719488

research-article2017
CRS0010.1177/0896920517719488Critical SociologyDoucette and Park

Article

Critical Sociology

Urban Developmentalism in East

1­–9
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Asia: Geopolitical Economies, sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0896920517719488
https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517719488
Spaces of Exception, and journals.sagepub.com/home/crs

Networks of Expertise

Jamie Doucette
The University of Manchester, UK

Bae-gyoon Park
Seoul National University, South Korea

Abstract
This special issue highlights an exciting range of contemporary, interdisciplinary research into
spatial forms, political economic processes, and planning policies that have animated East Asian
urbanization. To help situate this research, this introductory article argues that the urban as form,
process, and imaginary has often been absent from research on East Asian developmentalism;
likewise, the influence of developmentalism on East Asian urbanization has remained under-
examined in urban research. To rectify this issue, we propose a concept of urban developmentalism
that is useful for highlighting the nature of the urban as a site of and for developmentalist
intervention in East Asia. We then outline the contribution made by the articles in this special
issue to three key themes that we feel are germane for the study of urban developmentalism
across varied contexts: geopolitical economies, spaces of exception, and networks of expertise.

Keywords
developmental states, East Asian cities, gentrification, geopolitical economy, migration, special
economic zones, urban developmentalism, urban studies

Introduction
This special issue highlights an exciting range of contemporary, interdisciplinary research into
spatial forms, political economic processes, and planning policies that have animated East Asian
urbanization. Drawing together contributions from geographers, anthropologists, sociologists,

Corresponding author:
Jamie Doucette, Department of Geography, Arthur Lewis Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester
M13 9PL, UK.
Email: jamie.doucette@manchester.ac.uk
2 Critical Sociology 00(0)

cultural studies scholars, and area specialists, the goal of much of this research has been to situate
urban processes within their wider geopolitical economic context. The articles in this collection all
share an attention to the Cold War influence on urbanization in Asia, the ongoing transformation of
its associated forms of development, and/or new forms developed in its aftermath. While many of
these processes extend in geographical scope beyond the East Asian region per se, what makes the
contributions to this special issue unique is their concern with the influence of various forms of
developmentalism upon urban space. This is a concern germane for urban studies scholars of East
Asia in as much as it is difficult to examine East Asian urbanization without taking the legacy of
developmentalism into account, much less to study developmentalism without considering the role
of the urban: as form, process, and imaginary.
And yet, much of the classic literature on East Asian developmental states, for instance, has
neglected the role of the urban in favour of national-level, state-centric examination of nodal
planning ministries, strategic industrial policy, and state-business coalitions. The role played by
urban space in materializing the planning ambitions of developmental state planners and their
geopolitical partners, much less in providing a space of representation and contestation for vari-
ous state building projects and patterns of capital accumulation has long been neglected in this
literature (Hsu et al., 2016; Hwang, 2016a). However, East Asian states actively promoted the
development of national urban networks to enhance the territorial integrity of the nation, and
prioritized urban infrastructure to support mass production and economic growth, and to display
political prowess. Under big push industrialization efforts across East Asia, urban processes took
place very rapidly in strategically selected areas of political and economic importance. Iconic
urban public spaces were built to accord praise on developmental politicians and various postco-
lonial nation-building projects. At the same time, social movements used urban space as a site of
contestation against developmentalist regimes and urban inequalities. Urban protest thus also
shaped the design of public space as well as the form and patterning of residential and industrial
growth in East Asian cities.
Similarly, many existing studies on East Asian cities have not been able to properly address the
developmentalist influence on Cold War and post-Cold War urbanization because they have often
favoured a localist approach that regards the city as a territorially contained and institutionally
coherent object (Park, 2013). Their focus is too often concerned with describing cities in the
abstract rather than on situating them in history, society, and space. Alternately, while global and
world cities scholars have paid attention to the globally networked character of East Asian cities,
they too have neglected the dense entanglements of East Asian cities with national and regional
dynamics of urbanization, especially the influence of Cold War developmentalism on the urban;
although, the recent advocacy of a geopolitical perspective on city regions might help further
develop these topics in the future (Jonas and Moisio, 2016). This is a problem that also haunts the
recent work on planetary urbanization in as much as its critics have noted a tendency to neglect
forms of lived difference, including forms of urban difference that have been articulated within
regional dynamics of urbanization (Buckley and Strauss, 2016). Meanwhile, postcolonial and ordi-
nary cities literatures have recently called for greater attention to urban difference, but they too risk
privileging a disjointed urban scale as their primary unit of analysis by downplaying important
geopolitical economic forces and enduring national and regional contexts. The compressed tempo-
rality of urbanization (Kim, 2010; Wu, 2015) and intense cycles of creative destruction witnessed
in many Asian locales; the spatial selectivity (Park et al., 2012) of Asian urbanism in the sense of
the vast number of ‘spaces of exception’ such as enclaves, zones, and special regions that have
shaped urban strategy (Bach, 2011; Neveling, 2015; Ong, 2006; Sidaway, 2007); and enrolment of
migrants and Cold War expertise into patterns of urban development are just a few commonalities
that might be considered germane for urban and regional research in East Asia.
Doucette and Park 3

