International Cooperation in
Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries
Yehyun An, Eunhwa Kim
Vol.
062
KRIHS SPECIAL REPORT 2021
KRIHS SPECIAL REPORT Vol. 062
International Cooperation in
Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries
Yehyun An, Eunhwa Kim
KRIHS SPECIAL REPORT 62
KOREA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS SPECIAL REPORT 2021
Yehyun An
Eunhwa Kim
Yehyun An is an Associate Research Fellow at the Korea Research In- stitute for Human Settlements.
She is interested in research and development efforts aimed at achieving sustainable urban development. She received her PhD in Planning, Governance, and Globalization from Virginia Tech, USA, and her Master’s degree in Urban Planning from Seoul National University, Korea.
Her recent publications are as follows:
• The Development Cooperation Strategy for Balanced Territorial Development in the ASEAN Countries. 2020. KRIHS.
• Policy Directions of International Development Cooperation in the Urban Sector for Implementing SDGs. 2019. KRIHS.
• International Cooperation for Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries. 2018. KRIHS.
• Developing Indicators for International Cooperation Projects in the Urban Sector. 2018. KRIHS.
• An, Yehyun, J. Rogers, G. Kingsley, D. Matisoff, E. Mistur, and B. Ashuri (2018). “The Influence of Task Complexity in Shaping Environmental Review and Project Design Durations”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 34(6).
• Mistur, Evan, G. Kingsley, D. Matisoff, and Y. An (2018). Let sleeping bats lie: Analyzing institutional adaptation to environmental regulatory change through Adaptive Management theory, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.
223, p.254-263.
• An, Yehyun, M. Garvin, and R. Hall (2017). “Pathways to Better Project Delivery: the Link between Capacity Factors and Urban Infrastructure Projects in India”, World Development, Vol. 94, p.393–405.
Eunhwa Kim is a Researcher of Environment & Resources Research Division at the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
She is mainly interested in studying urban issues and challenges to make sustainable cities in global and regional contexts. She earned her Master’s degree in international area studies from Graduate School of International and Area Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea.
Contents
Summary 04
Chapter I. Background and Purpose 05
Chapter II. Status of Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries and Issues
1. Urbanization and Metropolitan Areas in Developing Countries 07 2. Issues Relating to Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries 17 Chapter III. Changes in Korea’s Metropolitan Area Management
Policy and Implications
1. Changes in the Metropolitan Area Management Policy 23 2. The Seoul Metropolitan Area Management Policies by Period 25
3. Implications for Developing Countries 34
Chapter IV. International Cooperation in Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries
1. Direction for International Cooperation in Metropolitan 37 Area Management in Developing Countries
2. Suggestions of Mid- and Long-term Projects to Take the Lead in International 41 Cooperation in Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries
References 46
Summary
Rapid urbanization in developing countries results in a need for planning-based development and management for metropolitan areas. In response to this, Korea has consistently been requested to share its experiences with metropolitan area management and collaborate on international cooperation projects. However, Korea’s international cooperation in the urban sector has consisted chiefly of development experience-based projects founded in high-cost, high-efficiency technology. This underscores the need for development of international cooperation contents on metropolitan area management to reflect this demand from developing countries, along with customized cooperation efforts. The purpose of this study is to assess the status quo of metropolitan area management in developing countries and related issues, while drawing implications from Korea’s experience of metropolitan area management to suggest avenues for international cooperation to meet the demand for said management in developing countries.
To demonstrate the importance of metropolitan area management policies in developing countries, this study assesses the current status of metropolitan areas by regions and income-levels and identifies metropolitan area management issues present in the existing literature. In addition, to identify a response to the demand for metropolitan area management policies in developing countries, this study reviews transformations in management policies for the Greater Seoul area in Korea over different stages of its development, identifying details of major regulation- and investment-related policies and development of enabling environment and assessing their respective strengths and weaknesses.
Lastly, this study identifies avenues for international cooperation on metropolitan area management and suggests intermediate- and long-term programs to guide international cooperation for metropolitan areas in developing countries. As intermediate- to long-term programs reflecting the importance of metropolitan area management in developing countries, it suggests establishing a system for identification and sharing of
CHAPTER I.
Background and Purpose
The global trend of urbanization leads to surges in urban population. In 1950, the urban population accounted for 30% of the world population. This figure rose to 55% in 2018 and is expected to reach 68% by 2050 (UN DESA 2018, 2). Urbanization is taking place even more rapidly in developing countries. While the world’s average urban population growth rate in the past 20 years was 2.16%, the rate in low-income countries was 3.68%
(UN-HABITAT 2016, 7). In particular, as of 2016, 24 out of the 31 megacities with more than ten million people were in developing countries (UN 2016, 4), meaning that the increase of metropolitan areas is an important issue for developing countries.
With large populations, metropolitan areas can easily meet their labor demands. Their efficient infrastructure facilitates service and information sharing and reduces travel and communications costs. These agglomeration economies empower metropolitan areas to improve productivity and play important roles in the economic growth of the country.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the gross production of 40 major cities amounts to more than USD 842 billion, accounting for one third of the gross domestic production of that region (UN-HABITAT 2012, 51), and the four megacities—São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, and Buenos Aires—account for half of the production (UN- HABITAT 2012, 53).
Meanwhile, rapid urbanization has driven metropolitan areas in developing countries to metropolitan problems. They are facing a number of urban problems such as sprawling development in the outskirts driven by development pressure, lack of basic infrastructure, traffic congestion, and environmental pollution. The impact of these urban problems is not contained within their jurisdictions but spills over to many other administrative areas around them. This highlights the need to expand the scope of urban management in developing countries to metropolitan areas, thereby overcoming the administrative and financial limits of individual local governments and improving efficiency. However, metropolitan areas in developing countries are not fully able to respond to these metropolitan problems due to lack of planning systems, insufficient metropolitan governance, insufficient legal and institutional systems, and lack of finance.
Metropolitan area management in developing countries is vital to ease metropolitan problems and ensure sustainable social and economic development.
The Republic of Korea (hereinafter Korea) has received continued requests from the international society for knowledge sharing and cooperation in metropolitan area management. In response to these requests from developing countries and international organizations, Korea should develop measures to effectively share and use its experience in metropolitan area management. Korea experienced rapid urbanization in the 1960s to the 1980s and introduced a range of metropolitan area management policies, including the designation of greenbelts (1971) and the establishment of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (1982). The country also has experience in metropolitan response to area-specific management issues, for example, the establishment of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Landfill Site (1992) and Metropolitan Transportation Plan (1997) and so on. It has experienced not only the positive effects of these metropolitan area management policy measures but also the side effects accompanying urbanization, which developing countries may relate to. While Korea has rich experience in metropolitan area management, it still lacks sharing its experience with developing countries and developing international cooperative projects.
Korea experienced rapid urbanization relatively recently compared with other advanced countries, which gives the country a competitive edge in international cooperation in metropolitan area management. However, its international cooperation in urban and regional management has focused on not-very-feasible planning and major development projects that incur high costs and require highly efficient technologies. To meet the high demands from developing countries for metropolitan area management, a transition to integrated international cooperation covering both organized development and management is essential. In this regard, it is warranted to conduct studies of tailored cooperation to meet those high demands from developing countries for metropolitan area management policies and effectively share with them Korea’s experience in metropolitan area management. This study aims to understand the status of metropolitan area management in developing countries and identify relevant issues, and deduce implications from Korea’s experience in metropolitan area management, thereby presenting international cooperation measures to meet developing countries’ demands for metropolitan area management.
CHAPTER Ⅱ.
Status of Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries and Issues
1. Urbanization and Metropolitan Areas in Developing Countries
The global trend of rapid urbanization led to increases in the urban population rate from 30% in 1950 to 55% in 2018 (UN DESA 2018, 2). In 1950, only 24% of all countries in the world showed 50%-plus urbanization rates, and only 8% showed 75%-plus urbanization rates. These figures rose to 63% and 50%, respectively, in 2014, meaning surges in urban population. The upward trend in urban population is expected to accelerate further, leading to 85% of the population, or 900 million people, living in cities by 2100. Increases in urban population would also mean surges in the number of megacities with more than ten million people, from 31 in 2016 to 41 in 2030, and the number of cities with more than five million people is expected to reach 63 in 2030.
Table 1. Global cities and populations by size Category
2016 2030
No. of
cities Population
(million people) Ratio
(%) No. of
cities Population
(million people) Ratio (%)
Cities ... 4,034 54.5 ... 5,058 60.0
More than 10 million people 31 500 6.8 41 730 8.7
5 million – 10 million people 45 308 4.2 63 434 5.2
1 million – 5 million people 436 861 11.6 558 1,128 13.4
500,000 – 1 million people 551 380 5.1 731 509 6.0
Fewer than 500,000 people ... 1,985 26.8 ... 2,257 26.8
Rural areas ... 3,371 45.5 ... 3,367 40.0
Rapid urbanization is even more distinctive in developing countries. As of 2016, 24 out of 31 megacities in the world were in the Global South, and all ten cities that are set to reach ten million population are in those countries too. In addition, there is marked acceleration in the increase in urban population in cities with more than 500,000 people in developing countries. This highlights the ever-increasing importance of metropolitan area management in developing countries.
This section looked into the features of global metropolitan area population trends in seven regions and four income groups.1,2) First, the study compared population and population growth with the aim of understanding the characteristics of metropolitan areas in different regions and income groups. Then the study compared time-specific metropolitan population to total population to track the concentration of population on metropolitan areas by region and income group.
To analyze the characteristics of metropolitan areas in consideration of urban development stages, the study looked into the relations among the indicators for metropolitan areas. These included relations among metropolitan population growth rates, per capita gross domestic product (GDP) growth, per capita metropolitan area GDP, and metropolitan population density, and the relation between the population share and GDP share of metropolitan areas as an indicator of concentration in metropolitan areas. To do so, the study collected five-year time-series data on metropolitan areas (1950–2050) from the UN Department of Economic and Social
Source: UN 2016, 3.
1) World Bank definitions (as of July 2017): Low-income countries, per capita gross national income (GNI) $995 or less; lower-middle- income countries, per capita GNI
$996–$3,895; upper-middle-income countries, per capita GNI $3,895-
$12,055; high-income countries, per capita GNI $12,056 or more (https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.
org/knowledgebase/articles/906519, accessed March 28, 2018).
