Spatial-temporal Analysis of Land Market in Urban Fringe

1. Research context

There is a widespread deem that urbanisation is the outcome of the configuration of modern human society. The 19th century, which assumed to be the era of modernization all over the world, has experienced rapid urbanisation. For instance, urban population has increased from less than 14 percent to more than 50 percent of the world's population during 1900-2000 and if this growth continues, urban population in the world will arrive at 4.72 -5.00 billion in 2030 (increase of 48.61-57.84 percent comparing to the current population) comparing to 6.835-8.135 billion (18.71 percent) increase in total population and 3.348-3.267 billion (2.42 percent) decrease in rural population. Nevertheless, the devastating situation will be at the developing countries, where the urban population growth is forecasted to be 74.17 percent in 2030 comparing to the current population (Zhang, 2008). Interestingly, maximum of this urban population agglomeration is in largest cities, especially megaciites (Li, 2003) and these megacities are growing at an unprecedented rate. For example, in 1950 there were only 4 megacities, which increase to 28 in 1980, 39 in 2002; and 59 in 2015 (UN 2002).

Then the question arises which criteria define the megacities. Some urban geographers tried to define the megacities based on the global economic power or influence. With the exception of Lo and Yeung's (1998) ‘Globalization and the World of Large Cities', which includes Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo and Johannesburg, and more recently systematic work by Taylor (2000), Lo and Marcotullio (2000), Taylor and Walker (2001) and Shin and Timberlake (2000) much of these works (Friedmann, 1986; Sassen, 2004) have either focused on the developed world or merely mentioned ‘megacities' in the developing world (Yulong and Hamnett, 2002).

However, an extensive debate has still been going on the definition of megacities. United Nations categorize the megacities with population of 8 millions while Asian Development Bank extends the population limit to 10 million along with other characteristics such as complex economy and integrated transport system.

Thus, discussion takes into account the ‘population greater than 10 millions' as an indicator of megacities. According to the World Population Report 2001 by UNFPA, currently there are 19 megacities such as Tokyo (26.4 millions), Mexico City (18.1 millions), Mumbai (18.1 millions), São Paulo (17.8 millions), Shanghai (17 millions), New York (16.6 millions), Lagos (13.4 millions), Los Angeles (13.1 millions), Calcutta (12.9 millions), Buenos Aires (12.6 millions), Dhaka (12.3 millions), Karachi (11.8 millions), New Delhi (11.7 millions), Jakarta (11 millions), Osaka (11 millions), Metro Manila (10.9 millions), Beijing (10.6 millions), Reo de Janeiro (10.6 millions) and Cairo (10.6 millions). Still there is a controversy about the geographical extent of these megacities.

Even some of these megacities are growing on forming the urban corridors (Tokyo-Yokohama-Nagoya-Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto Shinkansen in Japan, Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan in northeastern China; and the Mumbai-Pune development corridor in India) and urban mega-clusters (national capital Region of Delhi, Dhaka, and Metro Manila; Karachi mega-urban region, Bangkok-Thonburi metropolitan region, and Jakarta-Bogor-Tangerang-Bekasi region).

This continuing growth of megacities is now the burning research topic of the policy makers as well as international communities (Renaud, 1981; UN, 1993) and different policies are already been applied to counterpart this rapid urbanisations in megacities such as China, Egypt, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and China have promoted different promotional programs (e.g. dual track urban system) for patronizing the medium size cities in their respective country level (Henderson, 2002; Ades and Glaeser, 1995). Still a comprehensive strategy needs to be initiated in order to counterpart the unprecedented rate of urbanisation and urban agglomeration.

2. Overall aim and objectives

The overall aim of the thesis is to determine the economic value of land at the urban fringe of a megacity in developing country. Based on the aim, the objectives are categorised into two broad areas - theoretical objectives and empirical objectives.

Theoretical objectives

To examine the extent of influence of urbanisation process, and land acquisition and speculation, by both the public and private sectors, on the dynamics of urban agglomeration or urban sprawl.
To examine the changing urban spatial patterns of the megacites due to sprawl and to explain them within the framework of different urban growth theories.
To examine the nature, characteristics, and dynamics of urban land and the land market within which land assembles, urban renewal, gentrification and development has taken place.
To identify different spatio-temporal econometric methods for determining land price.

Empirical objectives

To develop an economic instrument, considering both spatial and temporal aspects of land, for understanding the dynamics of the land price at urban fringe of a megacity in developing country
To determine the extent of influence of environmental attributes on the price of urban-rural interface lands.

3. Methodology

In order to attain the objectives, the research will be carried out by following the comprehensive methodology, the structure of which is given below:

The detail of the methodology and structure of the chapters to attain the objectives is given below:



Organizati-on of chapters

Objective 1: Definition of urbanisation and urban agglomeration; reasons; challenges; trend of urbanisation in developed and developing countries; growth pattern of different hierarchy of urban settlements; socio-economic, political and physical characteristics of urban settlements; economic, institutional, and political factors of rural-urban migration; government policies and urban politics in the context of urbanisation and urban agglomeration; concept, nature, characteristics and dynamics of megacities; spatial pattern of megacities; cases and consequences of rapid urbanisation and urban space challenges especially in megacities.

Literature review of journal, books and reports of different organisations working on urbanisation and urban agglomeration

Chapter 2

Objective 2: Urban land economic theories (such as classical theories, neo-classical theories, new economic geographic theories, and new institutional economic theories) in the context of urbanisation and urban agglomeration

Literature review of journal and books

Chapter 3

Objective 3: Dynamics of urban land market, urban land politics, actors of urban land politics, contemporary urban land regulatory mechanisms and their acceptability in different contexts, planning mechanisms for controlling land conversion or development at the urban fringe, land acquisition process, government strategy for land ceiling standard and land speculation, actors controlling the land market, impact of land use change on the wetlands and agricultural lands at urban fringe and challenges for attaining sustainability.

Literature review of journal, books, reports of different organisations, and government policies, strategic plans, rules, and regulations.

Chapter 4

Objective 4: Different types of spatio-temporal econometric methods for determining the land price at urban fringe

Literature review of journal and books. Software for Spatio-temporal autoregressive analysis

Chapter 5

Objective 5: variables or attributes explaining land market at urban fringe, compatible econometric instrument for drawing the equation of land market at urban fring

Application of spatio-temporal econometric model for regression analysis

Chapter 8

Objective 6: economic valuation of environmental attributes and its influence on the land market at urban fringe

4. Theoretical framework

Various factors are attributed to the urbanisation in megacities such as rural-urban migration (Goldstein, 1990; Chan, 1994a,1994b; Rempel, 1996; Ma, 1999), natural population increase and even the government policies (Lo, 1994; Sit, 1995; Lin, 2004; Bloom et al., 2008) on foreign direct investment (Sit and Yang, 1997; Shen, 1999; Shen et al., 2000), expansion of tertiary industries (Lin, 2002) and economic transition (Gu and Wall, 2007). This section explores the reasons behind the urbanisation and urban agglomeration in megacities, and spatial patterns of megacities.

