URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY
2013/2014, Semester 1
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (Lee Kuan Yew School Of Public Policy)
Modular Credits: 4
PP5238 Urban Development and Policy
Semester I, 2013-2014
Monday 2 – 5 PM: Room SR 3-4
Assistant Professor Yumin Joo
Office Hours: email for appointment
Li Ka Shing Building, Level 2
AIM OF THE COURSE
With over half of the world’s population living in cities today, there is a growing awareness of cities in development and policy studies. This course intends to introduce why and how cities grow, and to familiarize public policy students with some of the key urban challenges and policies. Because cities are complex, the course examines urban development and policy from various entry points of economics, politics, and sociology. It also pays special attention to various scales, studying local, national, and global forces and actors that drive urban development and impact policymaking. Therefore, in addition to new knowledge on urban development and policy, students are expected to also benefit from learning and practicing how to think about a policy problem from various angles and at differing scales.
This course is divided into two parts.
Part I: economic approaches to cities and development
draws on urban and regional economic theories to study why cities exist and grow, and their development policies. Cities are explored in close connection with industrialization, and the term “urban development” coincides with economic growth via attracting firms to cities and expanding economic activities. However, economic rationales can only partly explain cities, which are governed by people of diverse interests and power levels living close together. Therefore,
Part II: urban politics, governance, and development
brings in political dynamics in explaining urban development and policy, leading to a political-economic perspective. Using cases and analytical frameworks developed in urban sociology, politics, and planning, Part II pays special attention to property development and urban megaprojects, as they are increasingly prominent features in both developed and developing countries’ cities seeking urban growth. In the process, urban policy issues related to housing, land use, transportation, finance, inter-governmental relationships, and environment will also be discussed.
The module is aimed primarily at Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Public Administration students but is open to appropriate students from elsewhere in the university.
There is no prerequisite for the course.
MODES OF TEACHING
Classes will be a mix of lectures and discussions. I will start the class with a presentation, during which I might also ask questions and invite students to share their opinions. After a short break, the class will be run as a seminar, where I will guide the discussions but students are expected to do most of the talking. Therefore, students should come to class well prepared to participate, and accordingly, 40% of the course grade is assigned to preparing (20%-writing memos) and participating in class (20%). In addition, it is important to come to every class, because I will sometimes explain the urban planning and policy concepts that are only briefly mentioned in the readings. This will help familiarize students with the concepts and terminologies that will enable them to communicate intelligibly with urban professionals they might encounter in their careers. Finally, during the last 15-20 minutes of the class, I will introduce next week’s topics and questions so that students can better prepare for the coming week’s class.
REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENT
In class participation: 20%
Three memos: 20%
Group project: 25%
Final examination: 35%
In class participation (20%):
Students are expected to read and think about the assigned readings prior to each class, and to participate actively in class discussions. I will keep general track of participation. Quality of participation matters, and so students who tend to be shy can still earn a good participation grade by making insightful and stimulating points rather than focusing on quantity. There are several ways to prepare for class participation. The most direct way would be to prepare answers to each week’s questions in the syllabus. Another way would be to make interesting comments or raise thoughtful questions in memos, because I will read them before each class and if I think a student has raised a good point/question, I will call on him/her to share and discuss it in class. Students can also volunteer to present a case that they are familiar with and is relevant to the class topic. Please email me in advance to arrange the presentation.
Three memos (20%):
Students should choose three weeks (1 from Part I and 2 from Part II or 2 from Part I and 1 from Part II) to write their memos on. Memos are each due by 3pm the day before the class (Sunday) of the chosen week, and should be submitted to the corresponding week folder in the IVLE. Late submissions will NOT be accepted. The length of a memo should be 2-3 double-spaced pages, in font size 12. The goal of writing a memo is to help students prepare for the class by pushing them to reflect on the readings, organize their thoughts, and raise questions. Hence, there is no standard rule for how to write a memo, except that it should include students’ own question(s) on the readings or the topics to be discussed that week. Each memo will be graded as √+ (excellent), √ (good), or √- (poor).
Group project (25%):
The class will be divided into groups of about 3-4 students, each assigned to prepare a chapter in a format of a photo-essay for a (hypothetical) book project titled
Urban Development and Policy in Singapore.
The editor wants a chapter with 10-15 photographs, accompanied by a text of no longer than 3,000 words total (including bibliography). The photos and the text should work together to effectively convey the main thesis and arguments of the essay, which should be well focused, original, and interesting. The goal of the book project is to collaboratively and visually share knowledge on Singapore’s urban development and policy, and the potential areas of topic include (but are not limited to) housing, transportation, environment, tourism, commercial activities, and security.