In summary, there is a missing urban story to work on East Asian developmentalism as well as
a missing developmentalist story in research on East Asian urbanization that this special issue
hopes to help rectify. The way that we have done so is by promoting active research into the subject
of what we have been calling urban developmentalism. We find this term useful for highlighting
the particular nature of the urban as a site of and for developmentalist intervention. It is a term that
is able to capture East Asian urban development as not simply confined to the rapid physical devel-
opment of urban infrastructures (or what some scholars have called developmental urbanization,
see Cho and Križnik, 2017; Hwang, 2016b; Ji, 2016; Park and Jang, 2016, for a discussion), but
also as a process that includes the production of space in multiple dimensions, including both
physical space, but also space in the form of abstract imaginaries (in the sense of planning and
ideology), everyday perceptions, and lived experience, as something imbued with memory and
emotion (see Nam, 2011; Watson, 2011 for a discussion). Such an expansive understanding of
space enables us to highlight the many actors involved in shaping urban developmentalism. For
instance, the articles in this special issue foreground the roles played not only by the state and busi-
ness in developing urban space but also by transnational networks of capital, migrants, and exper-
tise. They focus on how interactions among these actors across scale, territory, networks, and place
have helped shape the form and content of East Asian cities as well as other scales of urban govern-
ance. In addition to cities per se, many of the articles in this volume also pay careful attention to
unique zoning policies such as special economic zones and other selective forms of urban develop-
ment that can be contrasted to forms of urban governance in other parts of the world. Finally,
though much work is needed to flesh out the many varieties and articulations of urban developmen-
talism in East Asia, the term is used here in a broad sense to describe forms of mass urbanization
during the Cold War period as well as more neoliberal, spatially-selective experiments with urban
policy that have followed in its wake.
While the research programme that surrounds the idea of urban developmentalism is still being
developed, this special issue makes contributions to three key themes that we feel are essential to
it and the more expansive approach to urban space advocated above: geopolitical economies,
spaces of exception, and networks of expertise. These are interconnected areas that we feel dem-
onstrate some, but not all, of sorts of topics that should provisionally be included in its study.
Furthermore, as the articles come from an interdisciplinary group of scholars – who were first
brought together through the Social Science Research Council InterAsia Program’s InterAsian
Connections V Conference in Seoul, South Korea in April 2016 – they also suggest several poten-
tial methodologies for the study of urban developmentalism across disciplines. Each article below
makes its own distinct contribution to the topic: some provide a critique of existing paradigms of
East Asian urban research, while others focus on thickening existing approaches to urban develop-
ment by putting urban theory into dialogue with the techniques of their respective disciplinary
field. While the articles are certainly worth reading in depth to identify the full range of their con-
tributions to academic debate and connections to existing urban research, we offer a provisional
introduction to their contributions here. To do so, in what follows we situate each article in relation
to the key themes identified above and discuss how the articles link up to one another across the
various locales of their research and respective disciplines.

Geopolitical Economies
The predominant theme that runs through all of the articles in this special issue is the need to situate
East Asian urban development within extended geopolitical and economic networks of capital,
people, and expertise. There is a common view that the networks, territorial interactions, and inter-
scalar relations that have shaped urbanization in East Asia have been profoundly influenced by
4 Critical Sociology 00(0)

Cold War and post-Cold War transformations that extend well beyond single cities and national
territories. While the literature on geopolitical economy is still being developed, in our reading, the
term is useful for three reasons: 1) it situates political economy as a geographic process; 2) it resists
a clear separation between geopolitics (international relations) and (geo) economic forces (cf.
Cowen and Smith 2009); and 3) it signifies that political economic processes are geographically
expansive, that processes even at the urban scale are often shaped by relations that extend beyond
it. The articles in this special issue develop upon this framework in a variety of ways. First, there
is a clear strand of research that explicitly foregrounds the geopolitical economic context of East
Asian urban development. For example, Young-jin Choi and Jim Glassman’s article in this volume,
A Geopolitical Economy of Heavy Industrialization and Second Tier City Growth in South Korea:
Evidence from the ‘Four Core Plants Plan’, examines how rather than being a case of successful
planning by a national state, second-tier city growth in Korea was driven by the enrolment of
Korean firms such as Hyundai into transnational class alliances spurred by US military projects in
Asia. These findings, which build on recent work by Hsu et al. (2016) on industrial zones in Korea
and Taiwan, directly contest the overemphasis by neo-Weberian scholars on the planning successes
of the developmental state by highlighting the role of geopolitically embedded firms in realizing
their own plans for subnational urban growth. In a similar fashion, Heidi Gottfried’s article The
Phoenix Rises: Tokyo’s Origins as a Global City charts the rise of Tokyo as a global city under the
influence of imperial decline and the subsequent articulation of Japanese capitalist development
within American geopolitical networks. Gottfried identifies critical political conjunctures for class
recomposition where new geometries of power emerged and where the balance of forces, and thus
the form of urbanization, might have turned out otherwise. Looking at the contemporary, post-Cold
War context of China and Hong Kong, Iam-chong Ip’s State, Class and Capital: Gentrification and
New Urban Developmentalism in Hong Kong examines how Hong Kong’s increasing politico-
economic integration into China has produced a new form of state-led gentrification whereby the
local city-state has used its new relations with the mainland to tap into global circuits of capital and
develop the local property market. These articles bring into focus the integral role of transnational
class relations and their effects on urbanization. By extension, they also contribute to recent work
in geography and urban studies (Schoenberger and Walker, 2016; Walker, 2016) that is critical of
attempts to prioritize stylized forces of agglomeration (Storper and Scott, 2016) to the neglect of
complex class processes and power relations.
But geopolitical economy is not confined simply to the study of formal class alliances in this
issue. Two articles in particular extend it down to the level of the built form as well as to the
embodied level of family, memory, and emotion. Christina Kim’s Bridges of Ambition to North
Korea: Economy of Anticipation and Materiality of Aspiration in Dandong, China provides an
ethnographic take on how urban development in Dandong has been fuelled by an ‘economy of
anticipation’ that yearns for North Korea’s eventual economic integration within the regional
economy. To do so, older geopolitical memories of international solidarity and new special eco-
nomic zones are materialized in the built form in order to reimagine North Korea as a capitalist
frontier and help propel speculative investment. Likewise, Christina Moon’s Fashion City:
Diasporic connections and garment industrial histories between the US and Asia examines how
migrants negotiate a linked inter-Asian and trans-Pacific geography of family networks, produc-
tion chains, and sites of labour and design. Similar to the articles discussed above, Moon argues
that the development of New York and Los Angeles as global fashion centres would not be pos-
sible without networks first forged during the Cold War and transformed again in the years since.
However, Kim’s, Moon’s, and Gottfried’s articles contribute to more than simply the study of
geopolitical economic networks and their attendant yearnings and imaginaries. Their insights also
extend down to the built form itself in their discussion of the role of spectacular architecture and
Doucette and Park 5

infrastructure in materializing global city and modernist ambitions, and thus contribute to con-
temporary discussions on the role of iconic architecture within transnational class formation
(Kaika, 2011; Sklair and Gherardi, 2012).

Spaces of Exception
The second theme that the articles in this special issue make a significant contribution to is the
topic of spaces of exception, which include spaces such as special economic zones and other selec-
tive forms of urban development in East Asia. Over the last decade, there has been a growing litera-
ture (see, for instance, Arnold, 2012; Doucette and Lee, 2015; Easterling, 2014; Murray, 2017;
Ong, 2006; Park, 2017) on East Asian states’ efforts to develop zones (e.g., export processing
zones, industrial complexes, apartment zones) through special and exceptional treatment and privi-
leges, the spatial selectivity of which have often been politically justified by appealing to develop-
mentalist rationality. Several articles in this issue deepen and extend this literature. Carolyn
Cartier’s Zone Analog: The State–Market Problematic and Territorial Economies in China is per-
haps the most ambitious in these regards. Cartier critiques how the concept of zone has become a
code word for autonomous, neoliberal strategies in much of this literature, leading authors to
decontextualize variegated forms of planning and governance. She argues that much of the litera-
ture on zones in China and Southeast Asia in particular assumes autonomy and ignores enduring
structures of state authority and practices of territorial governance, for which the terminology of
‘zones’ is often used as an ill-suited analogy. Jana M. Kleibert’s Exclusive Development(s): Special
Economic Zones and Enclave Urbanism in the Philippines complements Cartier’s contribution by
examining how Filipino elites have amalgamated residential and production zones to create ‘exclu-
sive developments’. Kleibert shows how rather than simply being examples of mobile neoliberal
technology, such zones are conditioned by local class strategies in an elite-captured, ‘anti-develop-
mental’ state that aims to create spaces of exclusion for luxury living. Jinn-yuh Hsu’s Hsinchu
Technopolis: A Sociotechnical Imaginary of Modernity in Taiwan? thickens the research on special
economic zones even further in this special issue. His article shows how zones themselves become
objects of desire for the populations that are excluded from them. He does so by examining politi-
cal contestation surrounding Taiwan’s Hsinchu Science City, a project where local farmers-
cum-landowners affected by previous zonal policies, rather than large domestic and transnational
capitalists, have made demands for new zones from which they might benefit through retrofitting,
real estate activities, and/or speculative forms of urbanization (cf. Shin and Kim, 2016). Hsu’s
emphasis on the pressure for zoning from below provides a novel departure from top-down read-
ings of zonal development.
Special economic zones are not the only spaces of exception dealt with in this special issue. Eli
Friedman’s Just-in-Time Urbanization? Managing Migration, Citizenship, and Schooling in the
Chinese City examines how the pursuit of rapid economic growth in China has created contradic-
tory imperatives for Chinese cities to both draw in and expel workers by using a form of techno-
cratic biopolitics that Friedman refers to as ‘just-in-time urbanization’. Here, it is the rural migrant
worker labouring in the city that becomes a space of exception to the extent that under this system,
migrants can be granted access to urban citizenship and social reproduction if they fulfil a specific
labour market need, or face exclusion and deepening educational inequality if they do not.
Friedman’s study resonates with Moon’s article, discussed above, in as much as it foregrounds how
migration has shaped rapid urbanization in East Asia. While Friedman reveals a process of pulling
in and pushing out based on imperatives of capitalist accumulation, Moon, on the other hand,
reveals how migrants’ experience of working in enclave spaces, special economic zones, and
industrial districts across cities has equipped some with the capability to shape capitalist
6 Critical Sociology 00(0)

globalization by negotiating diasporic networks and applying skills learned at various sites of the
production and design chain in their favour. In summary, the articles in this special issue provide
both a new take on the literature of spaces of exception in Asia as well as suggest several novel
entry-points into their further study.