Economic development

There is a significant positive correlation between the economic development and urbanisation (Henderson, 2003), which can better be explained by the hypothesis of Williamson (1965) (Hansen, 1990). Due to the economic development of the city, the significant amount of industries are concentrated within the city core and this upshots in development of knowledge, skills, and economic infrastructure which leads to development of physical structures such as transport and communications. This physical development make obligatory to the investors or manufacturers to recalculate the cost-benefit analysis of the geographical locations of their industries taking into account the external and internal economies of scale- resulting in urban expansion or deconcentration of industries from the urban core (El-Shakhs, 1972; Alonso, 1980; Wheaton and Shishido, 1981; Junius, 1999; Davis and Henderson, 2003; Barro and Sala-I-Martin, 1991, 1992; Kuznets, 1966; Abramovitz, 1989; Easterlin, 2000). This argument is vivid by reviewing different literatures on the economic growth and urbanisation in megacities (Aguilar and Ward, 2003; Firman, 1997; Fanni, 2006).

However, the basic assumption of urbanisation is the rural-urban migration. According to the western economists, urbanisation/ rural-urban migration is the resultant of increase in the productivity of agricultural sector and the increasing demand for labour needed by an expanding industrial sector. This economic model was adopted for the western economics, which was later tried to adopt in the urbanisation pattern of the third world countries by Lewis (1994). Nevertheless, the increasing rural-urban migration, despite the high unemployment and underemployment situation in urban areas of developing countries, raises the question of its validity. Later on, comparative evaluation of expected wage rates between urban and rural (by Harris-Todaro migration model), and present value of expected benefits and costs (by Sjaasted migration model) were identified as the key economic factors of urbanisation process. Brueckner and Zenou (1999) and Brueckner and Kim (2001) have incorporate the effects of land price escalation due to the migration within the Harris-Todaro model. Furthermore, classical economists (e.g. (Gordon, 1975; Petty, 1683; Yang, 1991; Yang and Rice, 1994; Sun, 2000; Sun and Yang, 2002; Zhang and Zhao, 2004) and neo-classical economists (e.g. Fujita-Krugman, 1995; Helpman, 1998; Lowry, 1966) try to project the ‘division of labor and production', and ‘economies of scale' as the basic economic prerequisite of urbanisation respectively.

Government policies and urban politics

After the economic development, the next significant characteristic of urbanisation in megacities is government interventions or policies (Renaud, 1981; Ades and Glaeser, 1995; Moomaw and Shatter, 1996; Henderson and Becker, 2000; Davis and Henderson, 2003) by sometimes prioritizing the megacities over other cities during decisive policymaking (Fujita et al., 1999). This may cause because of their political significance and interest of the elites and bureaucrats (such as in Bangkok, Mexico City, Jakarta, and Paris, São Paulo). For promoting economic development in the megacities, the government (either national or local) of concerned countries sometime has taken promotion strategies such as in Shanghai, China (Cai, 1995; Han, 2000; Fu, 2001); Jakarta, Indonesia (Firman, 2000; Goldblum and Wong, 2000; Henderson and Kuncoro, 1996; Kaiser, 1999); Manila, Philippines (Kelly, 2003; Bankoff, 1996; Sidel, 1999); Mumbai and Delhi, India (Valerie, 1999); Cairo, Egypt (Sutton and Fahmi, 2001); and even in London, Paris and New York (Lever, 1997; Short and Kim, 1999; Tickell, 1998)..

However, the impact of dynamic government polices on urbanisation and urban agglomeration is most acute in China such as ‘Socialist Economic theory' based urban-biased Hukou system during the ‘pre-reform' period (Oi, 1993; Naughton, 1996; Zhang and Zhao, 2004; Chan, 1994a, 1996; Gu and Shen, 2003; Sit, 1995; Harrison, 1972; Murphey, 1974; Ma, 1976; Nolan and White, 1984; Prybyla, 1987; Kirkby, 1985; Kang, 1993; Chan, 1994b; Liu, 1999; Ma and Fan, 1994; Buck, 1981; Parish, 1987; Ofer, 1977; Konrad and Szelenyi, 1977; Ronnas and Sjoberg, 1993; Sjoberg, 1999; Kirkby, 1985; Kang, 1993; Chan, 1994b; Solinger, 1999; Lieberthal, 1995; Fallenbuchl, 1977; Zhang and Zhao, 1998; National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2000; Konrad and Szelenyi, 1977; Ofer, 1977, 1980; Musil, 1980; Murray and Szelenyi, 1984), especially in China (Cell, 1979; Orleans, 1982; Whyte, 1983; Ran and Berry, 1989; Ebanks and Cheng, 1990; Yu, 1995; Tang, 1997; Song and Timberlake, 1996; Lin, 1998; Dong and Putterman, 2000). Later on, ‘post-reform policy' also boosted the urbanisation by encouraging the foreign and private investments in megacities (Banister and Taylor, 1989; Shen and Spence, 1995; Shen, 2002; Shen et al., 2006).

However, the national or local government is not solely responsible for urbanisation, urban development as well as urban expansion. Then the question is: Who runs the cities? Government interventions or policies in the urban strategic planning for political significance and interest of the elites and bureaucrats are proverbial in the cities of both developed and developing world (Renaud, 1981; Ades and Glaeser, 1995; Moomaw and Shatter, 1996; Henderson and Becker, 2000; Davis and Henderson, 2003). This is why; urban theorists are focusing on urban politics rather than on economic attributes in formulating state policies for urban development (Sites, 1997; Cockburn, 1977; Castells, 1979; Stone, 1993; 1998). Nevertheless, the influence of urban politics in urban planning priorities in different parts of the world is very complicated because urban politics are viewed from different perspectives. State-centred perspective argued for key role of government, autonomy of the state or the local state and pre-eminence of political attributes in strategic planning (Steinmo, 1989; King, 1995; Thornley, 1998; Evans et al., 1985; Gurr and King, 1987), while coalition politics (Stone, 1987, 1989, 1993; Sites, 1997; Elkin, 1987; Harding, 1994; Gurr and King, 1987; Turner, 1992; DiGaetano and Klemanski, 1993; Orren and Skowronek, 1994) argued for public-private partnership for implementing planning strategies because either for the vulnerability of local government in inter-city economic competition or for the division of labour. This is why; various urban theorists (Park and Burgess, 1925; Dahl; 1967; Wirth, 1969; Jacobs; 1969; 1984; Saunders, 1983; Rae, 2004), who tried to entangle urban politics within their own theories, either failed or misinterpret the urban planning practices.

The basic controversy of urban politics lies within two distinct definitions of community power (Polsby, 1980; Harding, 1995; Judge, 1995) - power within communities and the power of communities (Harding, 1997). The first is concerned with ‘social production' and ‘power to' while the latter on is with ‘social control' and ‘power over' (Stone, 1989). ‘Power within communities', also known as ‘urban regime' prompts integration or political coalition of civic groups and public institutions (Dowding et al. 1999; Shefter, 1985; Elkin, 1987; Stone and Sanders, 1987; Mollenkopf, 1992; Turner, 1992; Di Gaetano and Klemanski, 1993; Davies 2001, 2003; Stone, 1989, 2002, 2005; Peck and Tickell, 1995) at different levels of intensity and clarity (Stone, 2005) for economic development and physical regeneration or gentrification (Harding, 1997; Elkin, 1987; Stone and Sanders, 1987; Stone, 1989) and urban growth machines (Molotch, 1976, 1990; Logan and Molotch, 1987; Molotch and Logan, 1990). On the other hand, ‘power of communities' is more concerned about the acting power of the actors rather than coalitions and is defined by elite and pluralist theories. Beyond the community power debate, another significant factor of city's strategic planning is the politics of globalization (Harding, 1997), which strengthens subnational autonomy and declines national importance (Ohmae, 1993).

