Book Reviews

Sharing America’s Neighborhoods: The Prospects for Stable Racial Integration, by Ingrid Gould Ellen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2000. 228 pages. $ 39.95 (hardback).

Reviewed by Karen Chapple
Assistant Professor
Department of City and Regional Planning
University of California, Berkeley

Every so often a book comes along to challenge ideas that underlie decades of scholarship. In Sharing America’s Neighborhoods, Ingrid Gould Ellen takes on the idea of white flight, which is central to research on inner-city decay, neighborhood segregation, and suburban growth. Ellen suggests that the key question is not why whites move out of racially changing neighborhoods, but why they don’t move in. After all, current residents have good information about the changing quality of neighborhood services, but in-movers have little basis for judgment. Posed thus, the theoretical focus shifts from segregation to integration, and the policy question becomes not so much how to prevent residents from leaving but how to convince them to move in.

Although many researchers (most notably Massey and Denton 1993) emphasize how patterns of segregation continue, Ellen begins by demonstrating the small but increasing share of integrated neighborhoods. However, many are in a process of racial transition, as whites leave and are replaced by African Americans, not other whites. What role is race playing in residential decision making? There are three potential explanations why whites avoid integrated neighborhoods. Two are commonly cited: racial prejudice deters whites from moving in, or whites prefer to live with others of similar social class and thus avoid living among African Americans, who are likely to have relatively lower incomes. Ellen suggests a third, race-based neighborhood stereotyping: whites anticipate that integrated neighborhoods will change to predominantly African American and associate such changing neighborhoods with poor quality.

Four empirical chapters lay out the case that race-based neighborhood stereotyping is occurring, using data from the American Housing Survey linked to the decennial census to develop models with both individual household and neighborhood-level variables. First, Ellen examines the causes of racial change, finding little empirical basis for a “tipping” process, in which prejudiced whites depart once the proportion of African American residents increases above their tolerance threshold. In predicting change in integrated neighborhoods, what matters is not the racial composition of the neighborhood but factors such as the past stability of the neighborhood, the distance to the primary area of African American concentration, and the racial characteristics of the metropolitan area as a whole. Thus, change is occurring from the very specter of racial change, rather than prejudice stemming from high proportions of African American residents.

In analyzing neighborhood satisfaction and the actual decision-making process, the author provides further evidence of the role of stereotyping. Controlling for income, neighborhood satisfaction seems to result less from racial composition than from racial change. Moreover, racial change, not racial composition, influences decision making about whether to move out of a neighborhood. Since the effect is strongest for homeowners and households with children—those most concerned about property values and dependent on local services—living in a neighborhood that is undergoing racial change seems to lead to the expectation that neighborhoods will decline in quality.

In contrast to exit decisions, neighborhood entry decisions are much more likely to stem from racial composition. In particular, young, childless, and/or renter households may move into racially mixed areas, while white homeowners are likely to avoid such neighborhoods. Because entry decisions are so critical to maintaining a racial mix, Ellen argues that policies should focus on “community betterment” and marketing campaigns to persuade people to move in.

Examining only non-Hispanic whites and African Americans, Ellen does not analyze the integration of Latinos and Asians. Although this undoubtedly helps her focus on her stereotyping hypothesis, it also means that she loses an important avenue for comparison. For instance, the uncertainty that comes with neighborhood change clearly shapes residents’ decision making. But is it necessarily racial change, or is race proxying for something else? It may be the changing household composition, the influx of more families with children, that makes whites assume that the neighborhood quality will decline (with the need for more services). One way to test this would be through comparisons with other racial/ethnic groups.

Where is space in this story? From a planning perspective, Ellen gives us little evidence to use in designing places and policies. She conducts the analysis at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level, and the book offers just one small case study, Washington, DC, which is probably anomalous in any case. There is some evidence that integrated areas located away from concentrations of African Americans and/or with more single family homes are more racially stable, so Ellen suggests that suburban areas may be easier to integrate. This implication needs more analysis to be useful for planners. Are these first-ring or outer-ring suburbs? If they are integrating more readily, is it because the availability of tax base to provide more services for newcomers makes them less of a threat or simply because of the greater supply of low-cost housing? If suburban integration may be achievable, why not target the suburbs using the integration maintenance policies she suggests?

Apart from a couple of variables addressing housing characteristics, the analysis does not examine the supply-side at all. But by switching focus from exit to entry, the housing supply available becomes critical. What is the relative availability of houses in white and African American neighborhoods, and how does that affect the price structure and the entry rate? It is the interaction of preferences and real estate markets that shapes the decision to move into a particular neighborhood.

Likewise, the book oddly neglects to mention gentrification. Nonetheless, increases in integration may be closely linked to the influx of new white homeowners in the inner city. In this case, integration may be related less to a change in racial attitudes (as Ellen suggests) than to the supply of real estate—the availability of older housing stock that is centrally located. Determining the role of gentrification is critical for policy, to avoid displacement impacts when attracting whites to predominantly African American areas. Community revitalization efforts and marketing campaigns are far more likely to attract those already inclined to move into mixed areas, the young and childless, than white family households, even with the school construction and choice programs that Ellen suggests. To guard against displacement, other stabilization programs will need to be enacted concurrently.

As a first step toward rethinking how we analyze segregation, this book will shape many of the new studies based on the 2000 census. It is hoped that the academic audience for which Ellen writes will learn from her refreshing perspective and sophisticated analysis, while pushing her findings in a direction more relevant for planners. Ellen indeed shows us the potential for sharing America’s neighborhoods but then leaves it to us to discover which ones.

Reference

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy Denton. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Constructing Sustainable Development, by Neil Harrison. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2000. 192 pages. $54.50 (hardback).

Safeguarding Our Common Future: Rethinking Sustainable Development, by Ingrid Leman Stefanovic. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2000. 272 pages. $65.50 (hardback).

Designing Sustainable Communities: Learning from Village Homes, by Judy Corbett and Michael Corbett. Washington, DC: Island Press. 2000. 256 pages. $30.00 (paperback).