Networks of Expertise
Moon’s emphasis on diasporic networks in fast-fashion cities helps alert us to the third and final
theme of this special issue, and that is the role of geographically extensive networks of knowledge
and expertise forged during the Cold War in shaping urban developmentalism. While Moon tackles
this issue by looking at the embodied expertise of fashion workers who negotiate inter-Asian and
trans-Pacific production chains and industrial districts, other articles explore the topic in a different
register. For instance, Choi and Glassman look at how Hyundai’s successful evolution into a large,
global firm was in substantial part due to its participation in US military offshore procurement, an
experience that allowed it to accumulate both capital and expertise, as well as the ability to shape
the pathway of urban growth in Ulsan, South Korea. Likewise, Gottfried discusses how US foreign
policy networks and procurement policies shaped the institutional architecture and trajectory of
Japan’s developmental capitalism, giving prominence to Tokyo. In a different register, Hsu also
describes how Taiwan’s Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park was designed to pull in highly-
educated, returned migrants from US universities in order to build new industries and help transfer
state-of-the-art technology from the US to Taiwan.
While this special issue helps to document the role of geopolitical economic networks in shap-
ing urban developmentalism during the Cold War, it also charts the influence of more recent flows
of policy knowledge and expertise that have been transmitted across the Pacific. Laam Hae’s
Traveling Policy: Place Marketing and the Neoliberal Turn of Urban Studies in South Korea takes
up the interesting case of how progressive urban planners and urban studies researchers in Seoul,
South Korea played a role in importing pro-gentrification policies from North America and Europe.
Hae documents how critical urbanists saw reformist potential from place-marketing strategies that
gave priority to local culture and identity. They argued that such policies could help address the
problems of authoritarian urban developmentalism inherited from previous decades of urban
growth. However, the culture-based strategies they promoted had the adverse effect of aiding real-
estate speculation and undermining the welfare of local residents, spurring some urbanists to reject
place marketing and search again for alternative policy circuits that might develop a more egalitar-
ian approach to social justice in urban spaces. Similarly, Ip’s article on new urban developmental-
ism in Hong Kong examines how new financial networks between China and Hong Kong have
influenced exclusive forms of state-led gentrification that undermine local residents’ right to the
city. What is most interesting about both of these articles is that, like Moon, they reveal how expan-
sive networks of knowledge and expertise forged from geopolitical conflict and economic integra-
tion continue to shape East Asian urban development after the Cold War, albeit in novel, often
unpredictable directions.

Conclusion
In summary, these papers draw our attention to the themes of geopolitical economies, spaces of
exception, and networks of expertise in a variety of ways and disciplinary directions. The varie-
gated forms of urbanization in the region, the geopolitical economic forces that have shaped them,
and the transnational flows, aesthetics, and expertise from which they have been assembled are all
foregrounded here. While we do not attempt to provide a fully comprehensive picture of urban
Doucette and Park 7

