Space and Environment
- P-ISSN1225-6706
- E-ISSN2733-4295
- KCI
ISSN : 1225-6706
Browse Articles
- 2024 (Vol.34)
- 2023 (Vol.33)
- 2022 (Vol.32)
- 2021 (Vol.31)
- 2020 (Vol.30)
- 2019 (Vol.29)
- 2018 (Vol.28)
- 2017 (Vol.27)
- 2016 (Vol.26)
- 2015 (Vol.25)
- 2014 (Vol.24)
- 2013 (Vol.23)
- 2012 (Vol.22)
- 2011 (Vol.21)
- 2010 (No.33)
- 2009 (No.31)
- 2008 (No.29)
- 2007 (No.27)
- 2006 (No.26)
- 2005 (No.23)
- 2004 (No.21)
- 2003 (No.19)
- 2002 (No.17)
- 2001 (No.15)
- 2000 (Vol.13)
- 1999 (Vol.11)
- 1998 (Vol.10)
- 1997 (Vol.8)
- 1996 (Vol.7)
- 1995 (Vol.5)
- 1994 (Vol.4)
- 1993 (Vol.3)
- 1992 (Vol.2)
- 1991 (Vol.1)
Vol.21 No.3
Abstract
As limits of neoliberalism in recent years have appeared in varying tangible phenomena such as global financial crises and expanding socio-spatial polarization, so discussion on post-(or anti-)neolibearlism and exploration for alternative urban strategies become very urgent and highly important to overcome the structural limitation of neoliberalism and serious urban problems. But recent discussions on postneoliberalism seem to be somewhat superficial and confine themselves into narrow few subjects, partly because they could not see or have ignored both significance of ‘spacial scale’ approach and importance of alternative urban strategies. This paper hence is first of all to consider limits of neoliberalism after the 2008 financial crisis and discuss both significances and difficulties of recent discussion on postneoliberalism,secondly to examine a possibility of new urbanisation under alternative globalization and necessity of new urban planning on the basis of deliberative democracy,and finally to argue for ‘the right to the city’ in its conceptual and practical significance and for glocal movements leading for postneoliberalism.
Abstract
도시재생은 변동기의 우리 도시들을 환골탈태시키고, 나아가 지구화시대 도시의 경쟁력 강화는 물론이고, 도시의 개성과 정체성을 고양시키는 데 적잖은 기여를 할 것이라고 한다. 이는 도시재생의 긍정성을 의미하는 것이고, 또한 도시재생이 도시계획의 새로운 지배담론이 되고 정책 프로그램이 되는 이유이기도 하다. 그러나 정책의 경로 의존성 때문인지, 아니면 우리의 실천 역량 부족 때문인지모르지만, 정책으로 보편화되고 또한 제도로 표준화되는 추세 속에서 드러나는도시재생의 실질적인 모습은 기존 도시정비방식과의 변별이 뚜렷하지 않은 한계가 엿보이고 있다 말하자면, 도시재생이란 이름의 도시정비사업들은 여전히 기존의 싹쓸이 재개발, 재건축 방식을 닮아 있고, 재생이란 이름으로 장소화된 오랜역사와 문화를 말끔히 지워낸 뒤, 그 위에 강한 부동산 개발의 욕망이 꿈틀거리는 기호를 달아 놓고 있다. 특히 문화가 도시재생의 화두가 되고 몸통이 되는 추세와 비례하여, 문화의 도구화, 상업화, 식민화, 권력화 경향도 동시에 읽혀지고있는 것이 사실이다. 잘못 꿰어진 도시재생은 급격한 도시화를 겪는 동안 더불어살아가는 미덕을 갖추지 못한 우리 도시의 병, 즉 ‘공공성의 결핍증’을 더욱 악화시킬 수 있다. 우리 도시에 도시재생이란 수술의 칼을 들이댄다면, 그 효과는 ‘공공성 결핍’이란 환부를 도려내고 치유하는 데 집중되어야 한다. 하지만 거꾸로이를 악화시키는 역효과를 낳는다면, 아직도 제도화가 안 된 ‘도시재생’, 특히 문화적 얼굴을 한 도시재생에 대해 가감 없는 비판이 가해져야 하고, 또한 예방을위한 철저한 보완책이 지금쯤은 강구되어야 한다.
Abstract
This paper critically analyzes the setback of Tokyo’s bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics from the perspective of urban political economy. Tokyo Metropolitan Government(TMG) with policy goal of ‘global city’, it claimed to support the ‘The Mature city’ to host the Olympic games joining with the urban regeneration. TMG publicly announced ‘Green·Compact·finance’ as the slogan of the 2016 Olympic with a plan of urban development project costing one trillion Yen, it was far from what can promote inclusive urban regeneration. The 2016 hosting activities overemphasize the urban competitiveness and Tokyo 23 wards’ gentrification, justified the urban polarization. TMG repeated the establishment of the ‘growth coalition’based on the pork-barrel politics in the previous high-growth era, while the civil society responded to this with an emphasis on life politics and ‘event coalition’. On the contrary of the slogan, the 2016 hosting activities and plan exposed some problems: the pollution and the safety of reclaimed land, the increase of the cost of equipment, and the excessive official expenditures. Even after the failure in the 2016 Olympic bids, TMG has recently expressed its interest in the bid for the 2020 Olympics by proposing a slogan of ‘Japan’s recovery’ from 3·11 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. This paper tries to speculate how the mega-events would change the networks of the global city-regions in the fierce competition of cities in the 21st century.
Abstract
In this study, I tried to show that ‘the public ownership of land value’is the ultimate common ground for fair land system of both the progressive camp and the conservative camp, by inserting land factor into the fairness concept of Rawls and Nozick, who have been recognized as the most representative philosophers of the progressive camp and the conservative camp respectively. The reason why I carried out this study is because, I think, the conflicts between two camps in S. Korea is very serious. So, based on two facts that, first, two conflictory camps cannot but approve that ‘the public ownership of land value’ can solve the problem of land speculation, and second, the socio-economic influences of land are wider and deeper than anything else, we can find out the possibilities to greatly decrease the conflicts between two camps.
Abstract
After the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, the neo-liberalist paradigm of economic development policy based on the Washington Consensus has been criticized and a chorus of voices began to proclaim that it has ended. In regional policy area the World Bank published an important report based on the Washington Consensus view and the EU/ OECD also published a few important reports based on the Post-Washington Consensus policy framework in 2009 and 2010. In addition P. Krugman self-criticized the effectiveness of the NEG in 2011 which is a theoretical basis of the World Bank report. In this paper I reviewed the recent trends in regional policy and evaluate the debates between the World Bank and the EU/OECD on the rationale and the framework of regional policy. I made a few suggestions on the future framework of the Korean regional policy; establishing the status of regional policy in the national policy agenda, strengthening the basis of the 5+2Economic Region development policy, enhancement of the effectiveness of cluster policy.