2) This study collected population and WDI data of 1,692 urban agglomerations with more than 300,000 in population from the UN DESA World Urbanization Prospects (https://population.
un.org/wup/DataQuery/, accessed March 28, 2018), but the study found inconsistency in the scope of the cities included in the samples. In the UN DESA database, 35% of the samples are city proper data, 55%
urban agglomeration data, and 10%
The study also collected time-series data (1960–2018) from the World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI) (World Bank Open Data). Population-wise, data were collected on total population, metropolitan population with more than one million people, and population growth rates. Area-wise data included population density (population per square kilometer), total land areas, and urban land areas, and GDP, per capita GDP, and GDP growth rates were used as economic indicators.
For the 187 metropolitan cities with more than one million population for which relevant data were available, we collected data on metropolitan population, metropolitan area size, and metropolitan GDP. Metropolitan population and area data were retrieved from the Demographia World Megacities database. Metropolitan GDP data were mainly obtained from Brookings (2014), MGI (2012), and PwC (2008), and if unavailable metropolitan-area-specific official nominal GDP data were used.
To analyze the urbanization and population trends by region and income group, this study prepared average time-series graphs of metropolitan population, metropolitan population growth rates, and metropolitan to urban population ratios for 113 countries with at least one metropolitan city with more than one million population (32 high- income countries, 28 upper-middle-income countries, 32 lower-middle-income countries, and 21 low-income countries).
For 46 major metropolitan areas with more than one million population (16 high-income countries, 16 upper-middle-income countries, 11 lower-middle-income countries, and three low-income countries), the study also prepared graphs showing population growth (metropolitan population growth rate), economic growth (per capita GDP growth rates, per capita metropolitan GDP), and metropolitan areas’ share in GDP and population.
1) Metropolitan population trends by region and income group
This study collected time-series data of metropolitan cities with more than one million population from the WDI (1960–2015) to analyze the gross income by region and country, growth rates, and metropolitan to total population ratios.
Metropolitan population exceeded 1.6 billion people in 2015. Of the East Asia and Pacific, South Asia, Middle East and North Africa, Europe and Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Southwest Africa, North America, and Latin America and the Caribbean regions, the majority of the metropolitan population are in the East Asia and Pacific region. While metropolitan population is growing fast in the Sub-Saharan Southwest Africa and South Asia regions, population growth in the metropolitan areas in the North America and
Europe and Central Asia regions is relatively slow.
Income-group-wise, upper-middle-income countries have the largest metropolitan population. There is a relatively small number of countries with metropolitan areas.
While their absolute population is relatively small, they show the highest population growth rate. From 1950 to 1980, the largest metropolitan populations were in high- income countries, but since then, the metropolitan population in lower- and upper- middle-income countries continued rising to exceed that in high-income countries.
Figure 1. Metropolitan population change by region and income group
600,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
-
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
East Asia and Pacific Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa
North America South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
800,000,000 700,000,000
600,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000 100,000,000 Source: The authors’ own work.
Source: The authors’ own work.
Region-wise, metropolitan population growth rates slightly increased between 1985 and 2000 in the East Asia and Pacific region, whereas the growth rates were sluggish or remained stable in other regions. From 1965 to 2015, the Sub-Saharan African region showed the highest growth rate, around 4%–6%, followed by the South Asia, Middle East and North Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean regions at 2%–5%, albeit the growth rates slightly curbed. The growth rate bracket in the East Asia and Pacific region was 2%–4%, while the growth rate in the North America and Europe and Central Asia regions remained at around 1%.
Metropolitan population growth differed by income group. While the low-income country group showed the highest growth rate at 4%–6%, that in the upper- and lower- middle-income countries was 2%–4%, and the high-income countries’ growth rate remained low at 1%–2%, presumably reflecting their mature urbanization stage.
Figure 2. Metropolitan population growth rate by region and income group
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0% 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
East Asia and Pacific Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa
North America South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
6.0%
7.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
High income countries Upper middle income countries Lower middle income countries Low income countries
The share of metropolitan population in total population continued increasing from 13.9% in 1960 to 22.8% in 2015, and in the same time frame, the proportion of urban population increased from 33.8% to 54.2%, suggesting increases in both metropolitan cities and smaller cities.
Figure 3. Changes in metropolitan and urban population shares
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1960 1980 2000 2015
Metropolitan population Urban population Total population 13.9
33.8 100.0
16.5 39.4 100.0
19.6 46.7 100.0
22.8 54.2 100.0
The share of metropolitan population was the highest in North America, 38% in 1960 and 45.4% in 2015, and the highest rise was observed in Latin America and the Caribbean, from 23.1% in 1960 to 36.7% in 2015. As of 2015, the metropolitan population share in total population was the highest in North America, followed by the Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan African regions.
