This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu
Since 1970, much emphasis has been placed on the emergence of global network corporations and the likely impact of new information technologies -satellites and optic fibres - on spatial structures (Castells, 1989). As they have increased the availability of knowledge, these technologies have led to an interest in analysing telephone calls and the transmission of faxes and telexes between world cities. At best, this focus provides a partial analysis of international linkages and interactions because it concentrates on the transmission of routinized and uncomplicated information. It neglects the movements of individuals that are necessary to transfer structurally complex information (i.e. knowledge) in face-to-face contacts, and goods transactions increasingly decentralized because of the decreasing costs of transport, the introduction of robots, and computerized production control. If this conceptual problem is to be overcome, the multilayered flows between Pacific Asia's emerging world cities, comprising goods, people, and information, must be considered (fig. 3.1).
Tri-level flows
In a bid to resolve this issue Kobayashi and Okada (1990) have recognized that movements of goods, people, and information are exchanged between firms (and households) on a spatial network comprising nodes and links. In our analysis, nodes are world cities comprising firms with goods production and information capacities (i.e. universities and research centres). Links facilitate flows. A tri-level infrastructural arrangement is envisaged comprising low-speed transport, high-speed transport, and telecommunications networks to accommodate movements of goods, people, and information (fig. 3.2). In exchanging standardized information, personal contacts can be replaced by telecommunications. Where information is complex, face-to-face contact is necessary for negotiations and the transmission of new knowledge; transport is essential to promote cooperation between workers and more advanced research and development activities.
Fig. 3.1 Multilayered flows between world cities
Accessibility is a key concept because it determines each emerging world city's potential as a generator of goods, people, and information. Also, it reflects the decreasing role of the friction of distance in telecommunications and its persistence in movements of goods and people. Internal network structure within a world city is an important determinant of the regional division of labour. With the highest accessibility, the central node is the prime location for workers handling both structurally complex and uncomplicated information. Owing to the spread of telecommunications, the flow of standardized information at peripheral nodes has increased, therefore workers can be decentralized and face-to-face contact can be replaced by the transmission of data and information.
A major problem is that the expansion of the telecommunications network is outstripping the growth of both high-speed and slow-speed transport networks - the result of opposition from environmental groups. Rather than all three surfaces being shown as equal, they should be tapered to reflect this phenomenon. Although there is some scope for technological substitution between transport and telecommunications, research suggests that the new media will increase rather than reduce the need for face-to-face contact. Inevitably, existing networks will be congested.
Fig. 3.2 The tri-level infrastructural arrangement comprising low-speed transport, high-speed transport, and telecommunications networks (Source: based on Kobayashi and Okada, 1990)
Already, congested road networks and rising truck costs between Japanese world cities are prompting a modal shift from road to rail, coastal shipping, and air (Nikkei, 11 September 1991; 12 September 1991; 13 September 1991; 26 September 1991). The shift, however, has been hampered by saturated railway lines and inadequate port and airport infrastructure. In a bid to accommodate changing relative demands for infrastructure, most investment in urban agglomerations in Pacific Asia will be in nodes (ports, airports, and teleports) rather than in links.1
Urban agglomerations
The United Nations' Prospects of World Urbanization (UN, 1989) provides information on urban agglomerations in Pacific Asia for 1975, 1985, and 2000. In 1985, these agglomerations ranged in size from 19 million people in Tokyo to 310,000 in Vientiane (Laos). Of these, 29 agglomerations were identified as being among the world's "top 100" with populations in excess of 2 million (table 3.1). In selecting world cities for study it is tempting to establish an arbitrary cut-off (say 2 million or 5 million). However, this would mean that many Chinese agglomerations with no direct global connections would have to be included, while agglomerations such as Kuala Lumpur whose international importance belies their population size would be excluded. Further, the Klang Valley Corridor covering the Kuala Lumpur conurbation, Shah Alam, and Klang, and the wider definitions of Jakarta (Jabotabek) and Singapore would also be eliminated. While adjacent cities such as Manila-Quezon, Osaka-Kobe, and Tokyo-Yokohama are grouped together, larger conceptualizations are feasible, as exemplified by Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe (Keihanshin). A strong case exists for collocating Beijing and Tianjin, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, Seoul and Pusan, and Taipei and Kaohsiung as single entities because they function as extended metropolitan areas.
Instead of altering the United Nations' definition of urban agglomerations, 12 representative world cities have been chosen for study: Bangkok, Beijing, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Osaka, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Taipei, and Tokyo (fig. 3.3). Between 1975 and 1985, their combined population grew at 8 per cent per annum from almost 66 million to a little under 93 million (table 3.2). A slower rate of growth of 6.4 per cent is anticipated between 1985 and 2000, with the combined population reaching almost 122 million. Over this 25-year period a marked shift in the distribution of world city populations is expected. World cities in South-East Asia will boost their share of the combined population from one-fifth in 1975 to one-third in 2000 - Singapore will be the only South-East Asia centre to experience a relative decline. Conversely, Taipei is expected to be the only emerging world city in East Asia to increase its share of the combined population.
Population is an unreliable guide to judging a world city's status; it has to be supplemented by indicators of commercial transactions, people, information, and financial services. In 1982, this approach was used in a study by Nomura Research Institute (NSK, 1982). Of the 12 cities under review, five were classified as super-integrated, international cities - Seoul as a commercial centre, Hong Kong as a financial centre, and Manila, Singapore, and Tokyo as multi-faceted centres; another five were classified as highly integrated international cities - Taipei and Osaka as commercial centres, Jakarta and Bang kok as information centres, and Kuala Lumpur as a financial centre; and two - Beijing and Shanghai - were unranked because they failed to meet the criteria to be considered as international cities (unlike Kobe, Nagoya, and Guangzhou) (see table 3.3).
