打印

作者

来源

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS,Vol.41,Issue2,P.270-271

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

Rutgers University

摘要

In this ambitious volume, Gavin Shatkin provides three political economic accounts of urban land development in three rapidly urbanizing Asian cities: Jakarta in Indonesia, Kolkata in India, and Chongqing in China. The common thread that justifies the juxtaposition and comparison is what Shatkin calls the urban real estate turn that the three cities have undergone—a proliferation of “urban real estate megaprojects … built on a for-profit basis and contain[ing] a full suite of urban functions” (p. 3). The analytical focus is on the state: state policy that enables land monetization, how the state maximizes control over land and land markets, and how the state’s engagement in real estate development in turn consolidates its own power. By examining the real estate shift comparatively rather than in a single–case study fashion, Shatkin is well positioned to answer not only the question of why these states have taken on a massive scale of land monetization that is simultaneously open to a wide range of societal contestations but also the question of how to explain the different outcomes of urban real estate megaprojects in these cities.The Introduction sets up the larger discussion of theoretical perspectives, focusing mainly on different interpretations of neoliberalism and the utility of “variegated neoliberalism” for analyzing empirical cases. The next two chapters discuss the context of the urban real estate turn in Asia and provides the framework for comparison. On page 95, Shatkin lays out the overall approach for the comparison and provides a typology of land monetization strategies. The typology usefully categorizes political economies of land along two dimensions: state control of land markets and the autonomy of state land managers. In the interest of providing a roadmap of for the reader, it would have been helpful had Shatkin introduced this typology earlier in the first three chapters. The typology offers four ideal types. Firstly, contemporary Cambodia and Suharto-era Indonesia feature the type of land grab where the state’s control of land markets is low but where state land managers enjoy high autonomy. Secondly, China and Singapore are characterized by state capitalist urban planning where the state scores high on both dimensions. Thirdly, India and the Philippines illustrate occupancy urbanism whereby the state scores low in terms of both state land holdings and management authority. Finally, no Asian society fits the profile of the last ideal type, where the state has strong control of land markets but land management is subject to strong social control.This empty cell left me with a feeling of curiosity and a need for some explanation. What prevents Asian states with strong holdings of landownership from decentralizing their land management to non-state actors for social engagement? Can states carry out development agendas of social equity, ecological protection, spatial allocation of resources, and so forth if they choose the fourth ideal type? Does this ideal type have the potential to serve as model that planners and policymakers should set themselves to pursue? States in Asia share a long history of authoritarianism. As Shatkin points out, the urban real estate turn reinforces state power while simultaneously staging social contestation squarely at the center of urban land politics. Shatkin could have discussed the implications of his research for achieving more socially just land management and practices. Progressive- and reform-minded planners in Asia would have welcomed such a discussion.Chapters 3 to 5 examine three urban real estate megaprojects: Bumi Sperpong Damai in Jakarta, Calcutta Riverside in Kolkata, and Western New City in Chongqing, respectively. These chapters are comparably organized: a succinct review of history, the socioeconomic context, planning tools, financial support, and land policies that eventually led to the urban real estate turn, conceptual framing, a description of the megaproject, and social challenges created by the project. Each chapter can serve as a stand-alone case study. Readers can especially draw insights from several theoretically informed and empirically nuanced discussions. These include how the Indonesian state’s location permit (ijin lokasi) subordinated Jakarta’s kampung settlements to land grab; how a theory of informality is inadequate in explaining the dualism between registered lands, which in fact are not a norm, and unregistered but not illegal lands; the creation of monopsony rights that made rent seeking in urban land politics possible in Indonesia; the postcolonial history that gave rise to an ambiguity in India’s political, legal, and institutional structures of governance; the highly complex negotiated nature of the Calcutta Riverside project; and the Chinese Communist Party’s exploitation of urban development not only by way of strong state ownership but also by engaging heavily in social programs such as hukou reform, urban–rural integration, building of public housing, and the cultivation of an urban middle class.The comparative lens, though analytically useful and efficient, can at times leave readers wanting a more in-depth, ethnographic style of empirical analysis. Displacement and dispossession are two repeated themes in the three accounts of urban real estate megaprojects. More grounded accounts could help unpack the profound impacts of urban land politics. For example, are people displaced by spatial dislocation, political othering, cultural incarceration, or social exclusion and marginalization? Do the three states and megaprojects produce the same dynamic, subject, and political process of displacement?Cities for Profit is theoretically sophisticated and empirically rich. It provides a comparative lens focusing on the role of the state in Asia’s real estate turn. It is an ideal and useful text for graduate-level courses on comparative urbanism, urban politics, international planning, land development, and the state–society relationship. For researchers who are drawn to the merits of comparative urban studies, this book is invaluable.