This can be elucidated by evaluating the role of business sectors on the local civic life of US and European cities. For instance, business-sectors of US cities are remarkably organized, who have strong influence on land ownership and land use planning, taxation and revenue distribution, private credit and public borrowing (Stone, 2005), election campaigns of local as well as national political leaders (Elkin, 1987) and resulting in they are within the governing system. Furthermore, the weaker capital investment by local government has persuaded for effective regime (Davis, 2003). Encouraged by the successful history of urban regime in US, Thatcher government took an ambitious initiative to install this US policy within new dimension of urban regeneration partnerships in UK (Berger and Foster, 1982; Boyle, 1985; Ward, 1996; Wolman, 1992) without resolving three questions - What will be the role of development coalitions in the city politics as a whole? What types of private-sector activities will lead business-sector involvement in the coalitions? How can the activity balance between public and private sector be achieved? (Harding, 1997). Furthermore, some urban scholars attempted to exploit the regime concept in the European contexts (Vicari and Molotch, 1990; Harding, 1994; Kantor et al., 1997; Di Gaetano and Klemanski, 1999; Mossberger and Stoker, 2000; Zhang, 2002). The US policy was not possible to adopt in the UK context because of the powerful role of central government in the urban politics (Thornley, 1998), lack of bargaining power of urban government, reluctance of local business actors in coalitions (Peck and Tickell, 1995; Davis, 2003). This is why; the attempt has been resulted in different collaborative mechanisms, which were explained by different theories such as Rhodes and Marsh (1992) model of policy network analysis by Stoker and Mossberger (1994), integration of regulation and regime theory by Harding (1994) and Lauria (1997).

Urban politics in the context of developing countries (e.g. Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) are almost similar to the politics of UK rather stronger role of national government and local government. Either military government or monarch or autocrats reined most of these countries throughout the major portion of their history after independence and they have a close tie with the business elites and bureaucrats. Eventually, the business elites and bureaucrats are influencing the urban policy agendas behind the scene. Nevertheless, the context of socialist China is quite complicated, which can be categorized within pre-reform era (before 1978) and post-reform era (from 1978 till today). Urban politics during the pre-reform period was solely contracted by the national government. After the reform policy, the national government had decentralize their economic and political powers among the local government and influential actors. However, the interesting thing is that ‘a clever fox is hiding inside the reform policy' by controlling the property ownership, leaving the economic burden to the local government, strongly linking the vertical tie at the government level.

Locational economies of production and class segregation

The urbanisation of a city can be a consequence of social division of labour and industrial diversification (Harvey, 1973; Henderson, 2002; Scott, 1986; Weber, 1899; Haig, 1927; Allen, 1929; Perrin, 1937; Florence, 1948; Wise, 1949; Lampard, 1955; Hoover and Vernon, 1959; Hall, 1962; Tsuru, 1963; Sjoberg, 1965; Thiry, 1973; Webber, 1984). This can better be conceptualized by considering vertical and horizontal integration and disintegration of production and labor forces. In case of vertical and horizontal disintegration, the industries or firms try to be concentrated within the core region of a city because various economies of scales (Coase, 1937; Holmes, 1986; Richardson, 1972; Scott, 1983; Pye, 1977) and this was obvious at the earier stage of megacities of developed countries such as New York, London and Paris. On the contrary, when the vertical and horizontal integration of firms or products is strong both in spatial and temporal aspects, geographical expansion of city are more likely to be happened because of internal and external economies of scale (Scott, 1980; Brook et al., 1973; Gilmour, 1971; Abernathy et al., 1983; Piore and Sabel, 1984).

Moreover, urbanisation in megacities is dependent on the type of products such as gold and diamond in Rio de Janeiro, coffee in São Paulo, manufacturing industries in Seoul, tertiary activities in London, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo (Duranton and Puga, 2001; Waley, 2009; Mukherjee, 1990; Banerjee, 1985; Glaeser et al., 1995; Lee and Kang, 1989; Lee et al., 2007; Godfrey, 1999).

Locational preference

Most of the megacities are located at the coastal areas[1] because of their strategic geographical location which offer the advantages of trade, communication, and living environment (Godfrey, 1995; Vance 1990). Presently, 60 percent (nearly 3 billion people) or half of the world's population lives within 100 km or 60km of the shoreline respectively (Yeung, 2001; Hinrichsen, 1990) and it is estimated that this population will be doubled within the upcoming 30 years among which coastal megacities will contribute the lion share of population (Li, 2003). Furthermore, the number of coastal megacities will be increased to 36 from the existing 16 at the year of 2015 of them 30 will be in developing countries and 22 will be in Asia (Kullenberg, 1999). Sometimes policy makers prepare the economic development plans giving prime focus on the coastal cities (Yeung and Hu, 1992) because it is comparatively less perilous to promote economic development plans in coastal cities because of its good and cheap communication and already established structures and physical infrastructures.

On the other hand, capital cities get also locational advantages because of the center of institutions, organizations, information and culture such as Beijing (Yulong and Hamnett, 2002), Metro Manila (Cuervo and Hin, 1998), Delhi, Dhaka, and Jakarta.

Colonial influence

Most of the megacities were under the different European colonies such as British, Spanish, French and Portuguese. Historically, European colonials developed these megacities for their defensive and trade functions. For example, apprehension about French incursions, the Portuguese founded Rio de Janeiro in 1565 (Godfrey, 1999); before Spanish era (1521-1898), Manila was the entry-port of Chinese, Indians and Arabian merchants (Cuervo and Hin, 1998); Bombay, Calcutta and Madras are trade oriented port cities due to British colonial legacy; New York was used as commercial center by the Portuguese colonial.

Land speculation and real estate development

Land conversion is a normal part of urban development in both developed and developing world (Pierce, 1981; Lockeretz, 1989; Tsai, 1993; Winoto, 1996; Kustiwan, 1997; Yeh and Li, 1999; Grigg, 1995). Nevertheless, land speculation by real estate developers has been observed at an alarming rate in Mexico City, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Jakarta, Metro Manila and megacities of developing countries (Deng, et al., 2008; Arcadis Euroconsult, 1999; Leaf, 1991, 1993; Akbar and Subroto, 1999; Firman, 2000; Bouteiller and Fouquier, 1995; Goldblum and Wong, 2000).

Spatial pattern of urbanisation in megacities

Megacities had grown to become primate cities at the earlier stage of urbanisation (Parai and Dutt, 1994; McGee and Greenberg, 1992). Megacities now present more polycentric spatial expansion of urban centers and sub-centers following a network pattern that tends to sprawl along major highways and/or railroad lines radiating out from the urban core (Aguilar and Ward, 2003). However, megacities have passed over four stages of urbanisation - urbanisation, suburbanisation, counterurbanisation and reurbanisation (Champion, 2001; Van der Berg et al., 1982; Klaassen et al., 1981; Schweitzer and Steinbrink, 1998) - ‘cyclic model'. In case of ‘urban centre hierarchy', the consecutive phases of urbanisation can be illustrated as a diffusive wave of differential urbanisation (Pacione, 2001; Geyer and Kontuly, 1993) ( 5).