Reviewed by Ivonne Audirac
Assistant Professor
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Florida State University

The three story lines of these books share the critique of modernization inherent in sustainable development discourse, yet each one differently problematizes current sustainable development notions and offers an alternative solution to the ongoing ecological debate. Constructing Sustainable Development frames the problem of sustainable development as socially constructed, plagued with theoretical and definitional ambiguities, too subjective, and lacking objective scientific definition. The book emphasizes the biological community and social adaptive capacity as an unifying scientific metaphor for a new policy discourse on sustainable development. Safeguarding Our Common Future  views the World Commission on Environment’s definition of sustainable development as becoming an overused policy discourse, whose essence must be safeguarded from simple universalizing syntheses and from postmodernity’s skepticism and overwhelming plurality of worldviews. The proposed solution lies in phenomenology’s ability to uncover a deeper understanding of the taken-for-granted modes of thinking about humans and the environment that can facilitate a place-based ethics of care for the earth. Designing Sustainable Communities problematizes the practice of new urbanism as an incomplete implementation of ecological principles and proposes Village Homes as a built prototype of sustainable community design. Although substantively and methodologically different, the first and second books allude to issues of theories and ideas at the heart of postmodernity debates about sustainability and the limits of rational planning. The third book raises issues about design and planning practice and, implicitly, about modern technobureaucratic regimes that stand in the way of ecological innovation. However, with the possible exception of Safeguarding Our Common Future, these works seem to contribute to the growing policy discourse on ecological modernization.1

Neil Harrison takes on the quite ambitious task of discursive defiance in Constructing Sustainable Development. His declared objective is to critically analyze the internal logic of the “efficiency,” “equity,” and “ethics” policy narratives dominant in sustainable development; to reveal their contradictions; and to offer a reconstruction of sustainable development as process rather than outcome—a way of traveling, rather than a place to go (p. 9). This construction of sustainable development rejects postmodern social science as poorly defined and too disputed and seeks inspiration in the postmodern scientific method of the life sciences. From the latter, Harrison proposes to borrow the metaphor of complex adaptive systems for the modeling of human societies. Based on the notion that living systems exhibit a self-organizing adaptive capacity, then sustainable development policy “becomes the problem of continually optimizing ‘social adaptive capacity’ as ecological systems, and human knowledge and ideas about them, change” (p. 100). Harrison concludes that the “efficiency,” “equity,” and “ethics” policy narratives are all ill-founded in a mechanistic social metaphor but that principles derived from an organism allegory borrowed from the life sciences better serve policy in maximizing survivability, which he equates with sustainable development. Harrison’s construction of policy principles for sustainable development reads as a selective readaptation of Hawley’s (1971, 1986) ideas. However, the author’s acknowledgment of Hawley’s human ecology appears as an afterthought reduced to one sentence, and a bibliographical reference to Hawley’s (1986) work is missing from the book’s reference section.

Harrison’s approach is realist/rational deductive and immersed in the classical dichotomy of objective facts and subjective values and beliefs. Hence, he comes somewhat dismayed to the (rather belated) realization that sustainable development must be socially constructed because it cannot be objectively defined by science. For him, this is an unacceptable condition since under postmodernism, “there can be no universal sustainable development policy, no true path of sustainability to be discovered [and] . . . postmodern politics is concerned with increasing the variety of voices, not with solving a collective problem such as sustainable development” (p. 103). Constructing Sustainable Development’s generalized principles borrow postmodern ideas such as “contingency” and the “rejection of truth claims” without being willing to forego modern rational discourse and the search for a totalizing concept of sustainable development. This modern/postmodern ambivalence may dissatisfy readers on both sides of the postmodernity debate. Although Constructing Sustainable Development offers independent moments of lucid insight, it is better at summarizing and critiquing some aspects of existing sustainable development policy discourses than at coming up with a complete new synthesis. Its attempt to recast ecological modernization policy in the scientific language of human communities as living organisms resurrects in this reader the many theoretical and epistemological issues raised by the critical and postmodern critique of functionalist/organicist social science. The volume’s compactness and concise language makes for easy reading and should be a good addition to one’s environmental policy shelf.

Safeguarding Our Common Future is a philosopher’s invitation to rethinking sustainable development from a phenomenological perspective. In Stefanovic’s account, phenomenology seeks to avoid the subject-object split and universal claims of positivist science as well as the relativism of postmodern social sciences that threaten to erode the essential message of sustainability contained in the Brundtland Commission Report’s Our Common Future. By seeking to “describe the originary belonging of human being-in the world that is ontologically prior to any subject/object split” (p. 13), phenomenology uncovers the hidden assumptions and essential meaning of taken-for-granted thinking conditioned by language in our articulations of attitudes and paradigms. Stefanovic, who teaches philosophy at the University of Toronto, argues this point by illustrating how “urban sprawl” and suburbanites’ car addiction, abundantly examined from positivist and technical sustainability standpoints, have changed little despite numerous policies aimed at altering North American deep-rooted love affair with the automobile and low-density patterns. For her, modifying human attitudes will require new educational, public awareness and institutional development strategies, but these will not be successful unless they are based on a comprehensive understanding of the foundations of such attitudes, and “this is where philosophy—and specifically phenomenology—may offer a significant contribution in seeking to bring those attitudes to light” (p. 15).

Central to Safeguarding Our Common Future is the positioning of “originative thinking” as primordial, previous to any subject and/or object valuation, spontaneous, and holistically interpretative of all meaning as “originary” in the live world. Such thinking, according to Stefanovic, enables the uncovering of important contexts of meaning hidden from the calculative orientation of statistics and other positivist approaches, which reduce human beings to discrete things stripped off of all human “being” distinctiveness. Likewise, in the human versus nature discourse, ecocentric philosophies that assign intrinsic value to the environment independent of human subjects are trapped in the positivist subject-object duality. Thus, “in both the anthropocentric and ecocentric paradigms, nature risks becoming an entity separate from human understanding—in one case to be managed and controlled, in the other to be revered” (p. 43). A similar problem arises with urban planning’s artificial separation between city and countryside and the failure to see nature as an underlying connecting system regardless of geographic location. Thus, water supply and storm water systems are rarely seen as part of the hydrological cycle, and the frozen vegetables in the refrigerator are seldom associated with the land in which they were grown. “By virtue of the perceptual lack of contiguity between nature and urban form, it is easy to slip into a mind-frame that separates city from country side as if they were indeed distinct independent entities” (p. 45).

