International urban development leadership Singapore, China and South Korea compared

• Published in: Exporting Urban Korea? Vol. 1; pp. 131 - 145
• Main Authors: Kim, Hyung Min, Miao, Julie, Phelps, Nicholas A.
• Format: Book Chapter
• Language: English
• Published: Routledge 2021
• Edition: 1
• Subjects: Flagship Development Projects; Land Reclamation; KOICA; Smart Cities; Public Private Partnerships; Urban Development Sector; Vice Versa; Singapore Housing Development Board; Outward FDI Activity; China’s Urban Transition; Outward FDI; Urban Leadership; Korea National Housing Corporation; Saemaul Undong; East Asian Nations; South Korean FDI; Policy Exchange; Multifunction Polis; Sip; Urban Solutions; BRI Project; Public Administration; Korean Oda; East Asian States
• ISBN: 9780367498405; 9780367498443; 0367498405; 0367498448
• DOI: 10.4324/9781003047599-10

By their nature, patterns and processes of urban development and governance tend to be localized to individual cities. Yet a market for the export and import of all things urban has long existed; “international urban development leadership” has been reinvigorated and expanded significantly in an era of unprecedented international economic integration. East Asian nations have emerged as some of the leading sources for the “export” urban expertise of various sorts. These nations are notable for the pragmatism and concreteness of their rapid urbanization and industrialization—features that greatly appeal to a wide variety of Global South nations continuing to aspire to greater levels of development. Yet, important differences exist among East Asian nations in both the methods of export and the urban expertise involved. This chapter compares and contrasts some of the emerging differences in international urban development leadership among these three key national players. As a city-state, Singapore might be said to enjoy unique and first mover advantages in international urban development leadership in which close regard has been paid to the opportunities for “money-making” from the Singapore story and growing its smart and sustainable urban solutions industry. China rapidly has emulated some of the direct investment approaches found in the Singapore case, albeit with the geopolitical largess of “money-giving”. South Korea’s more recent “going abroad” has been aligned more ambivalently with international overseas development aid efforts in which it nevertheless has hoped to magnify Government-to-Government (G2G) arrangements for its large and well-established private sector as “money-leveraging”. This chapter compares and contrasts some of the emerging differences in international urban development leadership among three key national players — Singapore, China and South Korea. Due to the resources required for urban development leadership, the approaches taken by the “leader”’ countries have followed “pragmatism” with variations in terms of timing, form, emphasis, administration and geopolitics. These five inter-related categories are useful in specifying their urban leadership models. The substantive depth of the export as indicated in the form of involvement also varies across East Asian states. Much of the emphasis found in the Singaporean model reflects the vulnerabilities of small island state and the relatively slender and specific niche opportunities that can be exploited by businesses. The Singapore model is one that by now is highly codified down to the level of some of its individual constituent parts such as neighborhood planning principles, Housing Development Board and welfare systems and even the “software” of public administration and management systems.