The first phase (U) explains the concentration of population in the central city due to rapid rural-urban migration, while the second phase (S) shows an increasing population at its urban periphery and decreasing population at the central city. Third phase (D) shows decreasing of population both in central city and urban periphery and the final stage shows increasing of population at both locations.

The first phase (U) explains increasing population in Primary city and intermediate city but decreasing population in the small cities. In the second phase of counterurbanisation (C), reversal situation of first phase is happening after a certain time. In the final, changing rate of net migration is falling down in case of all size of cities. However, the population of primary city will continue to growth for a certain time thereafter it will fall. On the other hand, the population of intermediate city will reach to the optimum level while population of small cities are still growing.

Megacities in Latin America - Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Santiago, and São Paulo - are in suburbanisation stage because of the continuation of heavy concentration of production activities and population in the urban core and expanding towards sub-urban areas or fringe areas (Faría 1989; Sassen 1994; Pereira 1967; Caldeira 1996; Aguilar and Ward, 2003; Gwynne, 1985; UNCHS, 1996; Aguilar, 1999a and 1999b; Campolina 1994; Parnreiter, 2002; Ward, 1998; Vance, 1990). There is different argument about the urbanisation stage of Latin American megacities such as Townroe and Keene (1984) and Gilbert (1993) claim that megacities of Latin America are in counterurbanisation stage as the secondary city growth is underway with a polycentric urban form suggestive of polarization reversal with the growth of intermediate sized cities leading to a more balanced national urban structure.

Megacities of Southeast Asian are also in suburbanisation stage because of the fusion of urban and rural functions that is a mix of rural and urban activities in peri-urban areas and known as extended metropolitan region (desakota) (Gingsburg et al., 1991; McGee and Robinson, 1995; Firman, 1996; Forbes, 1997; Murakami et al., 2005).

However, Beijing is still quite monocentric, and its CBD continues to contain a large share of the metropolitan area's total employment, largely because of the centrality of various urban amenities, and because of the concentration of government activities in Beijing (Zheng and Kahn, 2008). On the other hand, other megacities of China - Shanghai and Guangzhou - are shifting their urban spatial pattern from monocentric form to polycentric form.

Lagos of Nigeria is still in urbanisation stage and there are no evidence of meta-urban or peri-urban development (Briggs and Mwamfupe, 2000; Yeboah, 2000) rather city growth is contained within clearly defined boundaries.

Megacities in Western Europe and United States are the stage of reurbanisation (Antrop, 2000, 2004) such as Paris (Sallez and Burgi, 2004; Cavailhes et al., 2004), New York (Godfrey, 1995; Preston and McLafferty, 1993), and London (Bendixson, 2004).

5. Research Timeframe for initial 9 months

Activity schedule

Time Frame

Oct- 09

Nov- 09

Dec- 09

Jan- 10







Discussion on the context, key features and material sources of the research

Chapter 1: Theoretical framework on the contextual terminologies on urbanisation and agglomeration

Chapter 1: Fixation of aims and objectives, and development of methodology and research structure

Preparation and presentation of 100-days viva

Chapter 2: (objective 1) Literature review

Chapter 3: (objective 2) Literature review

6. Research Timeframe for 3 years

Activity schedule

Time Frame


















Discussion on the context, key features and material sources of the research

Literature Review stage

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Empirical stage

Sample size formulation

Primary data collection

Secondary data collection

Data verification, editing and input

Chapter 6: Methodology

Chapter 7: Data analysis

Chapter 8: Objective 5 and 6

Evaluation and conclusion

Chapter 9: Findings

Chapter 10: Recommendations and Implementation guidelines

Chapter 11: Conclusion

Final presentation and submission

7. References

Abernathy, W. J., Clark, K. B., and Kantrow, A. M. (1983). Industrial renaissance: Producing a competitive future for America. New York: Basic Books.

Abramovitz, M. (1989). Thinking about Growth: And Other Essays on Economic Growth and Welfare. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ades, A. F., and E. L. Glaeser. (1995). “Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 195-227.

Aguilar, A G (1999a). “Mexico City growth and regional dispersal: the expansion of largest cities and new spatial forms,” Habitat International 23(3), 391-412.

Aguilar, A G (1999b). “La Ciudad de Me´xico en la Region Centro. Nuevas Formas de la Expansio´n Metropolitana”. In: Transiciones. La Nueva Formacio´n Territorial de la Ciudad de México, (eds.) J. Delgado and B. Ramı´rez, pp. 147-169. Programa de Investigacion Metropolitana-UAM, Plaza y Valdez, Mexico.

Aguilar, A. G., and Ward, P. M. (2003). “Globalization, regional development, and mega-city expansion in Latin America: analyzing Mexico city's peri-urban hinterland,” Cities 20 (1), 3-21.

Akbar, D. B., and Subroto B., 1999. “Northern bandung area development” Unpublished Paper, Department of Regional and City Planning, Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesian.

Alonso, W. (1980). “Five Bell Shapes in Development,” Papers of the Regional Science Associations, 45, 5-16.

Antrop, M., (2000). “Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe,” Landsc. Ecol. 15, 257-270.

Antrop, M. (2004). “Landscape change and the urbanisation process in Europe”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 9-26.

Arcadis Euroconsult, 1999. “Land aquisition and development control” Final Report, National Planning Agency and Land Development Agency, Jakarta.

Banerjee, N. (1985). Women Workers in the Unorganized Sector: The Calcutta Experience. Hyderabad: Sangain Books.

Banister, J., and Taylor, J. R. (1989). “China: surplus rural labour and migration,” Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 4(4), 3-20.

Bankoff, G. (1996). “Legacy of the past, promise of the future: Land reform, land grabbing, and land conversion in the Calabarzoa,” Bulletion of Concerned Asian Scholars 28(1), 39-51.

Barro, R., and X. Sala-I-Martin. (1991). “Convergence Across States and Regions,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1), 107-182.

Barro, R., and X. Sala-I-Martin. (1992). “Regional Growth and Migration: A Japan-United States Comparison,” Journal of Japanese and International Economics 6, 312-346.

Bendixson, T. (2004). “Push-pull forces in the spatial organization of Greater London and South East England”. In Urban sprawl in western Europe and the United State, H. W. Richardson and C-H. C. Bae (eds), 55-64. Hampshire: Ashgate.

Berger, R., and Foster, R. S. (1982, November). Public private partnership: The British experience. Council for International Urban Liaison.

Bouteiller, E., Fouquier, M., (1995). Le Developpement Economique de l'Asie Orientale. La Decouverte, Paris.

Boyle, R. (Ed.). (1985). “Leveraging urban development: A comparison of urban policy directions and programme impact in the United States and Britain,” Policy and Politics 13(2), 175-210.

Briggs, J and Mwamfupe, D (2000) “Peri-Urban development in an era of structural adjustment in Africa: The city of Dares Salaam, Tanzania,” Urban Studies 37(4), 797-809.

Brooks, S., Gilmour, J. M., and Murricane, K. (!973). “The spatial linkages of manufacturing in Montreal and its surroundings,” Cahiers de Géographie de Québec 17, 107-122.