Stefanovic devotes the second part of her book to arguing for a move beyond a sustainability paradigm based on calculative thinking to a more holistic one based on originative thinking. She proposes an environmental ethic rooted in an ontological reading of dwelling and place, which she finds necessary for rethinking the meaning of sustainability (p. 92). Her place-based ethics rather than being top-down and totalizing purports to be dialogic. It eschews postmodern exclusive concern with deconstructing and inventorying a variety of place-based perspectives and seeks alternatively to arrive at patterns of consensus about citizens’ narratives of place and converging ethical images from which one can derive planning lessons and potential policy guidelines. Stefanovic provides an example from Proyecto Andino de Tecnologias Campesinas (PRATEC), which takes into account Andean peasants’ worldviews in assessing Western agricultural practices and their adaptation to the Andean landscape. Such process requires alternative approaches to traditional scientific research methods and the recognition that neither Western industrial agricultural practices nor access to global markets are universally necessary for the preservation of the ecological well-being of the Andean communities and the achievement of sustainable development. Stefanovic concedes that the translation of Andean peasants’ narratives to best-practice recommendations remains a complex negotiated process. However, she is silent about the role of the phenomenological interpreter in “brokering” this process either amid Andean farmers or among urban citizens whose attitudes and worldviews, according to the author, are phenomenologically revealed in the construction of place-based sustainability indicators.

The book’s last section is practical in intent. It applies previous phenomenological and methodological musing to environmental planning cases. One of these cases is the Ecowise study charged with assisting in the implementation of the Hamilton Harbor Remedial Action Plan in western Lake Ontario. The project, sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Environment Canada, aimed to obtain and disseminate research findings about human and nonhuman ecosystemic relations, new techniques and methods for ecosystem restoration, and new knowledge about management and development of interdisciplinary research. Stefanovic’s responsibility was to develop an integrative framework for the project that would elicit a holistic overview of the research study and the Hamilton Harbor ecosystem as perceived by the project researchers. Stefanovic’s phenomenological method revealed that the emerging overall vision privileged the natural environment (e.g., wildlife, water quality, and habitat preservation) over the built environment (e.g., urban planning, social services, and community issues). This method suggested that while there was an explicit recognition among researchers of the interrelationships between the two realms, implicitly a traditional natural science perspective dominated the ecosystem restoration project. Consequently, more emphasis was placed on contaminants’ characteristics than on sources, and this bias limited the study’s overall scope. In the second case, Stefanovic conducts a phenomenological reading of a suburban community near Toronto—the central area of Mississauga, which houses Mississauga City Hall and Square One, one of the largest shopping malls in eastern Canada. The reading reveals a series of common values emblematic of North American suburbs (e.g., escape from large city’s urbanity, preservation of the rural ideal, respect for privacy and enclosure, security, autonomy and freedom of mobility, sovereignty of the individual and the family). Although this reading is not meant to be a universal description of all suburbs, Stefanovic prompts readers to look for converging meaning with their own experience of suburbs. She claims that the lesson of this phenomenological exercise enhances our understanding of residents’ lived experiences and residential preferences and is essential to the planning and design of communities. However, the book is not clear about how this knowledge advances sustainability, how it can be translated into a pattern of dialogic moral order, and how these preferences are to be interpreted in a nontotalizing way while simultaneously being translated into general design and planning guidelines. The tension of “maneuvering between a respect for plural interpretations, as well as a need to discover some patterns of moral order that are the condition of the possibility of dialogue among diverse interests” (p. 175) runs throughout the book and renders Stefanovic’s environmental phenomenology not only a difficult journey but also hardly distinguishable from other social science qualitative methodologies such as ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, and phenomenological sociology. As with Stefanovic’s perspective, these sociological approaches reject deterministic universalistic syntheses but nonetheless see a place for generalization. However, Stefanovic’s environmental phenomenology provides little insight into the institutional change necessary to make environmental policy less a matter of technical expertise and more an open social process whereby the plurality of worldviews it uncovers is taken into account and negotiated into policy.

Safeguarding Our Common Future would be valuable reading in graduate qualitative research methods courses. However, its philosophical musing with Heideggerian thought, which may be insightful to the philosophy-minded reader, may be somewhat distracting to the planning student. To more directly convey its methodological and environmental message to a planning audience, the book could have benefited from some streamlining of the abundant pondering about Heidegger’s phenomenological reflections. This would have obviated the need to include an appendix essay dedicated to defend the validity of Heidegger’s philosophy vis-à-vis Heidegger’s own politics, known to have sympathized with Hitler and Nazism.

Designing Sustainable Communities shares in the ecological modernization discourse of a “win-win solution! A way for communities to grow without being destroyed: maybe growth could even make them better!” (p. 12). The centerpiece of this story is Villages Homes, a 242-unit, 60-acre solar residential community built in the mid-1970s in Davis, California, by Judy and Michael Corbett, the book’s authors. Although the story takes for granted the current sustainable development discourse subsumed under the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements’ concern with urban sprawl, it nonetheless carries the discourse beyond exclusive urban form and transportation considerations. It brings to the fore the ecological concerns that Stefanovic highlights as a perceptual lack of contiguity between nature and urban form, and which the Corbetts gently raise as New Urbanism’s disjunction of theory and practice. “In practice none of the new urbanist developments planned or built to date address ecological concerns beyond the very important problem of reducing dependence on the automobile” (p. 16). In this book, the authors narrate the history of Village Homes from genesis to approval and construction. This, they claim, was the propitious result of a variety of factors, among which prominently stand out Davis’s 1970s’ environmental politics—influenced by a group of ecology graduate students activists, which included the Corbetts. The group was able to influence the composition and development agenda of the Davis City Council, which played a key role in Village Homes’ rare successful challenge to the existing financial and urban planning technoadministrative regime. Planning staff initially decided against the project on the basis of its unorthodox natural drainage, narrow street widths, and agriculture gardens. It took an environmentally friendly city council to overturn its own staff recommendations and the Corbetts to strip the project of all ecological jargon before a bank would offer them a loan. The authors present their own scientific and psychological-based principles for sustainable development and describe in detail their unique neighborhood design consisting of a natural drainage system, culs-de-sac, pedestrian and bicycle paths; an edible landscape of orchard and vegetable gardens; a village center with a restaurant, offices, and businesses; energy conservation and use of passive solar design features; and a house co-op and some resident self-built homes, which fostered a diverse resident population and a strong sense of community. Designing Sustainable Communities showcases Village Homes as a time-tested ecological prototype of a pastoral “garden village” neighborhood and the building block of future larger “garden cities.” The book distills the lessons learned from this experience into a set of design and planning recommendations for garden neighborhoods and cities and ends with an overview of larger scale communities in Arizona (Civano), Illinois (Prairie Crossing), Virginia (Haymount), Indiana (Coffee Creek), and Davisville (California) that are directly influenced by this experience. Although the Corbetts were instrumental in the drafting of the Ahwhannee Principles for community design and implementation—a precursor to the Charter of the New Urbanism—their village design vocabulary departs from rigid adherence to the grid, alleys, cul-de-sac anathema; front-porch doctrine; and the residential densities characteristic of more citified design proposals. Reminiscent of Radburn, New Jersey, Village Homes’ communal life is oriented to the backyard rather than to the street and plaza. Designing Sustainable Communities represents a welcomed diversification of the design lexicon invoking sustainability convictions, and for this reason it is a book worth reading at any planning instructional level.