Schedule, specific requirements, and assessment criteria:
In Week 3, we will assign groups according to the areas of topic. Hence, students are required to come to the class with some ideas of what aspects of urban development in Singapore they would like to explore. In Week 7, groups will briefly update the class on their progress of the project. The final draft of the essay is due at
5pm on Friday, November 8th
. One hard copy from each group should be submitted in my mailbox located on the 2nd floor of the Li Ka Shing Building. Late submission will NOT be accepted. Groups are also required to submit one electronic copy through the IVLE. Please keep in mind that the photographs should be original, taken by the members of the group, and the text part of the photo-essay should be double-spaced and written in Times New Roman, font size 12. In the final week of the class, each group will have strictly 20 minutes to present their findings and 10-15 minutes for Q&A. The group project will be graded on the final draft of the photo-essay (50%) and the oral presentation (50%). The photo-essay will be assessed on 1) its focus and creativity; 2) how successfully the text and photographs work together to tell a story and support its main argument; and 3) its organization and structure. The presentation will be assessed on 1) how clearly the main argument and ideas are delivered within the time limit using photographs (students are strongly discouraged to use texts in their slides); and 2) how well the group answers questions during the Q&A. Additionally, to avoid free rider problem, I will ask students to anonymously fill out an evaluation form for each of the other members of the group at the end of the class.
The idea of photo-essay is generously shared by Professor Kenneth Paul Tan.
OUTLINE OF TOPICS AND READINGS
Week 1: Introduction to course (8.12; shopping week)
I. Economic approaches to cities and development
Week 2: The growth of cities and development I (8.19)
How and why do you think cities grow? In what ways does the agglomeration theory help explain urban and regional growth? What are the relationships between cities and national economic development? Should public policy be concerned about unbalanced regional development, and if so, why?
J. McDonald. 1997.
Fundamentals of Urban Economics.
Prentice Hall. pp. 37-43.
J. Vernon Henderson Zmarak Shalizi, Anthony J. Venables. 2001. “Geography and Development,”
Journal of Economic Geography.
The growth of cities and development II (8.26)
Group project: assign groups
How is Jacobs’ model of urban growth similar to or different from what is implied by the product cycle theory? In what ways do these readings explain the importance of cities in the overall economic development? Also from the readings, think about how a stagnant city might differ from a creative city, and what the implications for the policymakers may be.
Read the note on the product cycle theory (to be posted in the IVLE).
The Economy of Cities.
1969. Vintage Books. pp. 85-103.
Cities and the Wealth of Nations.
1984. Random House. Pp. 135-155.
Week 4: The post-Fordist economy (9.2)
Compared to the product cycle theory, how do the flexible production theories differ in predicting the economic activities of a city/region? How do they make a case for the importance of place, and how do they explain the rise of new industrial cities/regions?
How is Markusen complementing or contrasting with the ideas arising from the flexible production theories? What is your own take on whether or not these theories are applicable and useful to the cities in developing countries?
Emil Malizia and Edward Feser. 2005.
Understanding Local Economic Development.
Center for Urban Policy and Research. Chapter 10. Theories of Flexible Production. pp. 222-242.
Ann R. Markusen. 1999. “National Contexts and the Emergence of Second-Tier Cities.” In
Second-Tier Cities: Rapid Growth Beyond the Metropolis.
Edited by Ann R. Markusen, Yong-Sook Lee, and Sean DiGiovanna. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 65-94.
Week 5: The global economy (9.9)
In what new ways do cities’ roles in development become more pronounced with the globalization of the economy? What are some of the new challenges faced by cities and their policymakers, and what may be the possible solutions? Which cities do you think become the “losers” and which become the “winners” in the global economy?
Saskia Sassen. 2002. Locating Cities on Global Circuits.
Environment & Urbanization.
Michael C. Ewers. 2007. Migrants, Markets, and Multinationals: Competition Among World Cities for the Highly Skilled.
Mike Douglass. 2000. Mega-urban Regions and World City Formation: Globalization, the Economic Crisis and Urban Policy Issues in Pacific Asia.
Week 6: Practices and policies of local economic development (9.16)
These readings are on the local economic development policies in the U.S. What are the policies, and why are they being pursued? What do you think about them? Based on the previous week’s readings, can you bring in any other explanatory elements to elaborate on why such practices and policies may be prone to have little success?
Larry Ledebur and Douglas Woodward. 1990. “Adding a Stick to the Carrot: Location Incentives with Clawbacks, Rescissions, and Recalibrations.”
Economic Development Quarterly,
Alan Peters and Peter Fisher. 2004. "The Failures of Economic Development Incentives,"
Journal of the American Planning Association
70 (1): 27-37.
Margaret Dewar. 1998 “Why State and Local Economic Development Programs
Cause so Little Economic Development,”
Economic Development Quarterly
, 12 (1): 68-87.
II. Urban politics, governance, and development
Week 7: Theories of urban politics (9.30; 9.23-recess week)
Group project: each group updates the class on its progress
These are the three key theories of urban politics, developed based on the American cases.
How do the readings overlap and differ? According to each reading, who makes what urban policy choices and investment decisions in cities, and why? Which analyses do you find more persuasive?