Brueckner, J. K., and Kim, H. A. (2001). “Land markets in the Harris-Todaro model: A new factor equilibrating rural-urban migration,” Journal of Regional Economics 41(3), 507-520.

Brueckner, J. K., and Zenou, Y. (1999). “Harris-Todaro Models with a and market,” Regional Science and Urban Economics 29, 317-339.

Buck, D. (1981). “Policies favoring the growth of small urban places in the PRC 1949-1979”. In Urban development in modern China, Ma, L. J. C. and Hanton, E. W. (eds.), 114-146. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cai, L. (ed). (1995). The rising of the international economic centre. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Press.

Caldeira, T. P. R. (1996). “Building up the Walls: The New Pattern of Spatial Segregation in Sao Paulo,” International Social Science Journal 48 (1): 55-67.

Campolina, C. (1994). “Polygonized development in Brazil: neither decentralization nor continued polarization,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 18(2), 293-314.

Castells, M. (1979). The urban question: A Marxist approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cavailhes, J., Peeters, D., Sékeris, E., and Thisse, J-F. (2004). “The periurban city: why to live between the suburbs and the countryside,” Regional Science & Urban Economics 34, 681-703.

Cell, C. P. (1979). “De-urbanisation in China: The urban-rural contradiction,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 11(1), 62-72.

Champion, T. (2001). “Urbanisation, suburbanisation, counterurbanisation and reurbanisation”. In Handbook of Urban Studies, Paddison, R. (ed.), 143-161. London: Sage.

Chan, K. W. (1994a). Cities with invisible walls: Reinterpreting urbanisation in post-1949 China. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Chan, K. W. (1994b). “Urbanisation and rural-urban migration in China since 1982,” Modern China 20(3), 243-281.

Chan, K. W. (1996). “Post-Mao China: A two-class urban society in the making,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 20(1), 134-150.

Coase, R. H. 1937. “The nature of the firm,” Economica 4, 386-405.

Cockburn, C. (1977). The local state: Management of cities and people. London: Pluto.

Cuervo, J. C., and Hin, D. H. O. K. (1998). “Todaro migration and primacy models: relevance to the urbanisation of the Philippines,” Cities 15(4), 245-256.

Dahl, R. (1967). “The city in the future democracy,” American Political Science Review LXI.4, 953-70.

Davies, J. S. (2001). Partnerships and regimes: The politics of regeneration partnerships in the UK. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Davis, J. S. (2003). “Partnerships versus regimes: why regime theory cannot explain urban coalitions in the UK,” Journal of Urban Affairs 25(3), 253-269.

Davis, J. and Henderson, J. V. (2003). “Evidence on the Political Economy of the Urbanisation Process,” Journal of Urban Economics.

Deng, X., Huang, J., Rozelle, S., and Uchida, E. (2008). “Growth, population and industrialization, and urban expansion of China,” Journal of urban Economics 63, 96-115.

Di Gaetano, A. and Klemanski, J. (1999). Urban governance in comparative perspective: the politics of urban development in the UK and US. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Dong, X. Y., and Putterman, L. (2000). “Prereform industry and the state monopsony in China,” Journal of Comparative Economics 28(1), 32-60.

Dowding, K., Dunleavy, P., and King, D. (1999). “Regime politics in London local government,” Urban Affairs Review 34(4), 515-545.

Duranton, G., and Puga, D. (2001). “Nursery Cities,” American Economic Review 91, 1454-1477.

Easterlin, R. A. (2000). “Locational restructuring and financing crises”. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11, 129-138.

Ebanks, G. E., & Cheng, C. (1990). “China: A unique urbanisation model,” Asian-Pacific Population Journal, 3(5), 29-50.

El-Shakhs, A. (1972). “Development, Primacy, and Systems of Cities,” Journal of Developing Areas October 7, 11-36.

Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., and Skocpol, T. (eds.) (1985). Bringing the state back in. London: Cambridge University Press.

Fanni, Z. (2006). “Cities and urbanisation in Iran after the Islamic revolution,” Cities 23(6), 407-411.

Faría, V. E. (1989). “Metropolitan Sao Paulo: Problems and Perspectives”. In Cities in Crisis: The Urban Challenge in the Americas, M. Edel and R. G. Hellman, (eds), 19-36. New York: Bildner Center for Western Hemisphere Studies.

Firman, T. (1996). “Urban development in Bandung metropolitan region: a transformation to a Desa-Kota region,” Third World Planning Review 18(1), 1-22.

Firman, T. (2000). “Rural to urban land conversion in Indonesia during boom and bust periods,” Land Use Policy 17, 13-20.

Forbes, D. (1997). “Metropolis and Megaurban region in Pacific Asia,” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 88(5), 457-468.

Friedmann, J. (1986). “The world city hypothesis,” Development and Change 17, 69-84.

Fu, Z. (2001). “The state, capital and urban restructuring in post-reform Shanghai,” unpublished PhD thesis, King's College, London.

Fujita, M., and Krugman, P. (1995). “When is the economy monocentric? von Th˝unen and Chamberlin unified,” Regional Science & Urban Economics 25, 505-528.

Fujita, M., Krugman, P., and Venables, A. (1999). The Spatial Economy, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Geyer, H.S., and Kontuly, T. M. (1993). “A theoretical foundation for the concept of differential urbanisation,” International Regional Science Review 15, 157-177.

Gilbert, A. (1993). “Third world cities: the changing national settlement system,” Urban Studies 30(4-5), 721-740.

Gilmour, J. M. (1971). “Some considerations of spatial separation between linked industries,” Canadian Geographer 15, 287-294.

Gingsburg, N., Koppel, B. and McGee, T. G. (1991). The Extended Metropolis. Settlement Transition in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Glaeser, E., Scheinkman, J., and Shleifer, A. (1995). “Economic growth in a cross-section of cities,” Journal of Monetary Economics 36, 117-143.

Godfrey, B. J. (1995). “Restructuring and Decentralization in a World City,” American Geographical Society 85(4), 436-457.

Godfrey, B. J. (1999). “Revisiting Rio De Janeiro and Sao Paulo,” American Geographical Society 89(1), 94-121.

Goldblum, C., and Wong, T-C. (2000). “Growth, crisis and spatial change: a study of haphazard urbanisation in Jakarta, Indonesia,” Land Use Policy 17, 29-37.

Goldstein, S. (1990). “Urbanisation in China, 1982-87: Effects of migration and reclassification,” Population and Development Review 16(4), 673-701.

Gordon, B. (1975). Economic Analysis Before Adam Smith. London: Macmillan.

Grigg, D. (1995). An Introduction to Agricultural Geography, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge.

Gu, C., and Shen, J. (2003). “Transformation of urban socio-spatial structure in socialist market economies: The case of Beijing,” Habitat International, 27(1), 107-122.

Gu K. and Wall, G. (2007). “Rapid urbanisation in a transitional economy in China: the case of Hainan Island,” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28, 158-170.

Gurr, E. R. and King, D.S. (1987). The state and the city. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Gwynne, R. (1985). Industrialization and urbanisation in Latin America. London: Croom Helm.

Hall, P. G. (1962). The industries of London since 1861. London: Hutchinson.

Han, S. S. (2000). “Shanghai between state and market in urban transformation,” Urban Studies 37(11), 2091-2112.

