towns (private)Exclusionary: gated Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur,communities (California). ManilaReincorporation of publicspace as private space

Late 1990s Bundled towns (large-scale privateownership) and aggregationof business districts

is therefore doomed to absurdity. The issues

and debates in the vigorous literature on

cities in the US are highly relevant to what is

now happening in south-east Asia. Property

developers in south-east Asia have long

recognised this; government of® cials and

academics are still grappling with these new

realities.

Industrialisation and job creation on the

urban fringe and in the hinterland of south-

east Asian cities re¯ ect the shift of industry

from the First to the Third World that has

been facilitated by rapid improvements in the

speed and cost of transport and communica-

tions. International demand has switched

from south-east Asia’ s agricultural products,

which required labour and land, to manufac-

tures which are also labour-intensive but

have only a marginal requirement for land. It

is this international demand for the manufac-

tures of south-east Asia which is leading

footloose industries to locate in the vicinity

of main cities and transport hubs in order to

exploit abundant cheap labour. The spatial

dimension of this process has been portrayed

by Ginsburg et al. (1991) as desakotasi. This

helps to draw attention to the phenomenon

but confuses as much as it clari® es. It is not

a uniquely south-east Asian phenomenon.

The emerging urban forms take after North

American patterns to a remarkable degree

that has yet to be recognised, let alone

explained.

The study of south-east Asia’ s cities must

now be informed by knowledge of urban

processes, especially those of the US. Schol-

ars need to challenge prejudices which have

allowed them to partition the world into


separate spheres according to their own par-

ticular areas of expertise. Even if the south-

east Asian currency crisis of mid 1997 leads

to a slowdown in real estate development,

with the collapse of some prominent compa-

nies and suspension or scaling back of new

town projects, the pattern of urban develop-

ment will not change markedly from that

which has been observed in recent years.

References

ABEYASEKERE, S. (1987) Jakarta: A History.Singapore: Oxford University Press.

ALLEN, C. (Ed.) (1983) Tales from the SouthChina Seas: Images of the British in South-EastAsia in the Twentieth Century. London: AndreDeutsch and the British BroadcastingCorporation.

AOHD (1981) The Land Transport of Singaporefrom Early Times to the Present. Singapore:Archives and Oral History Department.

ASKEW, M., and LOGAN, W. S (Eds) (1994)Cultural Identity and Urban Change in South-east Asia: Interpretive Essays. Geelong:Deakin University Press.

BLUSSEÂ, L. (1986) Strange Company: ChineseSettlers, Mestizo Women, and the Dutch inVOC Batavia. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

BREESE, G. (1966) Urbanization in NewlyDeveloping Economies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

CHRISTOPHERSON, S. (1994) The fortress city: pri-vatised spaces, consumer citizenship, in:A. ASH (Ed.) Post-Fordism: A Reader,pp. 409±427. Oxford: Blackwell.

DAVIS, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavating theFuture in Los Angeles. London and New York:Verso.

D ICK. H. and RIMMER, P. J. (1980) Beyond theinformal/formal dichotomy: towards anintegrated approach, Paci® c Viewpoint, 21,pp. 26±41.

DOBBY, E. H. G., (1950) Southeast Asia. London:University of London Press.

DWYER, D. J. (1962) The problem of in-migrationand squatter settlement in Asian cities: two casestudies, Manila and Victoria-Kowloon, AsianStudies, 2, pp. 145±169.

FISHER, C. A. (1964) Southeast Asia: A Social,Economic and Political Geography. London:Methuen.

FORBES, D. K. (1981) Petty commodity pro-duction and underdevelopment, Progress inPlanning, 16, pp. 104±178.

FRIEDMANN, J. and WOLFF, G., (1982) World cityformation: an agenda for research and action,

International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch, 6, pp. 309±344.

FRYER, D. W. (1953) The million city in South-east Asia, Geographical Review, 43,pp. 474±494.

GARREAU, J. (1991) Edge City: Life on the Fron-tier. New York: Doubleday.

GINSBURG, N. S. (1955) The Great City of South-east Asia, American Journal of Sociology, 40,pp. 455±462.

GINSBURG, N. (1991) Preface, in: N. GINSBURG,B. KOPPEL and T.G. MCGEE (Eds) The Ex-tended Metropolis: Settlement in Transition,pp. xiii±xviii. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress.

GINSBURG, N., KOPPEL, B. and MCGEE, T.G. (Eds)(1991) The Extended Metropolis: Settlement inTransition in Asia Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press.

GOTTDIENER, M. (1991) Space, social theory andthe urban metaphor, Perspectives in Social The-ory, 11, pp. 295±311.

GOTTDIENER, M. (1994) The New Urban Soci-ology. New York: McGraw Hill.

GOTTDIENER, M. (1995) Postmodern Semiotics:Material Culture and the Forms of PostModern Life. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

GOTTDIENER, M. and KEPHART, G., (1991) Themultinucleated metropolitan region: a compara-tive analysis, in: R. KLING, S. OLIN andM. POSTER (Eds) Postsuburban California: theTransformation of Orange County since WorldWar II, pp. 31±54. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

GOUROU, P. (1940) Land Utilization in FrenchIndochina. New York: Institute of Paci® cRelations.

