World city formation, geopolitics and local political process: Taipei's ambiguous development

Abstract

This article argues that the existing literature on world city formation overlooks geopolitics and political struggles in accounting for a city's transformation. Using Taipei as a case study, the article shows that geo‐economics, geopolitics and local politics each played an important role in Taipei's ambiguous world city formation in the late 1990s and are expected to continue to do so in the not too promising future. It is argued that the globalization process in the 1980s and the corresponding restructuring of the Taiwan economy induced the state to adopt a new developmental strategy that enhanced Taipei's competitiveness. However, the democratization process facilitated a new nation‐building process in the late‐1990s and the newly‐elected regime suppressed the city of Taipei's ongoing development, as a consequence of which Taipei's competitiveness as a regional world city has been declining. Geopolitics and local politics are thus found to explain to a large degree the ambiguities currently defining Taipei's world city formation. La littérature existante sur la formation des villes mondiales néglige les luttes géopolitiques et politiques dans ses explications de la transformation d'une ville. Prenant comme cas Taipei, l'article montre que géo‐économie, géopolitique et politique locale ont chacune joué un r^le important dans la formation complexe de cette ville mondiale vers la fin des années 1990, rôle qu'elles devraient conserver dans un avenir peu prometteur. Le processus de mondialisation des années 1980 et la restructuration subséquente de l'économie taiwanaise ont conduit l'&#5´tat à adopter une nouvelle stratégie de développement, laquelle a renforcé la compétitivité de Taipei. En revanche, le processus de démocratisation a encouragé un processus de construction nationale dans la fin des années 1990 et le régime récemment élu a asphyxié l'évolution de cette ville, en conséquence de quoi la compétitivité de Taipei en tant que ville mondiale de la région a décliné. La géopolitique et la politique locale peuvent donc expliquer en grande partie les ambiguïtés qui définissent actuellement la formation de la ville mondiale de Taipei.

From technological catch-up to innovation-based economic growth: South Korea and Taiwan compared

“…As a corollary, although Taiwan opened its market to 100 per cent foreign stock ownership in any single firm listed on the stock market in 2000, foreign portfolio investment accounted in total for only 12.5 per cent of the market value in 2004 (Securities and Futures Bureau, 2004), a far smaller share than that in the case of Korea. The state's control of the financial sector prevented Taipei from becoming a financial centre along the lines of Hong Kong or even Seoul (Wang, 2004). Therefore, although the securities market has become more open than before, the business debt mainly came from the banks rather than from the financial market just as it did before, with the former accounting for 71.8 per cent of the debt and the latter for the remaining 28.2 per cent in 2004 (CBC, 2005).…”

Global borderlands: a case study of the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines

“…Such cities are strategic research sites for examining the economic processes of globalization and their implications for internal city dynamics and inequality, as well as for stratification on a global scale. Some scholars debate which cities can be considered "global cities," while others have worked to identify cities' positions in the world city network and how these cities are shaped by historically specific, localized processes (Hall 1996;Baum 1997;Smith and Timberlake 2001;Rimmer 1998;Wang 2004).…”

Gentrification and revanchist urbanism in Taipei?

“…These shifts in economic objectives were facilitated by deregulation of the Taiwanese stock market in the mid-1990s, and entrenched in the 2002 WTO accession under threat from the US (Harvey, 2003b;Wang, 2004). Massive investments in infrastructure and megaprojects reflect the shift in economic objectives, which is also evident in social polarisation.…”