Hansen, N. (1990). “Impact of Small and Intermediate-Sized Cities on Population Distributions: Issues and Responses,” Regional Development Dialogue, Spring 11, 60-76.

Harding, A. (1994). “Urban regimes and growth machines: Toward a cross national research agenda,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 29(3), 356-383.

Harding, A. (1995). “Elite theory and growth machines”. In Theories of Urban Politics by D. Judge, G. Stoker and H. Wolman (eds) 35-53. London: Sage.

Harding, A. (1997). “Urban regimes in a Europe of the cities,” European Urban and Regional Studies 4(4), 291-314.

Harris, J. R., and Todaro, M. P. (1970). “Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector Analysis,” American Economic Review 60, 126-142.

Harrison, J. P. (1972). The long march to power: A history of the Chinese communist party 1921-72. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. London: Edward Arnold.

Helpman, E. (1998). “The size of regions.” In Topics in public economics: theoretical and applied analysis eds. D. Pincs, E. Sadka, and E. Zilcha, 33-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Henderson, V. (2002). “Urbanisation in developing countries,” The World Bank Research Observation Spring, 89-112.

Henderson, V. (2003). “The urbanization process and economic growth: the so-what question”. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 47-71

Hendersen, J. V. and Becker, R. (2000). “Political Economy of City Sizes and Formation,” Journal of Urban Economics 48, 453-484.

Hendersen, J. V., and Kuncoro, A. (1996). “Industrial Centralization in Indonesia,” World Bank Economics 10, 513-540.

Hinrichsen, D. (1990) Our common seas: coasts in crisis. London: Earthscan Publications, p.1

Holmes, J. (1986). The organization and locational structure of production subcontracting. In scott and Storper 1986.

Hoover, E. M., and Vernon, R. (1959). Anatomy of a metropolis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jacobs, J. (1969) The political economy of cities. Random House, New York.

Jacobs, J. (1984) Cities and the wealth of nations. Random House, New York.

Judge, D. (1995). “Pluralism”. In Theories of urban politics, by D. Judge, G. Stoker, and H. Wolman (Eds.), 13-34. London: Sage.

Junius, K. (1999). “Primacy and Economic Development: Bell Shaped or Parallel Growth of Cities?” Journal of Economic Development 24(1), 1-22.

Kaiser, K. (1999). “Pre- and Post-Liberalization Manufacturing Location in Indonesia (1975-1996),” 5-27-00 Mimeo, LSE.

Kang, X. (1993). Zhongguo dalu de gongyehua he chengshihua zhanlue, zhidu kuangjia he lilun moxing (Strategy, institutional framework and theoretical model of industrialization and urbanisation in mainland China). Beijing: Zhongguo kexueyuan guoqing fenxi xiaozu.

Kantor, P., Savitch, H. V. and Vicari, S. (1997). “The political economy of regime politics: a comparative perspective,” Urban Affairs Review 32 (January), 348-77.

Kelly, P. F. (2003). “Urbanisation and the politics of land in the Manila region,” The Annals of the American Society of Political and Social Science 590, 170-187.

King, D. (1995). Actively seeking work? University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kirkby, R. J. R. (1985). Urbanisation in China: Town and country in a developing economy 1949-2000 AD. London: Croom Helm.

Klaassen, L. H., Molle, W. T. M., and Paelinck, J. H. P. (eds.) (1981). Dynamics of Urban Development. Aldershot, Gower.

Konrad, G., and Szelenyi, I. (1977). “Social conflicts of under-urbanisation”. In Captive cities: Studies in the political economy of cities and regions, M. Harloe (Ed.), 157-173. New York: Wiley.

Kullenberg, G. (1999). “Highlighting the contributions of marine and coastal area research and observations towards sustainable development of large coastal urbanisations”. The IOC-SOA International Workshop on Coastal Megacities, Hangzhou, China, 27-30 September, 1999.

Kustiwan, I., (1997). “Agricultural land conversion in the Northern Java,” Prisma 26 (1), 15-32.

Kuznets, S. (1966). Modern Economic Growth. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

Lampard, E. E. (1955). “The history of cities in economically advanced areas,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 2, 81-136.

Lauria, M. (Ed.). (1997). Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulation urban politics in a global economy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Leaf, M. L. (1991). “Land regulation and housing development in Jakarta, Indonesia,” unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

Leaf, M. L. (1993). “Land rights for residential development in Jakarta: the colonial roots of contemporary urban dualism,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 17, 477-491.

Lee,W., and Kang, B. (1989). “Expansion processes of the capital region and the development process of the manufacturing sectors,” Journal of Korea Regional Development Association, 1, 57-72.

Lee, B. S., Chun, S. E., and Kim, S. Y. (2007). “The effects of regional characteristics on population growth in Korean cities, counties and wards,” Journal of Asian Economics 18, 490-508.

Lever, W. F. (1997). “Delinking urban economies: the European experience,” Journal of Urban Affairs 19, 227-238.

Lewis, A. (1994). “Economic development with unlimited supplies of labor”. In Economic development, ed. M. Todaro, New York and London: Longman.

Li, H. (2003). “Management of coastal mega-cities - a new challenge in the 21st century,” Marine Policy, 27, 333-337

Lin, G. C. S. (1998). “China's industrialization with controlled urbanisation: Anti-urbanism or urban-biased?” Issues & Studies, 34(6), 98-116.

Lin, G. C. S. (2002). “The growth and structural change of Chinese cities: a contextual and geographic analysis,” Cities 19(5), 299-316.

Liu, C. (1999). Zhongguo chengshihua de zhidu anpai he chuangxin (Institutional arrangements and creation for urbanisation in China). Wuhan: Wuhan daxue chubanshe.

Lo, C. P. (1994). “Economic reforms and socialist city structure: a case study of Guangzhou, China,” Urban Geography 15(2), 128-149.

Lo, F., and Yeung, Y. (1998). Globalization and the world of large cities. New York: United Nations University Press.

Lo, F. C., and Marcotullio, P. J. (2000). “Globalisation and urban transformation in the Asia-Pacific region: a review,” Urban Studies 37(1), 77-112.

Lockeretz, W. (1989). “Secondary effects on mid-western agriculture of metropolitan development and decrease in farmland,” Land Economics 65, 205-216.

Lowry, I. S. (1966). Migration and metropolitan growth: Two analytical models. San Francisco: Candler Publishing Company.

Ma, L. J. C. (1976). “Anti-urbanism in China”. Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, 8, 114-118.

Ma, Z. (1999). “Temporary migration and regional development in China,” Environment and Planning A 31(5), 783-802.

Ma, L. J. C., and Fan, M. (1994). “Urbanisation from below: The growth of towns in Jiangsu, China,” Urban Studies, 31(10), 1625-1645.

McGee, T G and Greenberg, C. (1992). “The Emergence of Extended Metropolitan Regions in ASEAN.” ASEAN Economic Bulletin, ISEAS, Singapore.

McGee, T. G. and Robinson, I. M. (1995). The Mega-Urban Regions of Southeast Asia. In UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.

Mollenkopf J (1992). A Phoenix in the Ashes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Molotch, H. (1976). “The city as growth machine,” American Journal of Sociology 82(2), 309-355.

