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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jwl.7.3.153-165 View
Copyright Transfer Agreement
Subject
Type Copyright Transfer Agreement
  Download (1MB)    Indexing metadata
Open Access Copyright (c) 2019 Jurnal Wilayah dan Lingkungan
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language: EN
Statistics: 420 77
Abstract

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. This 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.


Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Keywords: global city network; Mebidangro; urban area; Indonesia

Article Metrics:

  1. Ariyanti, F. (2013). Yuk Intip, 5 kawasan kumuh terparah di Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.liputan6.com/bisnis/read/687844/yuk-intip-5-kawasan-kumuh-terparah-di-indonesia.
  2. 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
  3. Central Bureau of Statistics of North Sumatra. (2017). Gini ratio Sumatera Utara menurut kabupaten/kota, 2000-2016. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://sumut.bps.go.id/statictable/2017/02/14/598/gini-ratio-sumatera-utara-menurut-kabupaten-kota-2000-2016.html.
  4. Christaller, W. (1966). Central places in Southern Germany. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Detik. (2013). Ini penampakan 5 kawasan paling kumuh di Indonesia. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-2355224/ini-penampakan-5-kawasan-paling-kumuh-di-indonesia.
  8. 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.
  9. Firman, T., & Fahmi, F. Z. (2017). The privatization of metropolitan Jakarta’s (Jabodetabek) urban fringes: The early stages of “post-suburbanization” in Indonesia. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 68–79. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1249010
  10. Florida, R., Adler, P., & Mellander, C. (2017). The city as innovation machine. Regional Studies, 51(1), 86–96. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1255324
  11. Friedmann, J., & Alonso, W. (1975). Regional Development and Planning: A Reader. Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.
  12. Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in evolution: an introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of civics (2015 Editi). London: Williams & Norgate.
  13. 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
  14. Hall, P. G. (1966). The world cities. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
  15. Hoyler, M., & Harrison, J. (2017). Global cities research and urban theory making. Environment and Planning A, 49(12), 2853–2858. doi: 10.1177/0308518x17735405
  16. Hudalah, D., Firman, T., & Woltjer, J. (2014). Cultural cooperation, institution building and metropolitan governance in decentralizing Indonesia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6), 2217–2234. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12096
  17. Jacobs, W., Koster, H., & Hall, P. (2011). The location and global network structure of maritime advanced producer services. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2749–2769. doi: 10.1177/0042098010391294
  18. 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), 83–97. doi: 10.5614/jrcp.2018.29.2.1
  19. Liu, X., & Derudder, B. (2012). Two-mode networks and the interlocking world city network model: a reply to neal. Geographical Analysis, 44(2), 171–173. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.2012.00844.x
  20. 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. Global Networks, 10(1), 114–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2010.00277.x
  21. Martinus, K., & Sigler, T. J. (2017). Global city clusters: theorizing spatial and non-spatial proximity in inter-urban firm networks. Regional Studies, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1314457
  22. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Gesis: Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. Klagenfurt: Erstveröffentlichung. doi: 10.4135/9781446282243.n12
  23. McCann, P., & Acs, Z. J. (2011). Globalization: Countries, cities and multinationals. Regional Studies, 45(1), 17–32. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2010.505915
  24. 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
  25. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2010). Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand growth triangle (IMT-GT). Retrieved from https://www.kemlu.go.id/id/kebijakan/kerjasama-regional/Pages/IMT-GT.aspx.
  26. Ministry of Public Work and Spatial Planning. (2014a). Metropolitan Mebidangro visi 2017. Jakarta: Ministry of Public Work and Spatial Planning.
  27. Ministry of Public Work and Spatial Planning. (2014b). Rencana tata ruang kawasan Medan, Binjai, Deli Serdang, Karo. Jakarta: Ministry of Public Work and Spatial Planning.
  28. 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
  29. Neuman, W. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Essex: Pearson.
  30. 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
  31. Parnreiter, C. (2014). Network or hierarchical relations? a plea for redirecting attention to the control functions of global cities. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 105(4), 398–411. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12095
  32. Parr, J. (2005). Perspectives on the city‐region. Regional Studies, 39(5), 555–566. doi: 10.1080/00343400500151798
  33. Putra, M., Giyarsih, S. R., & Kurniawan, A. (2016). Kajian sektor unggulan dan fungsi wilayah pada kawasan strategis nasional perkotaan Mebidangro. Universitas Gadjah Mada.
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Roy, A. (2009). The 21st-century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), 819–830. doi: 10.1080/00343400701809665
  37. 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
  38. Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  39. Scott, A. J. (2001). Globalization and the rise of city-regions. European Planning Studies, 9(7), 813–826. doi: 10.1080/09654310120079788
  40. Scott, A., & Storper, M. (2003). Regions, globalization, development. Regional Studies, 37(6), 579–593. doi: 10.1080/0034340032000108697a
  41. Smith, D. A., & Timberlake, M. F. (2001). World city networks and hierarchies, 1977-1997. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(10), 1656–1678. doi: 10.1177/00027640121958104
  42. Talitha, T., & Hudalah, D. (2014). Model kerjasama antar daerah dalam perencanaan sistem transportasi wilayah. Tata Loka, 16(4), 194–208. doi: 10.14710/tataloka.16.4.194-208
  43. Taylor, P. J. (2010). Specification of the world city network. Geographical Analysis, 33(2), 181–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.2001.tb00443.x
  44. Taylor, P. J., Derudder, B., Faulconbridge, J., Hoyler, M., & Ni, P. (2014). Advanced producer service firms as strategic networks, global cities as strategic places. Economic Geography, 90(3), 267–291. doi: 10.1111/ecge.12040
  45. 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
  46. Venables, A. J. (2005). Spatial disparities in developing countries: cities, regions, and international trade. Journal of Economic Geograph, 5(1), 3–21. doi: 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh051