雖然位於相鄰的地理區域,在東亞和東南亞國家的都市化過程卻呈現不同的歷史軌跡和空間模式.藉由和歐洲國家的外部殖民關係和階級利益的內部動力,Smith 以國際政治經濟學的理論,嘗試解釋這些國家不同的都市化過程.

    日本因為內部固有民族的特殊文化力量(the endogenous nation-specific cultural power),避免了早期歐洲的殖民,並在這個區域裡發展出”次帝國”的權力位置.

    晚期帝國中國有著不同的區域城市系統(regional city system), 而中國的革命讓中國避開了資本主義世界經濟,然而1980年之後的鄧小平的經濟改革,可能會對中國的政治經濟發展和都市模式造成重要的影響.

    南韓和台灣雖然都是依賴發展,卻避開了過度不均等的都市發展. 在台灣強大的國家官僚成功地完成一個妥協性的依賴發展(a negotiated dependent development). 

    而和這些國家相較,東南亞國家和西非一樣經歷了快速的發展,不均等的都市層級, 和沒有經濟發展的都市化. Smith認為造成公司集中/市集經濟(firm-centered/bazaar economy)的雙元社經模式的因素,必須追溯至歐洲的殖民和在不同的時間點和歐洲的關係. 後殖民的布爾喬亞結合了本土菁英,國家,和跨國資本合力創造一個對國外資本較為有利的投資環境. 而農夫和都市窮人就在都市化的過程中,因為流離失所(dispossession)或失業(underdevelopment)而被犧牲了. 

    在這篇文章中Smith嘗試整合東亞和東南亞國家不同的都市化路徑到世界體系來, 然而他仍然無法避免歐洲中心主義的觀點,因為在東亞和東南亞不同國家之間的動態關係, 也對這個地區的都市化造成重要的影響.

Review(1999/2/9)

Smith, David A.(1996), Urban Diversity in East Asia: Toward a Political Economy Approach, in Third World Cities in Global Perspective, Colorado: WestviewPress. Pp:95-120.

Although in the neighboring geographic location, the processes of urbanization in East/ Southeast Asian countries present diverse historical trajectories and spatial patterns. However, by analyzing the external colonial relation with European countries and internal dynamics of class interest, Smith tries to explain the different urban process of these countries by the theory of international political economy. With the endogenous nation-specific cultural power, Japan avoided early European colonization and developed into a “subimperial” power in this area. Late imperial China had several regional city systems and the Chinese revolution kept China from capitalist world economy, however the Deng economic “reforms” of the 1980s may cause a major influence on Chinese socio-economic development and urban pattern. Despite dependent development, South Korea and Taiwan have avoided the excesses of uneven urban development. The strong state bureaucracy in Taiwan has successfully pursued a negotiated dependent development. Compared to these countries, Southeast Asian are experiencing rapid growth rates, uneven urban hierarchy and urbanization without economic development as West Africa. Smith argues that the underlying cause of the dualistic socioeconomic model between firm-centered/bazaar economies can be traced back to European colonial exploitation and the relation with the West in different timing. A postcolonial bourgeoisie combined with the local elite, the state, and the transnational corporation made policies to create a good business climate for foreign capital investment. The peasants and urban poor were sacrificed in this urbanization process because of dispossession and underemployment. In this article, Smith tries to incorporate the diverse paths of urbanization in East/ Southeast Asia into world system, however, he still can not avoid Euro-centric standpoint, because the inter-relation between different countries in East/ Southeast Asia have an important influence on the urbanization process in this area as well.