HEWISON, K. (1996) Emerging social forces inThailand, in: R. ROBISON and D. GOODMAN

(Eds) The New Rich in Asia, pp. 137±160.London: Routledge.

HOSELITZ, B. F. (1954) Generative and parasiticcities, Economic Development and CulturalChange, 3, pp. 278±294.

HUGHES, H. and WOLDEKIDAN, B. (1994) Theemergence of the middle class in ASEANcountries, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 11,pp. 139±149.

JACOBS, J. (1984) The Mall. Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.

KEYFITZ, N. (1953) Population of Indonesia,Ekonomi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 6(1),pp. 640±655.

KING, A. D. (1990) Urbanism, Colonialism, andthe World-economy: Cultural and SpatialFoundations of the World Urban System .London and New York: Routledge.

KNOX P.L. (1995) World cities and the organiza-tion of global space, in: R. J. JOHNSTON,P. J. TAYLOR and M. J. WATTS (Eds) Geogra-


phies of Global Change: Remapping the Worldin the Late Twentieth Century, pp. 232±247.Oxford: Blackwell.

KNOX, P. L. and TAYLOR, P. J. (1995) World Citiesin a World System. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press.

KOMPAS (1996) [Daily Jakarta Newspaper]. 21October.

L IPPOLAND (1996) Rede® ning urban development,Reprinted from Asia Money (brochure circu-lated by the Lippo Company).

LO, F. C. and YEUNG, Y. M. (Eds) (1995) Emerg-ing World Cities in Paci® c Asia. Tokyo: UnitedNations University Press.

MCGEE, T. G. (1967) The Southeast Asian City: ASocial Geography of the Primate Cities ofSoutheast Asia. London: G. Bell.

MCGEE, T. G. (1978) An invitation to the `ball’ :Dress `formal’ or `informal’ ?, in: P. J. RIMMER,D. W. DRAKAKIS-SMITH and. T. G. MCGEE (Eds)Food Shelter and Transport in Asia and thePaci® c, pp. 3±28. Department of HumanGeography Monograph 12, The Australian Na-tional University, Canberra.

MCGEE, T. G. (1989) Urbanisasi or kotadesasi?Evolving urban patterns of urbanization inAsia, in: F. J. COSTA ET AL.(Eds) Urbanizationin Asia, pp. 93±108. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press.

MCGEE, T.G. (1991) The emergence of desakotaregions in Asia: expanding a hypothesis, in: N.GINSBURG, B. KOPPEL and T. G. MCGEE (Eds)The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Tran-sition in Asia, pp. 3±25. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press.

MCGEE, T. G. and ROBINSON I. M. (Eds) (1995)The Mega-urban Regions of Southeast Asia.Vancouver: UBC Press.

REID, A. (1993) Southeast Asia in the Age ofCommerce, 1450± 1680, Volume II Expansionand Crisis. New Haven CT: Yale UniversityPress.

RIMMER, P. J. (1986) Rikisha to Rapid Transit:Urban Public Transport Systems and Policy inSoutheast Asia. Sydney: Pergamon Press.

RIMMER, P. J. (1990) Hackney carriage syces andrikisha pullers in Singapore: a colonial regis-trar’ s perspective on public transport, 1888±

1923, in: P. J. RIMMER and L. M. ALLEN (Eds)The Underside of Malaysian History: Pullers,Prostitutes, Plantation Workers ¼ , pp. 129±160. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

RIMMER, P. J. and FORBES, D. K. (1982) Under-development theory: a geographical analysis,Australian Geographer, 15(4), pp. 197±211.

ROBEQUAIN, C. (1944) The Economic Develop-ment of French Indo-China, trans I. Ward Lon-don: Oxford University Press.

ROBEQUAIN, C. (1952) L’ Indochine. Paris:Armand Colin.

ROBISON, R. and GOODMAN, D. S. G. (1996) TheNew Rich in Asia: Mobile Phones, McDonaldsand Middle-Class Revolution. London and NewYork: Routledge.

ROSCHLAU, M. W. (1985) Public transport in theprovinces: A study of innovation, diffusion andcon¯ ict in the Philippines. Unpublished thesis,Department of Human Geography, ResearchSchool of Paci® c Studies, The AustralianNational University.

SASSEN, S. (1991) The Global City: New York,London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

SETHURAMAN, S. V. (1975) Urbanisation andemployment: a case study of Djakarta, Inter-national Labour Review , 112, pp. 119±205.

SPATE, O. H. K. and TRUEBLOOD, L. W. (1942)Rangoon: A study in urban geography, Geo-graphical Review, 32, pp. 56±73.

SPENCER, J. E. (1952) Land and People in thePhilippines. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.

SPENCER, J. E. (1955) Asia East by South. Berke-ley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress.

UN (1995) World Urbanization Prospects: The1994 RevisionÐ Estimates and Projections ofUrban and Rural Populations and of UrbanAgglomerations. New York: United Nations.

WERNSTEDT, F. L. and SPENCER, J. E. (1967) ThePhilippines Island World: A Physical, Culturaland Regional Geography. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press.

WERTHEIM, W. F. (Ed.) (1958) The IndonesianTown: Studies in Urban Sociology. The Hagueand Bandung: W. van Hoeve Ltd.

Dick and Rimmer 1998

Documents

Transcript of Dick and Rimmer 1998