Comparing metropolitan population shares in 1960 and 2015, they increased from 12%
to 25% in East Asia and Pacific, from 15% to 20% in Europe and Central Asia, from 23%
to 37% in Latin America and the Caribbean, from 17% to 27% in the Middle East and North Africa, from 38% to 45% in North America, from 7% to 15% in South Asia, and from 6% to 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa. The metropolitan population shares in the Latin America and the Caribbean, and East Asia and Pacific regions showed marked increases, and the smallest increase was observed in North America and South Asia.
Source: The authors’ own work.
Figure 4. Metropolitan and urban population shares by region (1960 and 2015)
100%
80%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
20%
10%
30%
0%
Metropolitan population (1960) Urban population (1960) Total population (1960) 11.9
22.4 100.0
14.7 56.8 100.0
23.1 49.7 100.0
16.6 34.8 100.0
38.0 69.9 100.0
6.9 16.7 100.0
6.0 15.2 100.0
East Asia
and Pacific Europe and
Central Asia Middle East
and North Africa
North
America South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America
and the Caribbean
100%
80%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
20%
10%
30%
0%
Metropolitan population (2015) Urban population (2015) Total population (2015) 24.7
56.7 100.0
19.7 72.3 100.0
36.7 80.5 100.0
26.9 63.6 100.0
45.4 81.6 100.0
15.3 33.2 100.0
15.0 38.4 100.0
East Asia
and Pacific Europe and
Central Asia Middle East
and North Africa
North
America South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America
and the Caribbean
The shares of metropolitan population in total population by income group were as follows: The highest and lowest shares were observed in the high-income countries, 27%
in 1960 and 37% in 2015, and the low-income countries, 4% in 1960 and 11% in 2015, respectively.
As of 2015, the metropolitan population shares were 37% in the high-income countries, 27% in the upper-middle-income countries, 16% in the lower-middle-income countries,
Source: The authors’ own work.
and 11% in the low-income countries. Increases from 1960 to 2015 were 10%p in the high-income countries, 15%p in the upper-middle-income countries, 8%p in the lower- middle-income countries, and 7.5%p in the low-income countries, showing a marked upward trend in the upper-middle-income countries. While the metropolitan and urban population shares in the high-income countries were 37% and 81%, those in the low- income countries were only 11% and 31%.
Figure 5. Metropolitan and urban population shares by income group (1960 and 2015)
100%
80%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
20%
10%
30%
0%
Metropolitan population (1960) Urban population (1960) Total population (1960) 26.9
64.5 100.0
11.9 28.3 100.0
7.8 19.8 100.0
3.6 12.2 100.0
High income countries
Upper middle income countries
Low income countries Lower
middle income countries
100%
80%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
20%
10%
30%
0%
Metropolitan population (2015) Urban population (2015) Total population (2015) 37.1
81.4 100.0
27.2 64.4 100.0
15.7 39.3 100.0
11.1 31.3 100.0
High income countries
Upper middle income countries
Low income countries Lower
middle income countries
2) Characteristics of metropolitan areas
This study analyzed the characteristics of metropolitan areas using the UN DESA five- year metropolitan population data and the WDI per capita GDP growth data for the 46 major metropolitan areas with more than one million population. The results showed that the population growth in the metropolitan areas was largely in proportion to the growth of per capita GDP. The faster the population growth in metropolitan areas, the faster the national economic growth. As an example, the metropolitan areas in Africa showed high population growth and high per capita GDP growth.
Source: The authors’ own work.
Figure 6. Characteristics metropolitan areas by metropolitan population growth and per capita GDP growth
(Unit: %)
Per-capita GDP growth rate (2005-2015)
Metropolitan population growth rate (2005-2015) BudapestSanJuan
Helsinki Madrid
LondonToronto Istanbul
Johanmesburg Stockholm
Auckland
-5.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
-1.00 - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
New York Berlin Mexico City
ParisDublin Tehran
Abidjan KualaLumpur
Riyadh Kinshasa Karachi
Bogotá Bangkok Lima Manila Jakarta Buenos AiresAlmaty
Baghdad Cairo
Khartoum
Hochiminh City Lagos Shanghai
Addis Ababa
São Paulo Minsk
Santiago Sofia Seoul Sydney
Moscow
Kabul Luanda Dhaka
Delhi
The study analyzed the relation between metropolitan population growth and metropolitan GDP and found that per capita metropolitan GDP and metropolitan population growth were inversely proportional. Metropolitan cities with low population growth rates, which fall under the stabilization stage in the urban development cycle, showed high per capita metropolitan GDP. On the other hand, metropolitan cities with the fastest population growth mostly showed low per capita metropolitan GDP, suggesting that they have high potential for future growth.
Source: The authors’ own work.
Figure 7. Characteristics metropolitan areas by population growth and per capita metropolitan GDP
(Unit: dollars, %)
Per-capita GDP growth rate (2005-2015)
Metropolitan population growth rate (2005-2015) SanJuan
Madrid
Johanmesburg Stockholm
Auckland 90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
30,000
20,000
10,000 - 100,000
-1.00 - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Berlin
Tehran
Abidjan KualaLumpur
Kinshasa Bogotá
Bangkok Lima Manila Jakarta
Almaty
Baghdad
Cairo Lagos
Shanghai
Addis Ababa São Paulo Sofia
Seoul
Moscow
Kabul Luanda
Dhaka Delhi
Khartoum
Karachi Minsk
Mexico City Santiago
Buenos Aires 40,000
Budapest
Istanbul Riyadh
Toronto London Paris
Helsinki New York
Sydney Dublin
Hochiminh City
The study also analyzed the metropolitan population and GDP shares and observed that the metropolitan population shares were in proportion to their GDP shares. The population shares of metropolitan areas were most densely distributed in the 10% to 30% bracket, and these cities mostly showed a metropolitan GDP share of 30% to 50%.