Table 3.1 Urban agglomerations with a population of 2 million or more in Pacific Asia, 1985, and their average rate of growth, 1970-2000
Rank in 1985 | Agglomeration | Population (million) | Average annual rate of growth (%) | |||
1970 | 1985 | 2000 | 1970-1985 | 1985-2000 | ||
1 | Tokyo/Yokohama (Japan) | 14.87 | 19.04 | 21.32 | 1.65 | 0.75 |
5 | Shanghai (China) | 11.41 | 12.06 | 14.69 | 0.37 | 1.32 |
10 | Seoul (Korea, Rep. of) | 5.31 | 10.07 | 12.97 | 4.27 | 1.69 |
12 | Osaka/Kobe (Japan) | 7.60 | 9.56 | 11.18 | 1.53 | 1.04 |
14 | Beijing (China) | 8.29 | 9.33 | 11.47 | 0.79 | 1.38 |
17 | Tianjin (China) | 6.87 | 7.96 | 9.96 | 0.98 | 1.49 |
19 | Jakarta (Indonesia) | 4.32 | 7.79 | 13.23 | 3.93 | 3.53 |
22 | Manila/Quezon City (Philippines) | 3.53 | 7.09 | 11.48 | 4.65 | 3.21 |
26 | Bangkok (Thailand) | 3.11 | 5.86 | 10.26 | 4.22 | 3.73 |
29 | Hong Kong (Hong Kong) | 3.40 | 5.16 | 6.09 | 2.78 | 1.10 |
39 | Shenyang (China) | 3.14 | 4.11 | 5.50 | 1.79 | 1.94 |
40 | Pusan (Korea, Rep. of) | 1.81 | 4.02 | 5.82 | 5.32 | 2.47 |
46 | Wuhan (China) | 2.73 | 3.40 | 4.47 | 1.46 | 1.82 |
49 | Guangzhou (China) | 2.50 | 3.33 | 4.49 | 1.91 | 1.99 |
64 | Ho Chi Minh (Viet Nam) | 2.00 | 2.78 | 4.42 | 2.20 | 3 09 |
66 | Chongqing (China) | 2.46 | 2.72 | 3.42 | 0.67 | 1.53 |
67 | Rangoona (Burma) | 1.43 | 2.71 | 4.45 | 4.26 | 3.31 |
70 | Chengdu (China) | 1.58 | 2.69 | 3.98 | 3.55 | 2.61 |
76 | Harbin (China) | 2.00 | 2.63 | 3.56 | 1.83 | 2.02 |
79 | Singapore (Singapore) | 1.56 | 2.56 | 2.95 | 3.30 | 0.95 |
81 | Taipei (China) | 1.50 | 2.52 | 3.78 | 3.46 | 2.70 |
83 | Zibo (China) | 1.30 | 2.41 | 3.76 | 4.12 | 2.97 |
85 | Surabaya (Indonesia) | 1.47 | 2.32 | 3.67 | 3.04 | 3.06 |
86 | Xian (China) | 1.73 | 2.28 | 3.08 | 1.84 | 2.01 |
89 | Lupanshui (China) | 1.66 | 2.20 | 3.00 | 1.88 | 2.07 |
92 | Nanjing (China) | 1.78 | 2.16 | 2.83 | 1.29 | 1.80 |
94 | Kitakyushu (Japan) | 1.59 | 2.09 | 2.39 | 1.82 | 0.89 |
98 | Medan (Indonesia) | 0.61 | 2.05 | 5.36 | 8.08 | 6.41 |
99 | Nagoya (Japan) | 1.85 | 2.05 | 2.11 | 0.68 | 0.19 |
Source: UN (1989).
a. Now known as Yangon (Myanmar)
Fig. 3.3 Urban agglomerations in Pacific Asia in 2000 (Source: UN, 1989)
Table 3.2 Actual and estimated population of emerging world cities in Pacific Asia, 1970, 1985, and 2000
City | 1970 |
1985 |
2000 |
|||
Million |
Per cent |
Million |
Per cent |
Million |
Per cent |
|
Jakarta | 4.32 | 6.6 | 7.79 | 8.4 | 13.23 | 10.9 |
Singapore | 1.56 | 2.4 | 2.56 | 2.8 | 2.95 | 2.4 |
Kuala Lumpur | 0.64 | 1.0 | 1.27 | 1.4 | 2.56 | 2.1 |
Bangkok | 3.11 | 4.7 | 5.86 | 6.3 | 10.26 | 8.4 |
Manila/Quezon City | 3.53 | 5.4 | 7.09 | 7.7 | 11.48 | 9.4 |
South-East Asia | 13.16 | 20.1 | 24.57 | 26.6 | 40.48 | 33.2 |
Taipei | 1.50 | 2.3 | 2.52 | 2.7 | 3.78 | 3.1 |
Hong Kong | 3.40 | 5.2 | 5.16 | 5.6 | 6.09 | 5.0 |
Shanghai | 11.41 | 17.4 | 12.06 | 13.0 | 14.69 | 12.0 |
Beijing | 8.29 | 12.6 | 9.33 | 10.1 | 11.47 | 9.4 |
Osaka/Kobe | 7.60 | 11.6 | 9.56 | 10.4 | 11.18 | 9.2 |
Tokyo/Yokohama | 14.87 | 22.7 | 19.08 | 20.7 | 21.32 | 17.5 |
Seoul | 5.31 | 8.1 | 10.07 | 10.9 | 12.97 | 10.6 |
East Asia | 52.38 | 79.9 | 67.78 | 73.4 | 81.50 | 66.8 |
Pacific Asia | 65.54 | 100.0 | 92.35 | 100.0 | 121.98 | 100.0 |
Source: UN (1989).