Post-suburbanization of Jakarta

Hay Friends Of Bitter, Bitter Coffee Park this Time will invite you in the stile of the chat coffe shops on:

Post-suburbanization of Jakarta

Urban development in metropolitan Jakarta has continued and expanded beyond the suburbs. Jabodetabek fringe areas, that used to be ‘traditional’ dormitory towns, have transformed into more independent areas with a strong economic base. Agricultural land in these areas have converted into various urban land uses, including new town and large-scale residential areas, industrial estates and shopping centers. The core of the metropolitan region, Jakarta City, in contrast is experiencing low population growth due to considerable population spillover to fringe areas. While population growth in Jakarta City was 3.1% between 1980 and 1990, it was only 1.5% between 2000 and 2010 (see also Table 1). As a result of new town and industrial development in fringe areas, commuting is evident in Jabodetabek, in which millions of people commute between the Jakarta City and the peripheral areas daily by trains, buses and personal cars. Likewise, a number of the Jakarta City inhabitants commute between the city and small and new towns in the outskirts, including Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi, Depok and Jababeka, as they work there but still live in Jakarta (Firman 2011).

As Firman and Fahmi (2017) explain, recent Jabodetabek development reflects some signs of the early stages of post-suburbanization. Post-suburban development in Jabodetabek is, however, less likely to fully resemble that of Western cities (Feng et al. 2008) “because so many people choose to continue to live in the traditional core and commute out to suburban developments for work, as well as other activities” (Firman and Fahmi 2017, p. 77). Post-suburbanization in Jabodetabek is triggered by privatization of land development and management particularly in fringe areas. The private sector has gained stronger control over land, in that it can aggressively acquire, develop and manage land in fringe areas, most notably for residential and industrial activities. The prominent role of the private sector in land development has indeed materialized for a long time. Currently, the private sector plays a more significant role: it is able to direct land development and manage the areas ‘exclusively’ by providing municipal services traditionally delivered by local governments in the areas.

The shift of power from the public to the private sector in land development is strongly driven by decentralization and its associated reforms in Indonesia. For the Jabodetabek case, the central government still plays a strong role in suburban development, in that many industrial activities in fringe areas are made possible by foreign direct investments, which are subject to the central government’s approval. On the other side, local governments now have the authority to direct spatial plans and the development in their areas, as well as to grant building permits to private developers.

Industrial centers in Jabodetabek are increasingly becoming diversified, so that fringe areas are becoming a more polycentric and a fragmented industrial region (Hudalah et al. 2013). This development can be associated with the behavior of private developers, both foreign and domestic origins, who seek economic benefits from the ongoing industrialization processes as well as the pro-growth economic policies of both central and local governments. The central government has stimulated the development of industrial estates in fringe areas by subsidizing the provision of infrastructure and other facilities built and managed by ‘licensed companies’ (Hudalah et al. 2013). According to Government Regulation 142/2015, the licensed companies, those holding permits from either central or local government, have the exclusive right to develop and manage specific industrial areas, provide and manage ongoing utilities and facilities exclusively for the firms that locate in these areas. The license to develop and manage industrial parks is to be granted by the local government where the potential estates are located and by the provincial government if the potential location extends into two or more municipalities/districts. If the potential area extends over two or more bordering provinces, or if it is to be operated by a foreign company, the developer must acquire additional permits from the central government. After a private developer obtains the license to manage industrial park, it has the exclusive authority to sell land units to other companies that wish to start businesses inside the industrial estates.

The shift of power from the public to the private sector is also reflected in new town development in fringe areas. Private developers expansively build new town and large scale residential projects in response to the local needs driven by economic growth and diversification in fringe areas. They gain permits from the local governments to design the new towns as gated suburban communities, which are surrounded by walls and separated from nearby local communities (Leisch 2002). Private developers not only provide infrastructure exclusive to the inhabitants within the communities, but also administer municipal services as if they were the ‘government’ in the communities. In so doing, they appoint their own ‘city’ managers to ensure service delivery and security of the area. Local governments enable this development by granting building permits to private developers, although these sometimes do not comply with the legalized spatial plans. For example, new town projects are built on land that is supposed to be catchment areas. The local autonomy rights given to the local governments have cultivated a competitive climate, so that they are now eager to promote economic development in their regions and exploit regional resources more intensively. In many cases, economic growth is preferred over enforcing spatial plans (Rukmana 2015). Decentralization has also intensified the practice of ‘clientelism’, or patronage relationships, between the local government and the private sector (Rukmana 2015). Spatial plans are often prepared, and easily altered, to accommodate the interest of developers rather than to plan for more sustainable regions (Firman 2004, Rukmana 2015). Driven by political pressures and interests in placing what are perceived to be profitable economic activities, spatial plans are often negotiated and violated. This condition actually illustrates contradictory facts. On the one hand, local governments have strong power to direct local development and also to empower developers to perform their profit seeking behaviors, although this violates the spatial plans (Cowherd 2005, Kenichiro 2015). On the other hand, this reflects the inadequacy of local government capacity to enforce the legalized plans, as if they were ‘powerless’ when they have to face the developers.

The fact that the private sector takes over some governmental tasks, on the one hand, can be seen as an opportunity to fulfill the limited capacity of local governments to provide basic services. On the other hand, the private sector focuses mainly on making profits and often pays less attention to the spatial plans that aim at creating sustainable cities and regions. As local governments have the authority to direct local development and the central government has less power to intervene it, the making and enforcement of spatial plans in Greater Jakarta has been fragmented (see Kusno 2014). As such, recent post-suburbanization of Jakarta reveals new, significant challenges in managing urban development and enforcing spatial plans, which require innovative governance solutions.

☆☆☆☆☆

This post is one of the chapters in the book titled:

The Routledge Companion to the Suburbs

edited by:

Bernadette Hanlon and
Thomas J. Vicino. 

The book was published by the Routledge in September 2018. 

You can find the book in the Routledge link here. The chapter on Jakarta was written by Fikri Zul Fahmi, Tommy Firman and myself. 

Tommy Firman is professor of Regional Planning at the Bandung Institute of Technology and Fikri Zul Fahmi is assistant professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia.

Suburbanization in Asia: 
A focus in Jakarta

By:

1. Deden Rukmana, 
2. Fikri Zul Fahmi and 
3. Tommy Firman

☆☆☆☆☆