Source: The authors’ own work.
Figure 8. Characteristics metropolitan areas by population and GDP shares
(Unit: %)
Metropolitan GDP share
Metropolitan population share
SanJuan
Madrid
Auckland 90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
- 100.0
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
-
Bangkok
Lima
Manila
Shanghai
Sofia
Seoul Kabul
Karachi
Mexico City
Santiago
40.0
Budapest
New York Berlin
Delhi Addis Ababa
Lagos Dhaka Moscow
London Toronto Baghdad Sydney MinskRiyadh Almaty StockholmParis
Johanmesburg Cairo Dublin São Paulo Khartoum
Jakarta Hochiminh City
Tehran Helsinki Istanbul Abidjan
Luanda Kinshasa
KualaLumpur
Buenos Aires Bogotá
2. Issues Relating to Metropolitan Area Management in Developing Countries
This study reviewed literature on metropolitan areas published by international organizations and plans established by developing countries to collect keywords relating to metropolitan areas in developing countries and identify the relevant issues and responses. Based on the literature published by the UN, the World Bank, and the OECD in the past 15 years, the study identified 50 documents that comprehensively covered urbanization and metropolitan area issues in developing countries, and sorted them by geographic scope (world, region, country, and city) and target area (Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, old Soviet and Central Asia, and Africa). Then the study carried out a keyword analysis to measure the frequency of use of specific words in the 15 words that preceded or followed references to metropolitan areas (i.e., metropolitan, agglomeration, and mega-city) in these publications, excluding the names of places, conjunctives, prepositions, numbers, cities, and regions. The study also collected challenges and policy suggestions relating to urbanization from international organizations’ publications and summarized them. Additionally, we identified the major metropolitan areas out of the metropolitan areas with more than five million population
Source: The authors’ own work.
in developing countries in consideration of their income and continent and selected 16 metropolitan areas3) for which the study could obtain metropolitan plans and materials to identify and summarize their urbanization challenges and policy recommendations.
1) Keywords relating to metropolitan areas
This study analyzed the frequency of use of words placed adjacent to words relating to metropolitan areas. The most frequently used was urbanizing, followed by words related to government and governance (governments and municipality), development, plans, zone, policy, services, transport, population, economic, economy, and growth.
Table 2. Keyword analysis of international organizations’ literature
No. Word Frequency % Similar words
1 urbanizing 1,265 1.41 urban, urbanism, urbanization, urbanize, urbanized, urbanizing
2 governments 1,143 1.28 govern, governability, governance, governed, governing, government, governments, governments’
3 municipality 1,023 1.14 municipal, municipalities, municipalities’, municipality
4 development 1,007 1.13 develop, developable, developed, developer, developers, developing, development, developments, develops 5 population 767 0.86 populated, population, populations, populous
6 plans 701 0.78 plan, planned, planning, plans
7 economic 682 0.76 economic, economically, economics, economize
8 economy 651 0.73 economies, economy
9 level 569 0.64 level, leveling, levels
10 growth 520 0.58 growth
11 locally 436 0.49 local, locale, localism, localities, locality, localization, localized, locally, locals
12 large 426 0.48 large, largely
13 zone 424 0.47 zone, zones, zoning
14 policy 397 0.44 policies, policy
15 services 389 0.43 servic, service, serviced, services 16 transport 385 0.43 transport, transportation, transporte 17 countries 384 0.43 countries, countries’, country
18 productivity 381 0.43 product, production, productive, productively, productivity, products 19 increasing 376 0.42 increase, increased, increases, increasing, increasingly
3) Dakar, Karachi, Delhi, Shanghai, Bangkok, Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Lima, Bogota, Kinshasa, Johannesburg, Luanda, Dar es Salaam, Cairo, and Istanbul.
Source: The authors’ own work.
A regional comparison of the 30 most frequently combined words with metropolitan- area-related words revealed regional differences. In the Latin America and the Caribbean region, words related to governments and municipality (2.99%), zone, plans, and policy (2.94%), and ordination (0.52%) were more frequently used compared with other regions, and the 30 most frequently used words included institutions (0.52%) and funds (0.42%). In Asia, words related to urbanization (1.89%), economic and economies (2.18%), and growth (0.88%) were more frequently used compared with other regions, and unlike other regions, words related to land (0.40%) and density (0.34%) were included in the 30 most frequently used words. In the old Soviet and Central Asian region, words related to development (1.27%), project and activity (0.98%), and benefits (0.51%) were more frequently used compared with other regions, and the 30 most frequently used word list included markets (0.39%), investments (0.36%), and improve (0.36%). In the African region, words related to geographic levels (town, 1.30%; local, 0.78%; national, 0.84%) and transport (0.89%) were more frequently used compared with other regions, and unlike other regions, the 30 most frequently used words included authorities (0.53%), system (0.42%), and environmental (0.35%).