Paul Peterson. 1995. “Who Should Do What? Divided Responsibility in the Federal System.”
The Brookings Review.
Harvey Molotch. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.”
American Journal of Sociology
Clarence Stone. 1993. “Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political Economy Approach.”
Journal of Urban Affairs.
For those interested in reading the authors’ representative works:
Paul Peterson. 1981.
University of Chicago Press.
John Logan and Harvey Molotch. 1976.
University of California Press.
Clarence Stone. 1989.
Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta. 1946-1988.
University Press of Kansas.
Week 8: Urban property development as economic growth strategy (10.7)
Why and how do property development projects increasingly get built, physically transforming today’s metropolises? According to your own view, is the local governance promoting and supporting such projects as a source of growth justified? What are the pros and cons of property-led development strategy, especially compared to the local economic development policies discussed in week 6? Also, be prepared to discuss the importance of policy and different levels of government in shaping urban growth patterns in each of the Guangzhou and Buenos Aires cases.
Jiang Xu and Anthony G.O. Yeh. 2005. City Repositioning and Competitiveness Building in Regional Development: New Development Strategies in Guangzhou, China.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.
Nora Libertun de Duren. 2006. Planning a la Carte: The Location Patterns of Gated Communities around Buenos Aires in a Decentralized Planning Context.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.
David Harvey. 1989. From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism.
Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography.
Week 9: Potential for different development trajectories (10.14)
This week’s readings bring in the stories of more oppositional responses to development projects, suggesting possibilities for a varying range of urban development outcomes. Which urban actors rise against the traditional local power elites, under what circumstances, with what measures? In both the Taiwan and South Korean cases, how would you compare their local politics with the urban growth machine and regime theories studied in week 7?
Ching-Ping Tang. 2003. Democratizing Urban Politics and Civic Environmentalism in Taiwan.
The China Quarterly.
Yooil Bae and Jeffery Sellers. 2007. Globalization, the Developmental State and the Politics of Urban Growth in Korea: A Multilevel Analysis,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
31 (3): 543-560
Mark Schneider and Paul Teske. 1993. The Antigrowth Entrepreneur: Challenging the “Equilibrium” of the Growth Machine.
The Journal of Politics.
55 (3)” 720-736.
Week 10: National state in urban governance and policy (10.21)
Focusing only on local actors and institutions often becomes limiting when studying urban development dynamics and policies of developing countries, as many of these cities have been under strong national influence. Despite the widespread decentralization and democratization, in what ways is the national state still involved in the process of urban development? Further, what does Park’s paper imply about policymaking at the national level? Do you see any similarities with the local-level policymaking?
Jiang Xu and Anthony Yeh. 2009. Decoding Urban Land Governance: State Reconstruction in Contemporary Chinese Cities.
Bae-Gyoon Park. 1998. Where Do Tigers Sleep at Night? The State’s Role in Housing Policy in South Korea and Singapore.
: Mr. Tan Beng Teck from the Housing & Development Board on Singapore’s housing policy (to be confirmed later).
Week 11: Globalization and issues in urban development projects and policies (10.28)
In what ways does globalization affect urban development, especially in the predominant capital cities? What global-national-local nexus are portrayed in each of the readings? Does local politics still matter, and if so, how? What are your own thoughts on globalization and the urban convergence thesis, and what would be your advice to urban policymakers?
Andre Sorensen. 2005. Building World City Tokyo: Globalization and Conflict Over Urban Space. In
Globalization and Urban Development.
Edited by H. W. Richardson and C.H.C. Bae. Berlin: Springer. pp.225-237.
Gavin Shatkin. 2008. The City and the Bottom Line: Urban Megaprojects and the Privatization of Planning in Southeast Asia.
Environment and Planning A.
Diane Davis. 2006. Conflict, Cooperation, and Convergence: Globalization and the Politics of Downtown Development in Mexico City.
Research in Political Sociology.
Week 12: Building better cities (11.4)
Despite all the challenges, there may be room to build better, sustainable cities. Think about what lessons other cities could take-away from the success stories of Curitiba and Singapore.
Do you think their experiences could be replicated elsewhere in the world? If you were a planner interested in creating the “state-society synergy” to improve your local urban environment, what would you do? Throughout the module, how (if at all) have your thoughts changed on how and why cities develop the way they do?
Jonas Rabinovitch. 1992. Curitiba: Towards Sustainable Urban Development.
Environment and Urbanization.
Victor R. Savage and Lily Kong. 1993. Urban Constraints, Political Imperatives: Environmental ‘Design’ in Singapore.
Landscape and Urban Planning.
25. pp. 37-52.
Peter Evans. 2002.
Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability.
Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 1-30.
Q&A for the final exam
Week 13: Group Project: student presentations (11.11)
Reading week: 11.18
Final exam: 11.25 (Monday) 1 PM