Note

1. Ecological modernization is a policy discourse critical of bureaucratic practices but supportive of business and the problem-solving capacity of modern technology. It conceptualizes environmental problems as a matter of inefficient bureaucratic structures and a positive win-win challenge for business and markets. It supports technical innovation and solutions and explicitly avoids addressing social equity issues or systemic contradictions in capitalism. It has been assessed as a strategy of political accommodation of the radical environmentalist critique of the 1970s (Hajer 1995).

References

Hajer, Marteen. 1995. The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Hawley, Amos H. 1971. Urban society: An ecological approach. New York: Ronald.

----. 1986. Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sprawl City: Race, Politics, and Planning in Atlanta, edited by Robert D. Bullard, Glenn S. Johnson, and Angel O. Torres. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 2000. 236 pages. $30 (paperback).

Atlanta: Race, Class, and Urban Expansion, by Larry Keating. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 2001. 232 pages. $69.50 (hardcover), $22.95 (paperback).

Reviewed by Rhonda Phillips
Assistant Professor
Urban and Regional Planning Department
University of Florida

Written in 1678, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress described Beulah Land, the peaceful place awaiting the pilgrims at journey’s end. Topping the crest of a hill on I-20, the view suddenly breaks from rural countryside to a dramatic view of the skyline of downtown Atlanta: my immediate impression was that this could be Beulah. It was 1985, and to many, Atlanta was the “promised land,” at least in terms of job opportunities. Staking its claim as the “capital of the New South” a hundred years earlier (Sprawl City, p. 8), Atlanta was still the envy of many other communities by the 1980s and generally was considered to be an epicenter for economic growth and development. Growth continued throughout the 1990s, astounding the nation with the sheer magnitude of it. More people moved to Atlanta than any other metropolitan area in the United States during the 1990s, and it subsequently led the nation in residential construction for most of this time (Sprawl City, pp. 8-9). Atlanta has become a world-class city, a regional financial and commercial center, and home to many Fortune 500 companies and the nation’s busiest airport.

Yet, along with this growth came undesirable outcomes. Atlanta is now considered to be one of the most “threatened” urban environments in the United States. Air quality has eroded, traffic delays keep mounting, and inner-city decline continues. What happened to Beulah Land? According to Keating, the answer lies in continuing racial inequality perpetuated by the white, private-sector elitists. Despite black leaders being elected to public offices since 1973, Keating asserts that development plans and outcomes have remained in the hands of white business leaders. The results are that inequality has been exacerbated, and the dominating force has “pursued narrowly defined conceptions of public interests, and the resulting development initiatives have frequently undermined both the larger interests of the region and the pursuit of a fairer society” (p. 2). Keating’s work is clearly motivated by a deep concern for the underserved and disenfranchised citizenry of Atlanta. Atlanta Race, Class, and Urban Expansion can be considered a provocative case study of policy and politics—a virtual exposé intended for the social scientist audience as well as public decision makers. It represents an emerging literature that incorporates the considerations of race as a major issue in urban development.

In Sprawl City, the approach to the question, “What’s wrong with Atlanta?” is similar in the sense that race, politics, and planning (or criticisms of the lack of planning) are the main topics of discussion. I agree with Bullard, Johnson, and Torres’s assertion that most literature on race and urbanism center on economic analysis—usually critiques of market economics. They propose that race must not be “reduced to economic issues”; rather, it must be treated as an independent variable (p. 4). Both Keating and Bullard, Johnson, and Torres’s works include economic analysis, yet the latter work integrates a more interdisciplinary approach to the issue of race. It is this difference that makes Sprawl City especially appealing. It is more than an economic analysis and is presented from an interdisciplinary perspective with contributors including not only planners and sociologists but also lawyers, educators, and a health care professionals. Despite the fact that Bullard is listed as one of three editors, his influence is clear with the overall effect similar to his earlier work, Dumping in Dixie (Bullard 1994). This is not surprising considering he wrote the preface, the extensive nineteen-page introduction, the final chapter, and co-authored three more chapters with the other editors. Only five of the nine chapters are by other contributors.

Entertaining the question again, “What’s wrong with Atlanta?,” one is immediately struck in Sprawl City by the intensity of focus on, you guessed it, sprawl. It becomes the catchphrase for literally everything, with its outcomes described as including urban infrastructure decline, core city abandonment, public education disparities, car dependency, public health and safety risks, threats to farmland and wildlife habitats, diminished quality of life, uneven development, social isolation, and racial polarization (p. 209). The book starts as follows:

Why study urban sprawl? First, sprawl affects every aspect of our lives and daily routine. Sprawl affects the quality of life where people live, work, play, shop, and go to school. Second, sprawl affects our health—both physical and mental. Third, sprawl intensifies economic and racial polarization. American society has never been classless or color blind. Both race and class have always mattered in shaping the complexion of our cities, suburbs, and rural areas. (P. ix)

With this introduction, the reader is bombarded with a complex array of research findings, descriptive statistics, and anecdotal information to support primarily the third point above—that sprawl intensifies economic and racial polarization. The authors present eloquent and sometimes amusing arguments to support this premise, for example, “It makes little sense to have only white men in suits talking to each other about solving the Atlanta region’s air pollution, transportation, sprawl, and overall quality of life problems” (p. 212). Passion is evident in the writing, yet the reader can be left wanting something more, such as additional evidence in some cases. For example, many assertions flow throughout the chapters, such as: “Overall, white communities have greater access than communities of color when it comes to influencing land use and environmental decision making” (p. 22). This is likely true, and I would venture to say that many planners and others involved in public decision making would inherently believe this assertion. However, evidence other than that based primarily on the authors’ experiences would provide a greater impact on the reader.

