Contesting the centrality of Jakarta Have industrial parks promoted deconcentration?
Delik Hudalah School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.sappk.itb.ac.id/pwd/index.php/en/staff/dh
Forum Komunikasi Pembangunan, Jakarta, 7 March 2013
From population towards employment
• Jakarta is the most suburbanized mega-city in South East Asia.
• While population deconcentration is well documented, little attention paid to the role of industrial restructuring in shaping this suburbanization trend.
• Following pro-market development policies of the 1980s, industrial park and town projects have grown rapidly in the suburbs to anticipate massive inflows of FDI.
• Have manufacturing industries in Greater Jakarta deconcentrated? How have the metropolitan structure been reshaped? What would be the implications for the planning of the metropolitan area?
Deconcentration (1)
• (Intra-metropolitan) deconcentration = the process through which a metropolitan area – still recognizable as a city – evolves into an urbanized region (≈ suburbanization)
• a massive dispersal of population and employment toward the suburbs
• a decline in the urbanization share of the metropolitan core and a corresponding rise in share on the part of the suburbs.
• Types of intra-metropolitan deconcentration
• Population deconcentration
• Employment deconcentration
• Business services deconcetration
• Manufacturing deconcentration
Deconcentration (2)
• Resulting metropolitan spatial structure • The centrist perspective
• Agglomeration economies and face-to-face contacts remain key factors in location decisions
• Firms tend to locate close to one another
• A limited number of suburban centers, “new downtowns”, “edge cities”
• Polycentric metropolitan structure
• The decentrist perspective • Automobile technology, the telecommunication revolution, and
globalization have increased individual mobility
• There are no longer any distinct advantages for firms to be located within close proximity of each other
• A great number of small, scattered “employment pockets”, “edgeless cities”
• Chaotic metropolitan structure
Industrial parks in Greater Jakarta
• “Greater” Jakarta: (>) 9,000 km2
• Jakarta Metropolitan Area (Jabodetabek): 5,900 km2 • The metropolitan core (DKI Jakarta)
• The inner suburbs (Kota Bodetabek)
• The outer suburbs (Kabupaten Botabek)
• Extra outer suburbs: (>) 3,100 km2 • Eastern: Karawang (+ Purwakarta?)
• Western: Serang, Cilegon
• (Southern: Puncak-Cianjur?)
• Formal industrial land development • >35 industrial parks ; total area > 18,000 hectares
• Range: 50 – 1,800 hectares; average size: 500 hectares
• 1 urban industrial center: North Jakarta (esp. Cakung)
• 6 suburban industrial centers: Cikupa-Balaraja, Cikarang, Cikande, Telukjambe-Ciampel, Cilegon, Cikampek
Population change in JMA
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Jiw
a
Tahun
Jakarta
Botabek
(Rustiadi 2007)
FDI in secondary sectors in JMA
Region 1998-2000 2001-2003 2004-2006 2007-2009
Jakarta 15.1% 16.2% 13.0% 12.7%
Bodetabek 84.9% 83.8% 87.0% 87.3%
Inner (Kotas) 8.1% 7.5% 12.3% 11.1%
Kab. Bogor 16.6% 12.7% 11.7% 10.3%
Kab. Bekasi 52.4% 51.5% 45.0% 46.9%
Kab. Tangerang 18.1% 12.1% 18.0% 19.0%
JMA 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Physical expansion
From ‘Metro’ Jakarta ...
...to ‘Greater’ Jakarta
Greater Jakarta
Industrial parks distribution
Industrial land supply
Industrial land price dynamics ($/m2)
City/district 1997 2002 2007 2011
Jakarta 228.5 77.5 - -
Suburb 74.5 42.7 61.0 116.7
Inner-outer suburb 92.0 - 66.2 123.9
Tangerang - - 85.0 113.3
Bekasi 91.5 - 58.5 150.0
Bogor - - 55.0 108.3
Extra-outer-suburb 63.8 - 38.5 91.7
Karawang 70.0 - 40.0 100.0
Serang 57.5 - 37.0 83.3
Factors triggerring manufacturing deconcentration
FDI
Industrialization
policy (late
1960s)
Market oriented
policy (late
1980s)
Cheap vacant
land
Inter-city
highways
International
ports
State-own
industrial park
(CBD)
Private
industrial park
(suburb)
Industrial zone
Global factor Government
Policy
Spatial form Regional
factor
Cheap labor
Environmental
policy (1970s)
Manufacturing employment per population 1995
Manufacturing employment per population 2001
Manufacturing employment per population 2010
Manufacturing employment change
Metropolitan zone
Employment Growth
1995 2010
Absolute %
CBD (Jakarta) 376,386 321,270
-55,116 -15
Bodetabek
Inner suburb 278,354 256,451
-21,903 -8
Outer suburb 323,072 446,199
123,127 38
Extra-outer suburb 78,587 203,789
125,202 159
Total (Greater Jakarta) 1,056,399 1,227,709
171,310 16
Scattered or polycentric?