Figure 9. International organizations’ literature keyword analysis: Word cloud by region
Latin America and the Caribbean Asia
Old Soviet and Central Asia Africa
Source: The authors’ own work.
2) Challenges in metropolitan areas and policy recommendation keywords From publications relating to metropolitan areas published by international organizations, the study collected ones that clearly envisaged challenges and policy recommendations not being geographically specific to certain countries or cities. This study selected nine documents—three published by the UN, four by the World Bank, and two by the OECD—and looked into the challenges and policy recommendations contained therein.
Based on the existing literature, the study segmented the challenges into ten categories and determined if each of these documents contained descriptions of these categories.
Analyzing the document-specific perception of the challenges and characteristics of policy recommendations revealed the characteristics of the international organizations and regions. Eight of the nine documents covered inequality, poverty, politics, and administrative problems (urban planning, government capabilities, and funding), and the most frequently mentioned challenges were environment (seven documents), urban economy (six), housing (five), transport (five), disaster (three), crime (three), land (one), and conflict (one). From this, we realized that inequality, poverty, politics, and administrative aspects were recognized as the most serious issues in challenges and policy recommendations relating to metropolitan areas. In particular, urban politics and administration are a cross-cutting issue to resolve sector-specific urban problems where policy support such as urban planning, legislation and design, necessity for metropolitan area governments, cooperation of local governments, coordination of rules between the central and local governments, government capacity building, and the diversity of finance are emphasized.
3) Analysis of metropolitan area planning in developing countries
The metropolitan area plans of the selected 16 areas in developing countries recognized challenges in the order of environment, transport, economy, and politics and administrations. Urban environment covers environment pollution following urbanization and environment changes following climate change, which are emerging as important issues in most developing countries. Urban transport is also considered a major challenge, for example, congestion following rapid urbanization and the lack of public transportation systems. Economy-wise, vitalizing the urban economy, true urban industrial promotion, and job creation are highlighted, which is considered an important challenge in developing countries craving economic growth. Particular challenges include poor execution of plans and inefficiency in funding, and improvements in political and
The analysis of challenges in region-specific metropolitan area plans revealed that all five Asian countries recognized politics and administration (governance), transport environment, and disaster as major challenges, and they highlighted urban policy and administration as measures to resolve the challenges they face (transport, environmental pollution, and disasters following climate change). The five countries in the Latin America and the Caribbean region saw environmental pollution caused by reckless development or urbanization as major challenges in terms of environment (four documents).
Compared with other regions, inequality and poverty (three documents), and crime (two documents) were prominent. In terms of politics and administration (three documents), inter-governance cooperation and public funding were raised as issues, but the primary focus was on civil engagement.
The major challenges in the African region were economy (four documents) and environment (four documents), and four of the five African countries saw economic growth and environmental protection as major challenges in metropolitan areas.
But compared with other continents, they relatively lack political and administrative awareness (one document, Tanzania) as a measure to resolve those problems. As part of the European region, Turkey recognized economy, transport, environment, and disaster as major challenges.
When it comes to metropolitan planning challenges by income group, there were no distinctive common features observed in the plans of the two African countries, which are low-income countries. The Democratic Republic of the Congo gives priority to economic development and accompanying infrastructural development, but Tanzania emphasizes the execution of plans, cooperation among urban officers, lack of coordination, difficulties in funding, and other aspects related to urban politics and administration. On the other hand, the lower-middle-income countries, which are three Asian and two African countries, all presented urban environment (six documents) as a challenge. The upper-middle-income countries, which are two Asian, five Latin America and the Caribbean, one African, and one European countries, saw urban environment (eight documents), economy (six), politics and administration (six), and transport (six) as challenges.
The results of the analysis suggest that the priority in metropolitan planning in developing countries should be given to taking countermeasures against reckless expansion of cities’
outskirts following rapid urbanization. This requires safe active management of land use, the establishment of land-use planning models, transport planning, infrastructure building, and other policy recommendations in terms of land use and transport. It should also be emphasized that alternatives in terms of politics and administration such as integrated urban planning should be presented. Also important is response to inefficient
governance operations. In response to problems in urban politics and administration, for example, the lack of the execution of urban plans, insufficiencies in legislation and institutions, torts, insufficient cooperation and coordination among interested parties, and the lack of project funding, efforts should be made for government reform, closer monitoring, legal reform, integrated urban planning, and civil engagement, and multidisciplinary approaches should be taken to tackle urban problems in other areas.
CHAPTER Ⅲ.
Changes in Korea’s Metropolitan Area
Management Policy and Implications
1. Changes in the Metropolitan Area Management Policy
In Korea, the concentration in the capital region started in the 1960s and further accelerated in the 1970s driven by the government’s priority given to economic development and pursuit of the development of strategic hub areas (Joook Lee 2013, i). The concentration of population and economic activities caused housing shortages, traffic congestion, and environmental problems in the capital region, and conflicts with other regions triggered by ill-balanced growth nationally.