Deficiencies in public-sector planning are blamed in both Sprawl City and in Atlanta: Race, Class, and Urban Expansion, although Keating makes a much stronger presentation of the causes and discrepancies. He proposes that the governing elites do not support “practical, long-range planning” because they are more interested in enhancing Atlanta’s image than in “genuine economic development” (p. 201). This assertion is presented in the final chapter, although the reader has been continuously exposed to cases in the prior chapters that detail planning in Atlanta. For example, in 1960, mayoral candidate Ivan Allen, Jr. presented a “Six-Point Program” to develop Atlanta into a first-tier city: urban renewal, a rapid-transit system, a major-league baseball stadium, a civic center, continued expansion of expressways, and advertising (p. 88). All of these points were accomplished, although arguably urban renewal can be debated, depending on what one considers desirable outcomes. This implies that planning did occur in Atlanta to be able to accomplish this many major development outcomes. However, Keating asserts that the efforts are private-sector driven and that an “anti-public-planning ideology” (p. 2) dominates Atlanta, causing its problems with racial inequality and continuing segregation. Planning again becomes the target for blame when undesirable consequences arise during the course of development.

A particularly interesting divergence is a discussion of Allen’s last point, advertising, in the context of image building—certainly a favorite pastime of both public-sector and private-sector leaders in Atlanta. In the spirit of Rutheiser’s (1996) Imagineering Atlanta, Keating proposes that Atlanta has aggressively pursued image building because of the dominance of its corporate citizens.

During the course of nine chapters, Keating presents a case study format of Atlanta’s development during the past four decades. Despite the ascension of blacks to positions of leadership, the cases presented about Atlanta support the premise that racial segregation and inequality are very much in existence. Following an introduction, chapters 2, 3, and 6 present details about Atlanta’s economy, housing market, and public transportation system, respectively. The remaining chapters present a “political” analysis of governance and development approaches and outcomes, with particular focus on the outcomes of downtown projects such as Underground Atlanta and preparation for the 1996 Olympics. Atlanta: Race, Class, and Urban Expansion is provocative; however, as with most exposés, it is slight on concrete recommendations for improvement. Reading it, I was reminded of the adage: it is easier to criticize than construct.

Sprawl City takes a similar approach in its generous dose of criticisms of Atlanta and in planning and development activities in general. However, in chapter 7, “Urban Sprawl and Legal Reform,” Buzbee presents some possible solutions in the form of conditional federal funding incentives and regulatory precedents. I perked up considerably at this point and looked forward to more recommendations in the remainder of the book. In the final chapter, Bullard admonishes that “it will take a coordinated effort among the divergent interests to fix the Atlanta region’s sprawl problem” (p. 211), and I could not help but groan—obfuscation abounds! Can it be that a superagency such as the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority created by the state in 1999 can help fix the problems of Atlanta, as suggested in both books? Is this too much to expect of any agency, no matter the funding level or regulatory powers? My misery was short-lived as the remaining five pages presented no less than twenty-one ideas in four major categories: social equity, housing and community development, environmental reform, and transportation and land use.

What’s wrong with Atlanta? Both books strongly establish the problems and issues facing the city now known as the capital of sprawl. As such, those interested in urbanism and particularly the interplay of racial inequality and development will find Sprawl City and Atlanta: Race, Class, and Urban Expansion worthy reading. The next question still begs an answer: what are potential solutions to the problems and issues facing Atlanta (and other cities under siege from the negative outcomes of “sprawl”)?

References

Bullard, Robert D. 1994. Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. 2d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Rutheiser, Charles. 1996. Imagineering Atlanta: The politics of place in the city of dreams. New York: Verso.

Site Analysis: Linking Program and Concept in Land Planning and Design, by James A. LaGro Jr. New York: John Wiley. 2001. 227 pages. $49.95 (hardback).

Reviewed by Bev Sandalack
Associate Professor, CSLA, MCIP
Urban Design and Planning
Faculty of Environmental Design
University of Calgary

Site analysis is an integral approach to design and planning that considers context as a determining force. James LaGro Jr. prefaces his book Site Analysis: Linking Program and Concept in Land Planning and Design by establishing the value of site analysis in protecting the public good and makes reference to the preponderance of product versus process found in trade magazines. He has intended the book to be useful to practitioners, educators, and students in several fields, including architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, urban design, and planning. This is a worthy goal. However, it is a very wide audience to attempt to address.

The book is organized as four parts: Process and Tools, Site Selection and Programming, Site Inventory and Analysis, and Design and Implementation, suggesting a clear process-driven agenda. Each part is composed of topical chapters and is illustrated with project examples from contributing individuals and firms.

LaGro seems most comfortable when explaining the basics. For example, he provides a definition of map, describes what a map scale is and includes a metric conversion table. This level of information makes the book useful as an introductory manual and perhaps would make a good companion to Kevin Lynch’s (1971; Lynch and Hack 1983) Site Planning for beginning students. LaGro’s book would not be sufficient on its own, as the small amount of technical information included is incomplete, for example, some common thresholds of slope gradient mapping (5 percent, 12 percent, and 20 percent) are included, but with no mention of the implications of those thresholds on site planning.

The book’s main weakness is in what it does not include. Values are always implicit in site analysis, since design is a cultural and political, as well as methodological act. The values inherent in any methodology should be made explicit in order for the reader to understand the approach and also to make clear the scope of its application. The book’s organization suggests a process—the “how”—but what is less clear is the “why.” The values underlying LaGro’s methodology and his choice of examples (mainly of site-specific development projects) are not stated.

