The Role of Northeast Asian Cities in a Global Urban Network

This paper identifies five factors that limited urban network formation in Northeast Asia over the past half millennium, questions the extent to which they are being overcome in the 1990s, and sketches a network of cities that could boost regionalism. It briefly traces the historical evolution of these factors, including comparisons with European integration, while focusing primarily on the policies of the 1990s that have affected their continuing role. First is the factor of closed national markets with weak regional integration. Second is the preeminence of administrative means of integration over commercial ones. Third is the character of localism, shackled by overcentralization and weak cross-border linkages. Fourth is the limited nature of internationalism, dominated by state catch-up policies with one-sided global involvement. Fifth is a lack of regional consciousness. Just as national urban integration was essential for regional networks to form, without regional integration it is difficult to contemplate Northeast Asian cities taking their rightful place in a global urban network. After noting the failures of the 1990s, the paper points to the potential role as dragon's heads for sub-regional urban networks of potential front-line cities: Tumen, Sapporo, Irkutsk, and what I call the Amur triangle. Also of interest are how the capitals of Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, and Tokyo will adjust to a transformed urban network. After all, their current skepticism must be overcome with a program that links the benefits on all sides in order to build trust in regionalism. This requires internationalism and symbols of a balanced approach to each country's needs.