Molotch, H. (1990). “Urban deals in comparative perspective”. In Beyond the city limits: urban policy and economic restructuring in comparative perspective by J. Logan and T. Swanstrom (Eds.) 175-198. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Molotch, H., and Logan, J. (1990). “The space for urban action: urban fortunes: A rejoinder,” Political Geography Quarterly 9(1): 85-92.

Moomaw, R., and Shatter, A. (1996). “Urbanisation and Economic Development: A Bias toward Large Cities?” Journal of Urban Economics 40, 13-37.

Mossberger, K. and Stoker, G. (2000). The evolution of urban regime theory: the challenge of conceptualization. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Los Angeles, 3-6 May.

Mukherjee, R. (1990). “Conditions of Labor in the Small Scale and Unorganized Sectors in Calcutta and its neighbourhood,” WEP2-43/WP.36. International Labour Office, Geneva.

Murakami, A., Zain, A. M., Takeuchi, K., Tsunekawa, A., and Yokota, S. (2005). “Trends in urbanisation and patterns of land use in the Asian mega cities Jakarta, Bangkok, and Metro Manila,” Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 251-259.

Murphey, R. (1974). “The treaty port and China's modernization”. In The Chinese city between two worlds, M. Elvin, and G. W. Skinner (eds.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Murray, P., and Szelenyi, I. (1984). “The city in the transition to socialism,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 8(1), 89-107.

Musil, J. (1980). Urbanisation in socialist countries. White Plains, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Naughton, B. (1996). Growing out of the plan: Chinese economic reform, 1978-1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nolan, P., and White, G. (1984). “Urban bias, rural bias or state bias? Urban-rural relations in post-revolutionary China,” Journal of Development Studies, 20(3), 52-81.

Ofer, G. (1977). “Economizing on urbanisation in socialist countries: Historical necessity or socialist strategy?” In Internal migration: A comparative perspective, A. A. Brown, and E. Neuberger (eds.), 287-304. New York: Academic Press.

Ohmae, K. (1990). The Borderless world. London: Collins.

Oi, J. (1993). “Reform and urban bias in China,” Journal of Development Studies, 29, 129-148.

Orleans, L. A. (1982). “China's urban population: Concepts, conglomerations and concerns”. In Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, China under the four modernization, J. P. Hardt (ed.), 268-302. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Orren, K. and Skowronek, S. (1994). “Beyond the iconography of order: notes for a ‘New Institutionalism”. In The dynamics of American politics: approaches and interpretations by L.C. Dodd and C. Jillson (Eds.). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Pacione, M., (2001). Urban Geography: A Global Perspective. London: Routledge.

Parai, A. and Dutt, A. (1994). “Perspectives on Asian urbanisation: an east - west comparison”. In The Asian City: Processes of Development, Characteristics and Planning, (eds) A. K. Dutt et al. Kluwer Academic, the Netherlands.

Parish, W. L. (1987). “Urban policy in centralized economies: China”. In The economics of urbanisation in urban policies in developing countries, G. S. Tolley, and V. Thomas (eds.), 73-84. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Park, R. and Burgess, E. (1925). The city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Parnreiter, C. (2002). “Mexico City: The Making of a Global City?” In Gobal Networks, Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1995). “Business goes local: dissecting the “business agenda” in Manchester,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 19, 55-78.

Pereira, J. C. (1967). Estrutura e expansão da indústria em São Paulo. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.

Petty, W. (1683). “Another essay on political arithmetics”. In Economic Writings of Sir William, Petty Hull, C.H. (Ed.), 947. New York : Augustus, M-kelly (Reissued in 1963).

Pierce, J. T. (1981). “Conversion of rural land to urban: a Canadian profile,” Professional Geographer 33, 163-173.

Piore, M. J., and Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York: Basic Books.

Polsby, N. W. (1980). Community power and political theory. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.

Preston, V., and McLafferty, S. (1993). “Income disparities and employment and occupational changes in New York,” Regional Studies 27, 223-235.

Prybyla, J. S. (1987). Market and plan under socialism: The bird in the cage. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press.

Pye, R. (1977). “Office location and the cost of maintaining contact,” Environment and Planning 9, 149-168.

Rae, D. (2004). The city. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Ran, M., and Berry, B. (1989). “Underurbanisation policies assessed: China, 1949-1986,” Urban Geography, 10(2), 111-120.

Rempel, H. (1996). “Rural-to-urban migration and urban informal activities,” Regional Development Dialogue 17(1), 37-51.

Renaud, B. (1981). National Urbanisation Policy in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. W., and Marsh, D. (1992). “New directions in the study of policy networks,” European Journal of Political Research 21, 181-205.

Richardson, G. B. (1972). “The organisation of industry,” Economic Journal 82, 883-896.

Sallez, A., and Burgi, J. (2004). “Urban Sprawl in France”. In Urban sprawl in western Europe and the United State, H. W. Richardson and C-H. C. Bae (eds), 115-135. Hampshire: Ashgate.

Sassen, S. (2004). “Economic globalization and world migration as factors in the mapping of today's advanced urban economy,” paper commissioned for the Globalization Research Network.

Saunders, P. (1983). Urban politics. London: Hutchinson & Co.

Schweitzer, F., and Steinbrink, J. (1998). “Estimation of megacity growth,” Applied Geography 18(1), 69-81.

Scott, A. J. (1980). The urban land nexus and the state. London: Pion.

Scott, A. J. (1983). “Location and linkage systems: A survey and reassessment,” Annals of Regional Science 17, 1-39.

Scott, A. J. (1986). “Industrialization and urbanisation: a geographical agenda,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76(1), 25-37.

Shefter, M. (1985). Political crisis/fiscal crisis: The collapse and revival of New York City. New York: Basic.

Shen, J. (1999). “Urbanisation in Southern China: the rise of Shenzhen city”. In Problems of Megacities: Social Inequalities, Evironmental Risk and Urban Governance, Aguilar A. G., and Escamilla I. (eds) 1st edition, 635-649. Mexico City: The National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Shen, J. (2002). “A study of the temporary population in Chinese cities,” Habitat International, 26(3), 363-377.

Shen, J., and Spence, N. A. (1995). “Trends in labour supply and the future of employment in China,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 13, 361-377.

Shen, J., Feng, Z., and Wong, K-Y. (2006). “Dual-track urbanisation in a transitional economy: the case of Pearl River Delta in South China,” Habitat International 30, 690-705.

Shen, J., Wong, K-Y., Chu, K-Y, Feng, Z. (2000). “The spatial dynamics of foreign investment in the Pearl River Delta, south China,” The Geographical Journal 166 (4), 312-322.

Shin, K. H., and Timberlake, M. (2000). “World cities in Asia: cliques, centrality and connectedness,” Urban Studies 37(12), 2257-2286.

Short, J. R. and Kim, Y-H. (1999). Globalization and The City. Longman, Essex.

Sidel, J. (1999). Capital, coercion and crime: Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

Sit, V. F. S. (1995). Beijing: The Nature and Planning of a Chinese Capital City. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

Sit, V. F. S. and C. Yang (1997). “Foreign-investment-induced exo-urbanisation in the Pearl River Delta, China,” Urban Studies 34(4), 647-677.

Sites, W. (1997). “The limits of urban regime theory,” Urban Affairs Review 32(4) March, 536-557.

Sjaasted, L. A. (1962). “The costs and returns of human migration,” Journal of Political Economy 70, 80-93.