LaGro’s omission of reference to guiding theories, as well as his referencing style, is peculiar—he goes to some length to justify some very basic statements (e.g., his point that the quality of life is a function of many factors gets a reference). However, what seem to be the underpinnings of the book—Lynch’s Site Planning and Ian McHarg’s Design with Nature—scarcely get a mention. Kevin Lynch, despite authoring a book that has persisted for more than four decades, is referred to only obliquely. In the section on “Visual Quality,” LaGro mentions Lynch as proposing “a typology of structural elements to explain how people form cognitive maps” (p. 109).

Lynch (1960) saw the city image as a system composed of five basic elements: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks, which together have significance to the inhabitants forming a mental map in which those urban elements provide physical and psychological orientation. This organizing structure provides a framework by which urban form can be analyzed and then used as a basis for design and is of much more value and has had more impact on education and practice than is suggested by LaGro.

Ian McHarg (1971, 1992) changed the way that environmental planners and designers gathered and analyzed environmental data. He effectively demonstrated that physical planning and the design of sites should be based on a thorough understanding of the ecology of the area together with human values. This approach would have a greater likelihood of producing designs that would be more harmonious with their environmental context and more appropriate to human values and needs. One objective of this approach was that through an understanding of these elements more locale-specific and ecologically sound planning and design would be produced. Although this approach has enjoyed a remarkable longevity in environmental design programs, LaGro only mentions McHarg in the section on “Spatial Analysis Fundamentals” (p. 120) as advocating “environmental determinism” and bringing overlays and overlay analysis to the attention of land planners and environmental scientists. This seems to be both an oversimplification of the value of some of McHarg’s methodology and a missed opportunity to build on several decades’ foundation of theory and practice by one of the pillars of contemporary environmental design.

Despite practically ignoring the influence of theories of Lynch and McHarg, LaGro finds it necessary to define theory (p. 67). The only theory that is (curiously) explained is Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs. The student of landscape architecture would be better served by at least a passing reference to the shoulders on which LaGro stands.

The range of graphics in the book is very wide. However, most of the examples from contributing individuals and firms are poorly reproduced. The images are blurry, and the text in many places is unreadable. One example used half a dozen times is exceptionally frustrating—the Stella Maris study by the HOK [Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum Inc.] Planning Group appears to be a thoughtful, systematic, and high-quality series of panels illustrating their design process. However, the images are too small and fuzzy to be understandable, and much of the text is unreadable.

Many of LaGro’s diagrams are simplistic, and one of the most simplistic—a diagram showing a stack of papers indicating relationships of different phases of analysis—is repeated several times. There are also a number of simplistic and questionable general statements. For example, “A common misconception among the general public is that design is merely a matter of aesthetics” (p. 175).

The Community Planning and Farmland Preservation project by Wallace, Roberts, and Todd in San Francisco is one of the poorly presented project examples. Too much is attempted by LaGro through too few drawings. This project involved a 14,000-acre area and included rejuvenation of the wine-producing industry and preservation of the rural character. The four drawings selected to illustrate the project do not show much of the process, and the one page on design guidelines is frustrating for what the book has likely omitted. Illustrated are examples of “desired building massing and façade articulation,” but there is no mention of the documentation and analysis that would have been necessary to get to this step. This last example of building axonometrics is one of the few examples of three-dimensional drawings. The lack of a range of drawing types (too much emphasis on plan drawings at the site scale, not enough cross sections or three-dimensional analysis) also limits the book’s usefulness as a general reference.

Five projects were selected to illustrate the chapter “Concept Development.” With the exception of HOK’s Stella Maris project, there was no previous discussion on the context, the analysis, or any steps taken to get to the concepts shown. It might have been more effective, and more consistent with LaGro’s purpose, which is to emphasize the process of site analysis, to follow a selection of projects from inception to completion.

This book has value for a very specific audience. Undergraduate students of landscape architecture or students of physical planning would find the examples useful, and some of the basic information is helpful. The book outlines only one method, and the chapters follow that method through. The student should know that there are other methods and approaches. Some excellent examples of various methods and graphic styles are the summaries of the Surrey Design Charette, published by the University of British Columbia (Condon 1996). These paperback publications are rich with detail, illustrating how various teams addressed a site planning project, and showing various examples of both processes and products. Most teachers of landscape architecture and planning likely share LaGro’s interest in the process of site analysis; however, Lynch still remains my preferred reference.

References

Condon, Patrick M., ed. 1996. Urban landscapes: The Surrey design charrette. University of British Columbia.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

----. 1971. Site planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lynch, Kevin, and Gary Hack. 1983. Site planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McHarg, Ian. 1971. Design with nature. Paperback ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

----. 1992. Design with nature. 25th anniversary ed. New York: John Wiley.

Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services, by Geoffrey Heal. Washington, DC: Island Press. 2000. 203 pages. $25.00 (paperback).

The Environment: When Politics and Industry Intersect—Green Pacts and Greenbacks. 2000. A video film distributed by Films for the Humanities & Sciences, P.O. Box 2053, Princeton, NJ 08543-2053; e-mail: www.films.com. $159.00.

Reviewed by G. William Page
Professor
Department of Planning
University at Buffalo, the State University of New York

Both this book and this film explore an increasingly important policy trend in the United States and internationally: how to harness the effectiveness and efficiency of free-market economies to protect the natural environment. Both make the point that there are successful examples of this approach and that it has the potential for a much greater role. I review the book first, the film second, and make some final comments on this topic.

This book makes an important contribution to our understanding of the rapidly increasing use of economic-incentive or market-oriented approaches to protect the environment instead of the command-and-control regulatory approaches we have relied upon. Geoffrey Heal, the author, argues that we can manipulate markets so that the invisible hand of the free market can be used to protect the natural environment better than our present regulatory approaches. Geoffrey Heal is the Paul Garret Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business.

Heal argues that large-scale changes are urgently needed to protect the health of the planet and that new and expanded regulatory programs capable of producing the scale of change needed will not be politically acceptable. Heal proposes that market-oriented approaches can be both politically acceptable and effective at making the dramatic improvements in the natural environment of the planet that are needed. He presents both a strong conceptual argument for this approach and ways to implement his ideas to address specific environmental problems.