Aiming to resolve these issues and reduce social costs caused by the concentration, thereby ultimately improving the quality of people’s lives in the capital region, the central government pursued a range of management policies, which are chronologically divided into ① the 1960s, ② early 1970s, ③ late 1970s to early 1990s, and ④ late 1990s. Table 3 shows the major policies implemented in each of these periods. In a nutshell, Korea’s capital region management policy focused on measures to prevent population concentration in the capital region, for example, the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan, as well as efforts to build on infrastructure and houses in the capital region by pursuing spatial structure plans (National Comprehensive Territorial Plan and Metropolitan City-Region Plans) and the Five-Year Plans for Economic and Social Development.
Table 3. Changes in the capital region management policy
Period Features Major policies
1960s
Policies to prevent population concentration in the capital region in response to population and industrial concentration in the capital region, unequal predominance of the capital region in overall land use, and imbalanced national development
The 1st Five-Year Plan for Economic Development (1962) Measures to Prevent Population Concentration in Metropolitan Cities (1964)
Gyeongin Regional Plan (1965) Seoul Urban Masterplan (1966)
The 2nd Five-Year Plan for Economic Development (1967) National Land Plan (1968)
Measures for Metropolitan Population and Facility Adjustment (1969)
Early 1970s
The Comprehensive National Territorial Plan and the Basic Instructions on the Prevention of Overpopulation in the Capital Region to pursue balanced regional development
Basic Instructions on the Prevention of Overpopulation in the Capital Region (1970)
The 1st Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (1972–1981) The 3rd Five-Year Plan for Economic Development (1971) Metropolitan Population Decentralization Policy (1972) Metropolitan Population Decentralization Measures (1973) Seoul Population Dispersion Plan (1975)
Late 1970s to early 1990s
The spatial scope of the capital region expanded to Seoul, Incheon, and the entire Gyeonggi region with the establishment of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Masterplan; restrictions on the construction and extension of facilities facilitating population concentration; the capital region categorized into five areas subject to differential regulations
The 4th Five-Year Plan for Economic Development (1977) Capital Region Population Redistribution Masterplan (1977) Distribution of Industry Act (1977)
The 2nd Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (1982–1991) The 5th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (1982)
Public Office and Major Building Regulation Plan in the Capital Region (1982)
Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (1982) Amendment to the 5th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (1983)
Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Masterplan (1982- 1996)
The 6th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (1986)
Amendment to the 6th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (1988)
The 3rd Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (1992–2001) The 7th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (1992)
Late 1990s and afterward
Nominally focused on metropolitan area growth management by turning away from the existing concentration-prevention policies and pursuing flexibility in regulations, for example, restructuring the existing five areas to three in the second Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan, but the regulation-centered policies remained in effect
New Economy Five-Year Plan (1993)
Full amendments to the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act and its Enforcement Decree (1994)
The 2nd Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (1997–
2011)
The 4th Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (2000–2020) Amendment to the 4th Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (2005)
The 3rd Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (2006–
2020)
2020 Seoul Metropolitan City-Region Plan (2007) 5+2 Metropolitan Economic Area Development Plan (2008) Amendment to the 2020 Seoul Metropolitan City-Region Plan (2009)
Source: Referred to the Annual Report on the Planning and Use of National Land in 2008 (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs 2009).
2. The Seoul Metropolitan Area Management Policies by Period
The Seoul metropolitan area management policies pursued so far are divided into “regulation” policies to curb the concentration of population and industry in metropolitan areas and control the thoughtless expansion of urban areas and
“investment” policies to house population and industries in metropolitan areas in a well- organized manner. The following are the major elements of the Seoul metropolitan area management policies by period.
1) 1960s
The population of Seoul Metropolitan City grew by one million people in just five years from 2.45 million in 1960 to 3.47 million in 1965 with the size of the administrative area significantly expanding in 1963 to 613.04㎢. In response to this population surge in the 1960s, the full suite of development projects including new residential area development and road construction and expansion took place all over the city. In this period, urban area development was primarily pursued with large-scale land compartmentalization and rearrangement projects (Jooil Lee 2008, 16).
The major policies pursued during this decade included the following: In 1964, the Ministry of Construction announced the Measures to Prevent Population Concentration in Metropolitan Cities and established and executed plans under which it declared certain areas, as wide as 3,325㎢, designated as Specific Areas including Seoul, Incheon, and Suwon in response to overconcentration in Seoul. Also, the ministry pursued building living bases by developing garden cities and new industrial cities, relocating public offices that were not necessarily related to metropolitan areas, such as military facilities, to other regions, and enforced land-use regulations including limiting and curbing factory construction in metropolitan areas. In 1968, the government announced the National Land Plan as a long-term guide for construction, where it suggested the development of satellite cities and the establishment of greenbelts. Also, the country initiated establishing and pursuing long-term economic development plans spanning a five-year period with the aim to resolve political and social instability and economic poverty that had been conceived during the Korean War and remained until the 1960s, restore the national economy and realize independent growth (the first Five-Year Plan for Economic Development was established in 1962, and the second Five-Year Plan for Economic Development in 1967).
