Urban Area Entities in Affecting Regional Development: A Case Study for Mebidangro

*Muhammad Taufiq orcid  -  Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Benedictus Kombaitan scopus  -  Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Received: 7 Feb 2019; Published: 31 Dec 2019.
Open Access
Citation Format:

How is an urban area influencing regional development? Urban area development policy with the primary purpose of driving its surrounding area development found a shift in meaning under the latest development. It initiates a complex relation between cities as network dots, which is not globally separable. The study aims to provide a theoretical analysis regarding its considerations and implications in practice through a study case of the Mebidangro urban area (Medan City-Binjai City-Deli Serdang District-Karo District) in North Sumatra Province, Indonesia. By using a content analysis method, the study evaluates the regional development policy. The result shows that Mebidangro urban area plays a role in influencing regional development through four entities: i.e., reducing income disparity, the centrality of productions and services, urbanization under the mobility context of labor and knowledge, and regional and international cooperation. The study also found that there is a tendency in which nowadays cities are not seen as a hierarchy. However, cooperation functions and its limits are global (world cities networks), not administrative or region. The fact supports an argument that the current area planning context is not only creating its surrounding area development but also as a part of the global city network. Mebidangro is one of the cases that illustrated this concept of operationalization practice. Through existing policy, this urban area was in such a way created to be able to become global city networks as a shifting of regional development planning paradigm from increasing surrounding area development to a region globally compete.

global city network; Indonesia; Mebidangro; urban area

Article Metrics:

  1. Brenner, N. (1997). State territorial restructuring and the production of spatial scale. Political Geography, 16(4), 273–306. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00003-0
  2. Central Bureau of Statistics of North Sumatra. (2017). Gini ratio Sumatera Utara menurut kabupaten/kota, 2000-2016. Diambil 12 Desember 2018, dari https://sumut.bps.go.id/statictable/2017/02/14/598/gini-ratio-sumatera-utara-menurut-kabupaten-kota-2000-2016.html
  3. Clark, J., Harrison, J., & Miguelez, E. (2018). Connecting cities, revitalizing regions: the centrality of cities to regional development. Regional Studies, 52(8), 1025–1028. doi:10.1080/00343404.2018.1453691
  4. Derudder, B., & Taylor, P. J. (2018). Central flow theory: comparative connectivities in the world-city network. Regional Studies, 52(8), 1029–1040. doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1330538
  5. Detik.com. (2013). Ini penampakan 5 kawasan paling kumuh di Indonesia. Diambil 5 Desember 2018, dari https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-2355224/ini-penampakan-5-kawasan-paling-kumuh-di-indonesia
  6. Dewanto, P., Rujiman, & Suriadi, A. (2014). Analisis pengaruh pertumbuhan ekonomi dan ketimpangan pendapatan terhadap pengentasan kemiskinan di Kawasan Mebidangro. Jurnal Ekonom, 17(3), 138–150.
  7. Florida, R., Adler, P., & Mellander, C. (2017). The city as innovation machine. Regional Studies, 51(1), 86–96. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1255324
  8. Friedmann, J., & Douglass, M. (1978). Agropolitan development: towards a new strategy for regional planning in Asia. Dalam Growth pole strategy and regional development policy (hlm. 163–192). Elsevier.
  9. Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in evolution: an introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of civics. Bibliolife DBA of Bibilio Bazaar II LLC (2015 edition).
  10. Gerritse, M., & Arribas-Bel, D. (2018). Concrete agglomeration benefits: do roads improve urban connections or just attract more people? Regional Studies, 52(8), 1134–1149. doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1369023
  11. Hall, P. G. (1966). The world cities. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
  12. Hoyler, M., & Harrison, J. (2017). Global cities research and urban theory making. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(12), 2853–2858. doi:10.1177/0308518X17735405
  13. Jacobs, W., Koster, H., & Hall, P. (2011). The location and global network structure of maritime advanced producer services. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2749–2769. https://doi.org/doi/10.1177/0042098010391294
  14. Khan, S., Brunner, J., & Gibson, D. (2018). Changing the mindset to encourage innovation in resolving problems in the built environment: exploring the role of online gaming platforms to deliver collaborative learning and teaching. Journal of Regional and City Planning, 29(2), 83. doi:10.5614/jrcp.2018.29.2.1
  15. Liputan6.com. (2013). Yuk intip, 5 kawasan kumuh terparah di Indonesia. Diambil 5 Desember 2018, dari https://www.liputan6.com/bisnis/read/687844/yuk-intip-5-kawasan-kumuh-terparah-di-indonesia
  16. Liu, X., & Derudder, B. (2012). Two-mode networks and the interlocking world city network model: a reply to neal: two-mode networks and the IWCN model. Geographical Analysis, 44(2), 171–173. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.2012.00844.x
  17. Lüthi, S., Thierstein, A., & Goebel, V. (2010). Intra-firm and extra-firm linkages in the knowledge economy: the case of the emerging mega-city region of Munich, 24. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2010.00277.x
  18. Martinus, K., & Sigler, T. J. (2017). Global city clusters: theorizing spatial and non-spatial proximity in inter-urban firm networks. Regional Studies, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1314457
  19. McCann, P., & Acs, Z. J. (2011). Globalization: countries, cities and multinationals. Regional Studies, 45(1), 17–32. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.505915
  20. Meijers, E. (2007). From central place to network model: theory and evidence of a paradigm change. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 98(2), 245–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00394.x
  21. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2010). Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT). Diambil 5 Desember 2018, dari https://www.kemlu.go.id/id/kebijakan/kerjasama-regional/Pages/IMT-GT.aspx
  22. Ministry of Public Work and Spatial Planning. (2014a). Metropolitan Mebidangro Visi 2017. Jakarta.
  23. Ministry of Public Work and Spatial Planning. (2014b). Rencana tata ruang kawasan Medan, Binjai, Deli Serdang, Karo. Jakarta.
  24. Neal, Z. P. (2011). From central places to network bases: a transition in the U.S. urban hierarchy, 1900-2000. City & Community, 10(1), 49–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2010.01340.x
  25. Parnell, S., & Robinson, J. (2012). (Re)theorizing cities from the global south: looking beyond neoliberalism. Urban Geography, 33(4), 593–617. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.33.4.593
  26. Parnreiter, C. (2014). Network or hierarchical relations? a plea for redirecting attention to the control functions of global cities: network or hierarchical relations? Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 105(4), 398–411. doi:10.1111/tesg.12095
  27. Parr, J. (2005). Perspectives on the city‐region. Regional Studies, 39(5), 555–566. doi:10.1080/00343400500151798
  28. Putra, M. (2016). Kajian sektor unggulan dan fungsi wilayah pada kawasan strategis nasional perkotaan mebidangro. Universitas Gadjah Mada. Diambil dari http://etd.repository.ugm.ac.id/index.php?act=view&buku_id=103752&mod=penelitian_detail⊂=PenelitianDetail&typ=html
  29. Robinson, J. (2002). Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), 531–554. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00397
  30. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2008). The rise of the “city-region” concept and its development policy implications. European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1025–1046. doi:10.1080/09654310802315567
  31. Roy, A. (2009). The 21st-century metropolis: new geographies of theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), 819–830. doi:10.1080/00343400701809665
  32. Rozenblat, C., Zaidi, F., & Bellwald, A. (2017). The multipolar regionalization of cities in multinational firms’ networks. Global Networks, 17(2), 171–194. doi:10.1111/glob.12130
  33. Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo.
  34. Scott, A. J. (2001). Globalization and the rise of city-regions. European Planning Studies, 9(7), 813–826. doi:10.1080/09654310120079788
  35. Scott, A., & Storper, M. (2003). Regions, globalization, development. Regional Studies, 37(6–7), 579–593. doi:10.1080/0034340032000108697a
  36. Smith, D. A., & Timberlake, M. F. (2001). World city networks and hierarchies, 1977-1997: an empirical analysis of global air travel links. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(10), 1656–1678. doi:10.1177/00027640121958104
  37. Taylor, P. J., Evans, D. M., & Pain, K. (2008). Application of the interlocking network model to mega-city-regions: measuring polycentricity within and beyond city-regions. Regional Studies, 42(8), 1079–1093. doi:10.1080/00343400701874214
  38. Taylor, Peter J. (2010). Specification of the world city network. Geographical Analysis, 33(2), 181–194. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.2001.tb00443.x
  39. Taylor, Peter J., Derudder, B., Faulconbridge, J., Hoyler, M., & Ni, P. (2014). Advanced producer service firms as strategic networks, global cities as strategic places: strategic networks, strategic places. Economic Geography, 90(3), 267–291. doi:10.1111/ecge.12040
  40. Venables, A. J. (2005). Spatial disparities in developing countries: cities, regions, and international trade. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(1), 3–21. doi:10.1093/jnlecg/lbh051