This is an important book for planners because national governments and international treaties are rapidly enacting new environmental policies using the economic-incentive approaches that Geoffrey Heal describes. These approaches are changing the policy environments in which planning takes place. Economic-incentive approaches are also important to planners at the local level because they are often viable alternative methods we must evaluate for inclusion in environmental plans.

The analysis of how the invisible hand of the market system fails to adequately protect the natural environment is well known. In this book, the economist Geoffrey Heal reviews these issues, but this book is much more than a restatement of a much-discussed topic. This book’s major contributions are in extending a sophisticated economic analysis to justify interventions to the market system to protect the environment and in proposing new and innovative ways that we can use market incentives to accomplish these needed interventions. Heal’s proposals are economically efficient and thus politically and economically more attractive than many existing environmental protections policies.

While this book uses economic theory in its analysis, the book uses nontechnical language and will be highly accessible to a wide audience. Heal states that he intended this book “to be accessible to a broader group than those who have a professional involvement in economics or ecology” (p. xii). Heal provides a clear explanation of a variety of economic techniques. Securitization is presented as an example of using the market to raise funds to protect the environment instead of relying on the high-level political efforts and the good credit ratings needed to pass environmental bond acts to provide capital to solve environmental problems. Another example is nonmarket valuation of environmental services, which includes clear descriptions of hedonic prices, travel costs, replacement costs, contingent valuation, and nonmarginal values approaches. Each approach is explained using a specific example and is explained with refreshingly clear language that does not require the reader to have a strong background in economics. I think that this book will be useful to planning practitioners and as a supplemental text in graduate-level courses in environmental policy or methods of environmental planning.

The explanation of potential economic techniques is preparatory to a discussion of how market incentive approaches can be applied to specific environmental problems. There are many specific examples using well-known environmental problems that make the book an interesting read for anyone with an interest in protecting the natural environment. The book includes chapters with detailed analysis and recommendations on three types of ecosystems: watersheds, ecosystems that are tourist attractions, and forests that can sequester carbon.

The basic argument of the book is that societies depend on the services provided by natural ecosystems for their existence. Heal argues that we should consider ecosystems as public utilities. He briefly reviews several examples from human history of societies that destroyed their natural environments and thereby themselves. Heal is clearly focused on finding ways to provide market incentives that will cause us to invest in our natural infrastructure now, instead of continuing a path of exploitation of the natural environment that can lead to the destruction of the life-support systems of the planet.

Heal explains how markets can be designed to correctly capture the value of the “natural infrastructure,” which provides the services that keep the planet habitable. One approach Heal advocates involves “privatizing” nature’s services. The theory is that by making markets include the value of these services, market mechanisms will adjust prices to protect the environment. This approach provides owners of natural infrastructure with incentives to conserve them. We must “translate some of the social importance of ecosystem services into income and ensure that this income accrues to the owners of the ecosystems as a reward for their conservation” (p. 125).

Heal presents an example of “privatizing” nature’s services using forests. Today, the market value of forests is basically the lumber that we can harvest from them. In reality, forests are critical ecosystems that provide many other natural infrastructure services, such as protecting habitat for many species, including some that are endangered or threatened, and providing pharmacologically active compounds; providing recreational activities; serving as a critical part of watersheds that increase the capture of precipitation, the purification of water, and moderating the release of water to stream flow; protecting against soil erosion; sequestering carbon to moderate the rate and extent of global warming; and many other services to the planet. Heal argues that we can enact policies that create market prices for the value of these natural infrastructure services. Heal argues that changing the market incentives to the owners of forests can be an effective and efficient method to halt tropical deforestation and change exploitative forest practices everywhere.

Many ecosystem services do not lend themselves to the privatization approach because of the public-good nature of many of the services they provide to the planet. Public goods are the services traditionally produced by the public section, such as law and order, defense, and public health. Environmental public goods are different because individuals and businesses may own the environmental asset that produces the public good. Heal takes a broad view of what can be considered a market-incentive approach. He describes a wide array of techniques to deal with these public-good ecosystem services to better equalize the private and social costs of economic activities. These techniques include making changes in organizations or in administrative services, legal changes, changes in property rights, taxes, subsidies, and tradable permits. Tradable emission permits are one of the approaches that have been used in the United States that are often cited as a success story by proponents of economic incentive policy approaches.

While I think this is an excellent and important book, I wish it had more discussion of the problems in using economic-incentive approaches. The book does not underestimate the difficulties of using economic-incentive approaches, but it does not present specific information on problems encountered in places where these approaches have been tried. While Heal does not explicitly state it, economists as a group are often quick to say that it is just a matter of getting the prices, or in this case the incentives, right. I think that response grossly oversimplifies a complicated issue that deserves more attention. This book advocates the approaches we can take, but it does not explore the problems that have been encountered when these and similar approaches have been tried.

The film, The Environment: When Politics and Industry Intersect—Green Pacts and Greenbacks, is an attractive but superficial treatment of attempts to harness market forces to protect the environment. It is a short film of about thirty minutes. It introduces the topic of market incentives. It does this with a few selected examples. The examples are each interesting, but the film does not use them to make a strong central argument. The viewer is left with the impression that some interesting things are happening, but with little idea of why they may be happening or how they may be encouraged. I think its audience would most appropriately be high school students or perhaps freshmen in college.

The film starts by reviewing the origins of the modern environmental movement in the United States and the achievements of the Environmental Protection Agency. The film does a nice job of introducing the general overview of environmental efforts to clean the environment during the past three decades. The film presents spokespeople presenting both sides of the issue. The film also does a good job of making important distinctions between environmental protection efforts in the developed and developing countries. This introductory material is well-done in the first five minutes.

The rest of the film reports on a sample of businesses selected because they make a profit by improving the environment. The film uses these short case studies of “green businesses” to argue that the market economy can contribute to sustainable development. One of the firms works in the field of wetlands mitigation. This firm is effectively responding to economic incentives and regulatory approaches to solve environmental problems. Regulatory policy attempts to protect all wetlands but establishes a policy framework that requires mitigation of any unavoidable wetlands damage. Within this regulatory environment, there is a market niche for private firms to play an important role. Instead of an entirely regulatory approach that requires considerable monitoring and procedures for fines and government oversight, the market-incentive approach allows firms to establish private-sector wetland mitigation banks that sell wetlands to firms as mitigation for any wetland their client has unavoidably damaged.