Spatial form
Employment Growth
1995 2010 Absolute %
Planned concentration 298,749 496,672 197,923 66
Unplanned concentration 375,982 351,633 -24,349 -6
Non-concentration 381,668 379,404 -2,264 -1
Total (Greater Jakarta) 1,056,399 1,227,709 171,310 16
LQ (specialisation index) 1995
Cilegon Cikande
Cikupa-Balaraja Cibitung CBD
Metals 18,87* 0,00 0,44 3,38 0,64
Energy, chemicals, and rubber and plastics 1,61 2,82 1,64 0,82 0,61
Wood 0,00 1,40 1,93 0,98 0,78
Paper 0,00 2,42 1,34 1,39 0,88
Mining 0,67 0,00 0,97 2,70 0,71
Foods 0,00 0,00 1,17 1,01 1,16
Textile, leather, and clothing 0,00 0,48 0,64 1,11 1,19
Machinery, electronics, and automotive 2,15 0,22 0,75 0,06 1,14
LQ (specialisation index) 2010
Industry Cilegon Cikande
Cikupa-Balaraja Karawang Cikarang CBD
Wood 7,99 0,00 1,95 0,05 0,57 0,85
Energy 15,30* 0,81 0,52 1,71 0,46 0,74
Chemicals 6,07 0,58 0,66 0,12 1,07 1,13
Metals 3,68 0,73 1,17 0,99 1,21 0,50
Leather 0,02 6,27 2,30 0,10 0,32 0,10
Textile 0,00 1,36 1,68 1,35 0,90 0,55
Paper 0,00 0,00 1,11 2,57 1,46 0,23
Mining 0,56 0,37 1,62 0,61 1,31 0,52
Rubber and Plastics 0,24 0,26 0,94 1,53 1,33 0,72
Machinery 0,77 0,08 0,81 2,12 1,70 0,20
Electronics 0,00 0,12 0,04 3,49 2,01 0,01
Automotive 0,00 0,03 0,40 0,90 1,11 1,60
Foods 2,80 1,22 0,95 0,35 0,67 1,42
Clothing 0,00 0,17 0,76 0,08 0,18 2,63
Publishing 0,00 0,16 0,59 0,00 0,68 2,19
Cikarang, Bekasi
• 40 km from Jakarta,
• Receiving 50% of FDI in manufacturing in JMA
• The largest industrial estates concentration in South East Asia
• 4 industrial estates & 2 industrial cities (14,620 ha)
• 2,288 tenants typified by hi-tech multinational companies
• > 500,000 domestic & foreign workers
• > 25 countries
• A potential export up to $US 15.1-30.56 billion = 46% of the national non oil & gas export (2005).
• Extracting taxes 3.4-6 trillion rupiahs.
JABABEKA I
MM 2100
E J I P
B I I E
JABABEKA II DELTA
SILICON
LIPPO CIKARANG
DELTA MAS
Physical fragmentation
Social segregation
Sub-region
(subdistrict)
Area size
(km2) Pop.
Density
(/km2)
GDRP
(Rp
billion)
Per cap.
(Rp 000)
Kab. Bekasi 1,264 2,125,960 1,682 73,940 34,780
Ind. estates 139 416,520 3,002 42,887 102,965
S. Cikarang 52 85,260 1,648 13,401 157,176
N. Cikarang 43 168,181 3,884 14,576 86,668
W. Cikarang 44 163,079 3,733 14,910 91,429
Suburbs (12) 537 1,196,322 2,229 26,390 22,059
Rural areas (6) 588 513,118 872 4,663 9,088
Jakarta 662 9,588,198 14,494 567,707 59,209
Infrastructure (Jababeka)
Urban Center (Jababeka)
School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development
Bandung Institute of Technology
Conclusion
• Since the early 1990s most of manufacturing employment in Greater Jakarta has been being suburbanized:
• the declining role of Jakarta City (the metropolitan core)
• the extending boundaries of the metropolitan area
• The private sector has played a substantial role in deconcentrating formal manufacturing employment
• It is likely that the spatial structure of the metropolitan area will change from sprawling towards a relatively more polycentric spatial arrangement:
• Relocation from scattered pockets, unplanned industrial zones towards privately planned suburban industrial centers.
• Specialisation among the CBD, inner suburbs, and outer suburbs
Recommendation • Build an active government role to foster linkages with the local economy and small-scale
industries
• E.g. integrated special economic zone with clear government’s entrepreneurial ambition and long-term vision
• Improve the capacity of suburban local government and metropolitan governance in order to better formulate, adapt, coordinate and implement local and regional land use plans and integrate them with regional economic policies and longer-term plans prepared by the national government.
• Emphasize institution building at the regional level to tackle major sustainability issues and improve competitiveness
• Promote multi-level coordination and cooperation among existing local, provincial and national governments rather than design of a new rigid regional governmental tier in order to better fit into the challenges of decentralization policy (otonomi daerah)
• Involve the private sector and the local community at a proportionate level in the local and regional decision-making since they will continue to play an active role in the industrialization process.
• Give more incentives for the investors who wish to move out of the congested Jakarta City and relocate their activities in designated suburban industrial parks
• Follow up the environmental regulation with stronger monitoring and control thus more industries will be forced to leave the unplanned suburban zones and scattered pockets and fill out the industrial parks.
Thank you