Prevailing perspectives on the impacts of globalization on urban form in large, globalizing cities in Asia hold that these cities are experiencing an inexorable process of ‘Westernization’ or ‘Americanization’. Yet this focus on convergence distracts us from the task of analyzing urban change and its causes, leading to analytical muddiness and awkward planning and policy implications. The author presents an alternative framework that focuses on actor-centered analysis, and the importance of understanding historical context. This framework is employed in a case study of recent trends in urban development in Metro Manila, based on interviews, government, private sector, and nonprofit sector documents, and newspapers. It is concluded that, in Metro Manila, a defining characteristic of contemporary urban development is the unprecedented privatization of urban and regional planning. Large developers have conceived of urban development plans on a metrowide scale, and begun to implement these with the assistance of government. This phenomenon has its roots in the historical development of social groups in the Philippines and their shifting interests with the globalization of the Philippine economy. The author concludes that the privatization of planning raises distinct issues for urban planning theory and practice.
BagasaoI, 2005, “Migration and development: The Philippine experience”, in Remittances: Development Impacts and Future Prospects Eds MaimboSRathaD (World Bank, Washington, DC) pp 133–142
BeaverstockJ VTaylorP JSmithR G, 1999, “A roster of world cities”Cities16444–458
10.
BelloW, 2004The Anti-development State: The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the PhilippinesDepartment of Sociology, University of the Philippines, Quezon City
11.
BerryJMcGrealS (Eds), 1999Cities in the Pacific Rim: Planning Systems and Property Markets (Spon, London)
12.
BoyceJ, 1993The Political Economy of Growth and Impoverishment in the Marcos Era (Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City)
13.
CaoiliM, 1988The Origins of Metropolitan Manila: A Political and Social Analysis (New Day Publishers, Quezon City)
14.
ChiuS W KLuiT L, 2004, “Testing the global city–social polarisation thesis: Hong Kong since the 1990s”Urban Studies411863–1888
15.
CowherdRHeikkilaE J, 2002, “Orange county, Java: Hybridity, social dualism and an imagined west”, in Southern California and the World Eds HeikkilaE JPizarroR E (Praeger, Westport, CT) pp 195–220
FirmanT, 2004, “New town development in Jakarta metropolitan region: A perspective of spatial segregation”Habitat International28349–368
23.
FishmanR, 2003, “Global suburbs”, WP 03–01, Urban and Regional Research Consortium, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
24.
GrahamS, 2000, “Constructing premium network spaces: Reflections on infrastructure networks and contemporary urban development”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24183–200
25.
GraizbordBRowlandAAguilarA, 2003, “Mexico City as a peripheral global player: The two sides of the coin”Annals of Regional Science37501–508
26.
GuarinoD, 2001, “A study into the viability of consolidating bus companies operating in Metro Manila”, unpublished master's thesis, School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Philippines, Diliman
27.
HillR, 2004, “Cities and nested hierarchies”International Social Science Journal56373–384
28.
HutchcroftP, 1998Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
LeichenckoRSoleckiW, 2005, “Exporting the American dream: The globalization of suburban consumption landscapes”Regional Studies39241–253
31.
LlantoG, 2004Infrastructure Development: Experience and Policy Options for the FuturePhilippine Institute for Development Studies, Makati
32.
McGeeT G, 1991, “The emergence of desakota regions in Asia: Expanding a hypothesis”, in The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia Eds GinsburgN SKoppelBMcGeeT G (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI) pp 3–25
33.
Magno-BallesterosM, 2000The Urban Land and Real Estate Market in Metro Manila: A Socio-economic Analysis unpublished dissertation, Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Nijmegen
34.
MarcusePVan KempenR (Eds) 2000Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order (Blackwell, Oxford)
35.
MarkusenA, 2004, “The work of forgetting and remembering places”Urban Studies412303–2314
36.
MarshallR, 2003Emerging Urbanity: Global Urban Projects in the Asia Pacific Rim (Spon, London)
37.
NasrJVolaitM, 2003, “Introduction: Transporting planning”, in Urbanism Imported or Exported? Native Aspirations and Foreign Plans Eds NasrJVolaitM (Academy Editions, London) pp 1–25
Philippine National Railways Authority, 2005Current Status of the Railway Industry in the Philippineshttp://www.pnr.gov.ph/about.html
43.
PinchesM, 1999, “Entrepreneurship, consumption, ethnicity and national identity in the making of the Philippines' New Rich”, in Culture and Privilege in Capitalist Asia Ed. PinchesM (Routledge, London) pp 275–301
44.
PirezP, 2002, “Buenos Aires: Fragmentation and privatization of the metropolitan city”Environment and Urbanization14(1) 145–158
45.
RathaD, 2005, “Workers' remittances: An important and stable source of external development finance”, in Remittances: Development Impacts and Future Prospects Eds MaimboSRathaD (World Bank, Washington, DC) pp 20–51
46.
Republic of the Philippines, 1999Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study: Final Report Summary report prepared by the Almec Corporation; copy provided by the Japan International Cooperation Agency
47.
RobinsonJ, 2002, “Global and world cities: A view from off the map”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research26531–554
48.
RocamoraJ, 1994Breaking Through: The Struggle Within the Communist Party of the Philippines (Anvil, Pasig City)
SajorE E, 2003, “Globalization and the urban property boom in Metro Cebu, Philippines”Development and Change34713–741
51.
SalcedoRTorresA, 2004, “Gated communities in Santiago: Wall or frontier?”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research2827–44
52.
SassenS, 2001, “Global cities and developmentalist states: How to derail what could be an interesting debate: A response to Hill and Kim”Urban Studies382537–2540
53.
ScottA JAgnewJSojaE WStorperM, 2001, “Global city-regions”, in Global City-regions: Trends, Theory Policy Ed. ScottA J (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 11–30
54.
SidelJ, 1999, Capital, Coercion, and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA)
55.
SmithN, 2002, “New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy”Antipode34427–450
WuFWebberK, 2004, “The rise of ‘foreign gated communities’ in Beijing: Between economic globalization and local institutions”Cities21(3) 203–213
63.
YeohB S A, 1999, “Global/globalizing cities”Progress in Human Geography23607–616
64.
de AyalaZobel J, 1983Impacts of the Land Development in Makati report to the Research Department, Filipinas Foundation; copy available from the Filipinos Heritage Library, Ayala Foundation