Another of the topics addressed is urban sprawl and traffic congestion. Ideas of “smart growth” are presented as a better way to solve environmental problems while still allowing development. This topic is of obvious interest to planners, but it is a brief and superficial introduction of the topic.

While addressing the same general topic, this book and film are distinctly different. I believe that the book is a major contribution to this topic on two levels: (1) it breaks ground in exploring innovate ways to use market incentives to protect the natural environment, and (2) it presents this sophisticated economic analysis in a clear nontechnical manner. The film is a brief introduction to the topic.

Planners have a lot of experience using regulatory approaches to solve problems. We all have a lot to learn about market-incentive approaches. This is an incredibly important topic to anyone interested in environment policy or in using the planning process to improve the environment. To learn more about this subject, I recommend the studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1996, 1999) and Macauley, Bowes, and Palmer (1992).

References

Macauley, M., M. Bowes, and K. Palmer. 1992. Using economic incentives to regulate toxic substances. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1996. Saving biological diversity: Economic incentives. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development..

----. 1999. Implementing domestic tradable permits for environmental protection. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Southeast Asian Urban Environments—Structured and Spontaneous, edited by Carla Chifos and Ruth Yabes. Tempe: Arizona State University Program for Southeast Asian Studies Monograph Series Press. 2000. $ 24.95 (paperback).

Reviewed by Richard Marshall
Associate Professor
Harvard Graduate School of Design
Harvard University

Urbanization in Southeast Asia is a relatively recent phenomenon. What is remarkable about this part of the world is the tremendous speed and extent of the urbanization that has occurred since World War II. For most nations in Asia, colonial powers, intent on exploiting the strategic location of their assets, impeded development. During the turbulent years of the 1950s and 1960s, as these nations shrugged off their colonial ties, they undertook their economic development in situations without critical resources. Countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia grew their economies from very primitive infrastructures. After World War II, the gap between the industrialized and the nonindustrialized world was larger, requiring a “formidable effort” on the part of nonindustrialized countries to become competitive (see Vogel 1991, 8). This was certainly true for nations in the Pacific Rim that embarked on an endeavor of technological catch-up. Rapid economic growth brought with it a tremendous growth in urban conurbations. This led to a predictable lack of planning control in most Southeast Asian cities (with the exceptions of Singapore and Hong Kong), resulting in severe inefficiencies of urban infrastructure. Southeast Asian Urban Environments—Structured and Spontaneous examines both the role of governments to structure urban development, often with limited results, and the emergence of informal and spontaneous responses of people trying to secure stability for themselves and their families.

The book is a compilation of conference presentations. It surveys topics such as rapid population growth, urban sprawl, inadequate urban infrastructure and inadequate environmental controls, and how different public and private sectors serve different roles in shaping infrastructure investment. Spontaneity and structure are themes that frame the book and run through the individual chapters. The chapters cover the urban poor and people’s organizations in Metro Manila; neighborhoods and districts in Jakarta; the changing landscape of Hanoi; development in Bangkok, Jakarta, and Manila; urban infrastructure in Indonesia; and the environmental and structural reform challenges faced by secondary cities, such as Baguio in the Philippines, Dalat in Vietnam, and Chiang Mai in Thailand. The choice of authors is praiseworthy in the sense that most of them are junior faculty in their respective institutions. Books that present a collection of junior faculty work are both rare and in dire need. It is essential that junior faculty be given the opportunity to both present their ideas and receive feedback and to practice the art of writing. Only if this occurs will academic careers move in a forward direction.

For the most part the chapters are well presented. The authors are empirically engaged and able to provide firsthand examples to illustrate points, producing arguments grounded in realism. The book is divided into two thematic parts; the first deals with the spontaneous forces shaping urban environments, while the second addresses structured responses to them. However, most of the chapters deal with the interface where these two ideas of urban operations combine. Overall, they paint an interesting picture of urbanization in Southeast Asia, pointing to new and challenging aspects of planning in conditions of such extreme flux. The issues outlined in the book cover a diverse spectrum of disciplines from planning, geography, environmental engineering, regional science, and sociology. Taken together, they will affect a tremendous number of people in the near future. Thus, their implications for planning and planners are enormous. The level of urbanization in Asia will increase sharply during the coming decades. The urban population is forecast to more than double from about 1.1 billion to about 2.5 billion by the year 2025, by which time Asia will contain half the world’s urban population (see Asia Development Bank 1997). For those of us engaged in planning and the education of planners, the issues presented in this book deserve some consideration. How does one operate in such conditions? What methods do we bring that might affect positive change? Between the structured and the spontaneous, where do planners stand? If planning is to be effective, how do we align ourselves politically? For the most part, these issues are alluded to without being specifically addressed. Although, to be fair, the editors note that the intention of the book was to provide a starting point for discussion and brainstorming.

As with any compilation, there is an inevitable unevenness to the chapters. Of eight chapters, Mary Racelis’s description of community empowerment of the urban poor in the Philippines, Carla Chifos’s description of environmental conditions in Jakarta, and Michael Leaf’s description of post–doi moi (open door) Hanoi stand out as exemplary pieces of research and critical discussion. Robert Reed’s chapter on highland cities, although excellent in and of itself, seems at odds with most of the rest of the book. At ninety-two pages, it is much longer than the other articles and is a forced fit within the overall agenda of an otherwise well-presented publication.

Martine Jacot (1999) notes that in today’s deregulated world, the trend is to question the very idea of providing the general population with basic urban services. For want of resources, cities in developing countries are increasingly abandoning their public service functions. Southeast Asian Urban Environments—Structured and Spontaneous makes clear that planners do have roles to play in this apparent chaos, but on new and redefined terms and perhaps in more radical ways than many of us are used to.

References

Asia Development Bank. 1997. The Asia Development Bank on Asia’s megacities. Population and Development Review 23 (2): 451-60.

Jacot, Martine. 1999. Living with Leviathan. UNESCO Courier, June, 17-36.

Vogel, Ezra. 1991. The four little dragons: The spread of industrialization in East Asia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.