developmentalism in East Asia, we hope that this effort may stimulate further methodological and
conceptual innovation and interdisciplinary dialogue. For instance, the processes through which
the urban strategies highlighted by each article have interacted with one another is a topic worthy
of further attention, particularly in the current moment. It seems clear to us that in recent times
trajectories of urban development have interacted, creating new networks, mutating urban forms,
expanding the scale of city-building activities and creating new regional and transregional connec-
tions. Furthermore, the rise of neoliberal, market-friendly, and consumption-oriented processes of
urban development has gradually become more influential than they were during periods of
national developmentalism during the Cold War. How best to understand the contemporary
moment? There is room for much further discussion on what the appropriate conceptual terminol-
ogy to describe it might be. For instance, one might call the contemporary period in some East
Asian contexts that of a new urban developmentalism, as Ip does for the context of Hong Kong, in
as much as the process he describes details a rescaling of state-planning and a roll out of new capa-
bilities in urban contexts. At the same time, the term post-developmental urbanism used by
Gottfried to describe Tokyo’s contemporary conundrums signifies a temporal shift away from
industrialization but also the sense that there are increased constraints on the capacity of both the
local and national state to manage the urbanization process. Whichever term one prefers, it is clear
that urbanization processes in the present are animated by the continued mutation of the institu-
tional and material legacies of the Cold War period, but in a context where the regional, inter-Asian
political economy is more integrated into the world market than in the past. Contemporary East
Asia cites are spaces where global production networks and transnational flows of expertise,
migrants, and capital shape and pass through the urban in new ways, and where speculative devel-
opment, urban displacement, divided cities, and struggles over public space are beginning to seem
more intense.
It is our hope that further scholarship on this topic might aid in the development of a trans-
Pacific and inter-Asian approach sensitive to how urban connections are being made and remade
in the contemporary regional and global economy. This is a project that resonates both with
Peck’s (2017) recent call for a conjunctural approach to urbanism that is sensitive to the trans-
Atlantic connections that shape urban austerity as well as recent discussions on using East Asian
interconnections as a guiding research problematic (Chen, 2010; Paik, 2013). However, there is
much more work to be done if this goal is to be realized. Beyond the complexities of the current
moment, there is more that might still be extracted from historical and geographical inquiry into
the role played by the city or the urban in wider scholarship on Cold War developmentalism and
developmental states in general. As discussed above, the city is neglected in much of this litera-
ture, which is often more focused on national-level industrial planning and ideology. But as the
articles in this special issue detail, developmentalism has also been an urban project. The urban is
an important site in which national developmental politics renders itself visible, in which the
national state attempts to render populations legible and governable. The urban is a site where
desires for development, modernity, and urban living often become conflated and/or contested. It
is a site where ruling powers try to legitimize their power but also accommodate some of the criti-
cisms against it. As mentioned above, the urban story of developmentalism and the developmen-
talist story of urban development in East Asia have often been absent from both urban research
and development studies. This is a lacuna that might be addressed alongside attempts to better
scrutinize the current moment.
Finally, while the articles in this special issue each explore urban developmentalism and point
to areas for further research, we might also further consider what some of the future methodologi-
cal contributions to such a project might be. For instance, we feel that the ethnographic research on
everyday practices of city making in articles such as those by Moon, Hae, and Kim complements
8 Critical Sociology 00(0)

the more institutional focus on urban development and/or archival research on Cold War planning
networks by Choi and Glassman, Cartier, Gottfried, and others. Each method is used to explore
geopolitical economies, spaces of exception, and networks of expertise in unique ways. One open
question, however, is how might these methods speak across their disciplinary boundaries in a
more active fashion? What room is there for greater insights to be developed from an interdiscipli-
nary, mixed-method approach? While there are a range of insights in this special issue into the
three main themes we have identified here in this introductory essay, we feel there is much more
room for further development of the methodological aspects of this research. In particular, we are
interested in exploring what insights might be gained through greater dialogue between the social
sciences and the humanities in understanding the ways in which urban developmentalism takes
place across institutions, networks, and scales but also through aesthetics, everyday practices, and
the built form (e.g., work by humanities scholars such as Watson, 2011 and Lee, 2010 provides a
potential contact zone in these regards). It seems to us that the papers in this special issue thus open
up several windows onto this topic and thus help set the basis for generating further critical discus-
sion and urban research.

Funding
The authors benefitted from support from the Social Science Research Council InterAsia Program and from
the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2014S1A3A2044551) for the writing of this article and for
the workshop from which this special issue emerged.