Sjoberg, O. (1999). “Shortage, priority and urban growth: Towards a theory of urbanisation under central planning,” Urban Studies, 36(13), 2217-2236.

Song, F., and Timberlake, M. (1996). “Chinese urbanisation, state policy, and the world economy,” Journal of Urban Affairs 18(3), 285-306.

Steinmo, S. (1989). “Political institutions and tax policy in the United States, Sweden and Britain,” World Politics 41, 500-35.

Stoker, G., and Mossberger, K. (1994). “Urban regime theory in comparative perspective,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 12, 195-212.

Stone, C. N. (1987). “Summing up: Urban regimes, development policy, and political arrangements”. In The Politics of urban development by C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders (Eds.) 269-290. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: governing Atlanta 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Stone, C. N. (1993). “Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: a political economy approach,” Journal of Urban Affairs 15, 1-29.

Stone, C. N. (1998). “Regime analysis and the study of urban politics: a rejoinder,” Journal of Urban Affairs 20, 249-60.

Stone, C. N. (2002). “Urban regime analysis: The next generation”. Paper presented to LSE Seminar, February.

Stone, C. N. (2005). “Looking back to look forward: reflections on urban regime analysis,” Urban Affairs Review 40(3), 309-341.

Stone, C.N. and Sanders, H. (1987). The politics of urban development. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Sun, G. (2000). “The size of the firm and social division of labour,” Australian Economic Papers 9, 263-277.

Sun, G., and Yang, X. (2002). “Agglomeration economies, division of labour and the urban land-rent escalation: a general equilibrium analysis of urbanisation,” Australian Economic Papers 41, 164-183.

Sutton, K., and Fahmi, W. (2001). “Cairo's urban growth and strategic master plans in the light of Egypt's 1996 population census results,” Cities 18(3), 135-149.

Tang, W. S. (1997). “Urbanisation in China: a review of its causal mechanisms and spatial relations,” Planning in Progress 48(1), 1-65.

Taylor, P. (2000). “World cities and territorial states under conditions of contemporary globalization,” Political Geography 19, 5-32.

Taylor, P. and Walker, D. R. F. (2001). “World cities: a first multivariate analysis of their service complexes,” Urban Studies 38(1), 23-47.

Thirty, J. P. (1973). Théories sur le phénoméne urbain. Publications de la Faculté des Sciences Economiques, Sociales el Politiques de I'Université Catholique de Louvain, Nouvelle Série, no. 109, Louvain.

Thornley, A. (1998). “Institutional change and London's urban policy agenda,” The Annals of Regional Science 32, 163-183.

Tickell, A. (1998). “Questions about globalization,” Geoforum 29, 1-5.

Townroe, P. M. and Keen, D. (1984) “Polarization reversal in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil”. In Differential Urbanisation. Integrating Spatial Model, (eds) H S Geyer and T M Kontuly. Regional Studies, 18, pp 45-54. Arnold, UK.

Tsai, H. C. (1993). “Socioeconomic dimension of rural land use changes in Taiwan”. In Land policy problems in East Asia: Towards New Choices, B. Koppel, and D. Y. Kim, (eds.), 413-432. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Korean Research Institute for Human Settlements.

Tsuru, S. 1963. “The economic significance of cities”. In The Historian and the City (eds) Handlin, O. and Burchard, J., 44-55. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Turner, R. S. (1992). “Growth politics and downtown development: The economic imperative in sunbelt cities,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 28(1), 3-21.

UN. (1993). World Urbanisation Prospects: The 1992 Revision. New York: United Nations.

UNCHS (1996) An Urbanizing World. Global Report on Human Settlements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Valerie, T. (1999). “Government policy and rural-urban migration: a comparative study of India and China,” unpublished Master's thesis, Hong Kong University.

Vance, J. (1990). The continuing city: urban morphology in Western civilization. Balitmore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Van der Berg, L., Drewett, R., Klaassens, L. H., Rossi, A., and Vijverberg, C. H. T. (1982). Urban Europe, vol. I. A Study of Growth and Decline. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Vicari, S. and Molotch, H. (1990). “Building Milan: alternative machines of growth,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 14(4), 602-24

Waley, P. (2009). “Distinctive patterns of industrial urbanisation in modern Tokyo c. 1880-1930,” Journal of Historical Geography 35, 405-427.

Ward, K. (1996). “Rereading urban regime theory: A sympathetic critique,” Geoforum 27(4), 427-438.

Ward, P. M. (1998). Mexico City (Revised second edition). John Wiley and Sons.

Webber, M. J. (1984). Explanation, prediction and planning: The Lowry model. London: Pion.

Weber, A. F. (1899). 1963. The growth of cities in the nineteenth century. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Wheaton, W., and H. Shishido. (1981). “Urban Concentration, Agglomeration Economies, and the Level of Economic Development,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 30, 17-30.

Whyte, M. K. (1983). “Town and country in contemporary China,” Comparative Urban Research, 10(1), 9-20.

Williamson, J. (1965). “Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development,” Economic Development and Cultural Change June, 3-45.

Winoto, J. (1996). “Conversion from agricultural land to non-agricultural land. Paper Presented at the National Seminar of Research Reports of the National Land Agency 1995/1996, Jakarta, 28 May.

Wolman, H. (1992). “Understanding cross national policy transfers: The case of Britain and the US,” Governance 5(10), 27-45.

Yang, X. (1991). “Development, structure change, and urbanisation,” Journal of Development Economics 34, 199-222.

Yang, X., and Rice, R. (1994).” An equilibrium model endogenizing the emergence of a dual structure between the urban and rural sectors,” Journal of Urban Economics 25, 346-368.

Yeboah, I. E. A. (2000). “Structural adjustment and emerging urban form in Accra, Ghana,” Africa Today 47(2), 61.

Yeh, A.G., and Li, X. (1999). “Economic development and agricultural land loss in the Pearl River Delta China,” Habitat International 23 (3), 373-390.

Yeung, Y-M. (2001). “Coastal mega-cities in Asia: transformation, sustainability and management” Ocean & Coastal Management, 44, 319-333.

Yeung, Y-M., and Hu X-W, (eds) (1992). China's coastal cities: catalysts for modernization. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Yulong, S., and Hamnett, C. (2002). “The potential and prospect for global cities in China: in the context of the world system,” Geoforum 33, 121-135.

Yu, D. (1995). “Shengji chengshihua jincheng de dingliang bijiao (A quantitative comparison of urbanisation process across provinces),” Renkou yanjiu, 1, 17-21.

Zhang, T. (2002). “Urban development and a socialist pro-growth coalition in Shanghai,” Urban Affairs Review 37(4), 475-99.

Zhang, W. J. (2008). “A forecast analysis on world population and urbanisation process,” Environ Dev Sustain 10, 717-730.

Zhang, L. and Zhao, S. X. (2004). “Reinterpretation of China's under-urbanisation: a systematic perspective,” Habitat International 27, 459-483.

[1] Tokyo and Osaka (Japan), Shanghai and Tianjing (China), Bangkok (Thailand), Jakarta (Indonesia), Metro Manila (the Philippines), Bombay and Madras (India), Karachi (Pakistan), Istanbul (Turkey), New York and Los Angeles (USA), Buenos Aires (Argentina), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), and Largos (Nigeria).