The key achievement of the policies pursued in the 1960s was that the government recognized the harm of population concentration in Seoul and metropolitan cities,
proposed a range of plans and policies in response thereto, and pursued curbing overconcentration in Seoul, building satellite cities in the capital region, and relocating secondary public offices to regional areas. The beginning of basic national land planning, whereby the country developed foundations for comprehensive national land development plans and established the first metropolitan plans where the spatial scope of the issues in Seoul was extended to the entire capital region, should also be appreciated.
Despite these policies and efforts, population concentration in Seoul continued, and the horizontal expansion of the city remained unchecked. Greater concentration in the capital region required infrastructural expansion, only to remain insufficient due to financial limitations.
Table 4. Seoul metropolitan area management policies in the 1960s
Major policy Regulation policy Investment policy
The 1st Five-Year Plan for Economic Development (1962)
-
• Response to industrial development and accompanying traffic demands
• Social overhead capital expansion
• Efficiency in living, housing supply
Measures to Prevent Population
Concentration in Metropolitan Cities
(1964)
• Policy to relocate public offices to regional areas
• Limits on the expansion of factories in metropolitan areas
• Limits on educational facilities in metropolitan areas
• Garden city development
• Rural relief measures
• Promotion of agricultural economy and regional business promotion with government projects
Gyeongin Regional Plan (1965)
• Target population of Seoul: 5 million people in 1985
• Plans to develop 8 satellite cities (with 2.6 million planned population)
The 2nd Five-Year Plan for Economic Development (1967)
• Limits on the expansion of factories in metropolitan areas; regional distribution of industry
• Transition to direct tax; higher progressive tax rates
• Housing construction and improvement
• Satellite city construction, road construction and expansion in cities’
outskirts, regional transport refurbishment and improvement
Measures for Metropolitan Population and Facility Adjustment
(1969)
• Measures to scatter industrial, educational, and public facilities
• Selection and intensive development of industrial hubs
2) Early 1970s
The population concentration in Seoul accelerated, resulting in the population of Seoul reaching six million in the early 1970s and eight million in the late 1970s. During
Source: The authors’ own work.
resolve the transport problems in the metropolitan areas, the government started using trains as public transportation by building a subway line between Seoul Station and Chungryangri and electrifying the train route between Seoul and Suwon. However, this was not accompanied by corresponding land-use patterns and new town development techniques (Jooil Lee 2008, 17).
As a major policy, the government announced the Basic Instructions on the Prevention of Overpopulation in the Capital Region in 1970, by which it facilitated the development of the Gangnam area and pursued urban district construction in consideration of military security, the construction of school cities taking educational and research functions, and the designation of greenbelts. In 1971, the first Comprehensive National Territorial Plan was prepared and announced, under which greenbelts were established in metropolitan cities’ surroundings.
The key achievement of the policies pursued in this period is that the government presented a basic concept of capital region refurbishment and development as the first comprehensive plan (growth pole development). Also, the industrial concentration in Seoul was alleviated and travel time in the capital region reduced. The greenbelts contributed to preventing population concentration and the expansion of the capital region. However, the population of both Seoul and the capital region still increased, and the designation of greenbelts caused a “leap frog” effect where areas adjacent to the greenbelts were built up and urbanized.
Table 5. Seoul metropolitan area management policies in the early 1970s
Major policy Regulation policy Investment policy
Basic Instructions on the Prevention of Overpopulation in the Capital Region (1970)
• Legal grounds for the designation of greenbelts
• Facilitation of the establishment of the Comprehensive National Territorial Plan
• Development of the Hangang and Gangnam Districts
• Urban district development in consideration of defense purposes
• Metropolitan development
The 1st Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (1972–1981)
• Designation of greenbelts
• New industrial facilities banned in Seoul other than urban industries that are free from pollution
• Relocation and dispersion of 3,000 factories in Seoul
• New urban centers in Yeongdong and Jamsil
• Ten satellite cities within 30 km of Seoul
• Banwol New Industrial City development (1977–1987)
• Seongnam urban development and refurbishment
• Capital region electrified train (88.5km) and subway (25.3km) networks
• Relocate the express bus terminal and the cargo terminal
• Metropolitan water supply network
The 3rd Five-Year Plan for Economic
Development (1971) -
• Electrification of existing railways in the capital region in parallel with subway construction
• Expansion of the Gimpo International Airport
• Cargo logistic complexes with truck terminals and cold storages in outskirt areas
• House complexes in surrounding areas
• Build economical standard apartments
Metropolitan Population Decentralization
Policy (1972)
• Factory relocation tax and construction regulation measures
• Prohibition of new factory construction in metropolitan areas and forced relocation of factories in violation of zoning regulations
• Development of 15 areas within 40km as satellite cities
Metropolitan Population Decentralization Measures (1973)
• Relocation of public enterprises’ head offices and public institutions to regional areas
• Relocation of pollutive factories and factories in violation of zoning regulations
• Local tax rises to curb new factory construction in metropolitan areas
-
Seoul Population Dispersion Plan
(1975)
• Restrictions on new approval of sanitary facilities
• Ban factories in residential areas
• Reduce industrial districts and curb new factory construction
• Subway construction as part of Gangnam development
3) Late 1970s to early 1990s
The population concentration in Seoul continued in the 1980s, reaching ten million
Source: The authors’ own work.