References
Arnold D (2012) Spatial practices and border SEZs in Mekong Southeast Asia. Geography Compass 6(12):
740–751.
Bach J (2011) Modernity and the urban imagination in economic zones. Theory, Culture & Society 28(5):
99–122.
Buckley M and Strauss K (2016) With, against and beyond Lefebvre: Planetary urbanization and epistemic
plurality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34(4): 617–636.
Chen KH (2010) Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Cho IS and Križnik B (2017) Community-Based Urban Development: Evolving Urban Paradigms in
Singapore and Seoul. Singapore: Springer.
Cowen D and Smith N (2009) After geopolitics? From the geopolitical social to geoeconomics. Antipode
41(1): 22–48.
Doucette J and Lee SO (2015) Experimental territoriality: Assembling the Kaesong Industrial Complex in
North Korea. Political Geography 47: 53–63.
Easterling K (2014) Extrastatecraft: The Power of Infrastructural Space. London: Verso.
Hsu JY, Gimm DW and Glassman J (2016) A tale of two industrial zones: A geopolitical economy of differ-
ential development in Ulsan, South Korea, and Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Environment and Planning A. Epub
ahead of print 25 November 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X16680212.
Hwang JT (2016a) Escaping the territorially trapped East Asian developmental state thesis. The Professional
Geographer 68(4): 554–560.
Hwang JT (2016b) Building a developmental urban matrix: A Busan city case study. Journal of the Korean
Association of Regional Geographers 22(2): 331–352 [in Korean].
Ji JH (2016) The development of Gangnam and the formation of Gangnam-style urbanism: On the spatial
selectivity of the anti-communist authoritarian developmental state. Journal of the Korean Association
of Regional Geographers 22(2): 307–330 [in Korean].
Jonas AE and Moisio S (2016) City regionalism as geopolitical processes: A new framework for anal-
ysis. Progress in Human Geography. Epub ahead of print 25 November 2016. DOI: 10.1177/
0309132516679897.
Doucette and Park 9

Kaika M (2011) Autistic architecture: The fall of the icon and the rise of the serial object of architecture.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29(6): 968–992.
Kim IK (2010) Socioeconomic concentration in the Seoul metropolitan area and its implications in the urbani-
zation process of Korea. Korean Journal of Sociology 44 (3): 111–128.
Lee JK (2010) Service Economies: Militarism, Sex Work, and Migrant Labor in South Korea. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Murray MJ (2017) The Urbanism of Exception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nam S (2011) Phnom Penh: From the politics of ruin to the possibilities of return. Traditional Dwellings and
Settlements Review 23(1): 55–68.
Neveling P (2015) Export processing zones and global class formation. In: Carrier J and Kalb D (eds)
Anthropologies of Class: Power, Practice and Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
164–182.
Ong A (2006) Neoliberalism as Exception. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.
Paik YS (2013) An interconnected East Asia and the Korean peninsula as a problematic. Concepts and
Context in East Asia 2: 133–166.
Park BG (2013) Looking for more space-sensitive Korean Studies. Korean Social Sciences Review 3(2):
157–193.
Park BG (2017) State territoriality and spaces of exception in East Asia: Universalities and particularities of
East Asian special zones. Journal of the Korean Association of Regional Geographers 23(2): 288–310
[in Korean].
Park BG, Hill RC and Saito A (eds) (2012) Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing Spaces in
Developmental States. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Park BG and Jang JB (2016) Gangnam-ization and Korean urban ideology. Journal of the Korean Association
of Regional Geographers 22(2): 287–306 [in Korean].
Peck J (2017) Transatlantic city, part 1: Conjunctural urbanism. Urban Studies 54(1): 4–30.
Schoenberger E and Walker RA (2016) Beyond exchange and agglomeration: Resource flows and city envi-
ronments as wellsprings of urban growth. Journal of Economic Geography. Epub ahead of print 18 May
2016. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbw012.
Sidaway JD (2007) Spaces of postdevelopment. Progress in Human Geography 31(3): 345–361.
Shin HB and Kim SY (2016) The developmental state, speculative urbanisation and the politics of displace-
ment in gentrifying Seoul. Urban Studies 53(3): 540–559.
Sklair L and Gherardi L (2012) Iconic architecture as a hegemonic project of the transnational capitalist class.
City 16(1–2): 57–73.
Storper M and Scott AJ (2016) Current debates in urban theory: A critical assessment. Urban Studies 53(6):
1114–1136. DOI: 0042098016634002.
Walker RA (2016) Why cities? A response. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40(1):
164–180.
Watson JK (2011) The New Asian City: Three-Dimensional Fictions of Space and Urban Form. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wu F (2015) Planning for Growth: Urban and Regional Planning in China. New York, NY: Routledge.