1
KING ABDULLAH ECONOMIC CITY & ISKANDAR MALAYSIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PEERS ON THE RISE Aliyu Salisu Barau Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
[email protected] ABSTRACT The Asian middle-income economies initiate a number of development programmes in order to fast tract their visions for entry into high-income economies. Special economic cities are examples of such platforms for rapid economic and social development in many parts of Asia. While there are conceptual, operational and strategic similarities between Asian economic cities, there are dissimilarities in realising the goals of such economic cities. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has planned six economic cities across the Kingdom; in a similar way, Malaysia is also developing five economic cities and corridors. This paper compares economic city development between Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. The paper’s analytical comparison focuses on the King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) and the Iskandar Malaysia Metropolis. The specific objectives of this paper are: to identify the strategic agendas of the KAEC and Iskandar Malaysia for economic diversification; compare and contrast development strategies, goals and achievement of objectives between the two cities; and to identify potential partnership areas between the two cities and challenges the two projects pose to sustainability. The paper’s conceptual framework is drawn from miscellaneous economic and spatial paradigms namely, peer-review mechanism, growth centre theory, flying geese paradigm, global city theory and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) model. Though both Iskandar Malaysia and KAEC projects are ongoing, so far the trends and diversity of economic activities are successful at some levels. KAEC could learn a lot from its Malaysian peer particularly in aspects of promoting environmental sustainability and investor attraction. Both can also strengthen each other through bilateral talks and various cooperation and partnerships levels. We find that flooding and fragmentation of urban spaces are to common environmental challenge in both cities. The paper suggests the need for increased diversification and innovation of new ideas into sustain the socioeconomic impacts of the two regions through more investments in innovation, research and development. The two cities must also seek to define ecological costs of development. Keywords: KAEC, Iskandar Malaysia, economy, global, sustainability, OIC
INTRODUCTION The Gulf States, Saudi Arabia inclusive are referred to as “hydraulic” and “rentier” economies (Weiffen, 2008). Basically, this points to economic monoculture and huge subsidies for the public. Full economic development and transformation would require diversification and the need for novel and innovative strategies. The success of any economy
2
depends essentially on building strong strategic partnerships and cooperation with other economies – weak or strong. This is more important among the developing countries and in particular, member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). With population of over one billion, the OIC member states bestride diverse geographic zones. The diversity in ecology and demography is source of huge economic gains. In spite of these huge potentials, the OIC states could not meet the economic development objectives of the body. Though, none of the Muslim countries has attained developed economy status, yet the global population is indebted to the Muslim states for its substantial needs in energy, food security, tourism, extractive industries, manufacturing and other sectors. The Muslim diaspora communities are fairly distributed across the world and can serve as bridge builder and image-maker for the Islamic world. It is noteworthy that OIC has identified and documented its strength, weakness, opportunities and threats (Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries – (SISREC, 2011a) At the moment, the prospects of trade partnerships between the OIC member states is much needed. According SESRIC (2011a), 21 out of 57 OIC members are least developed countries. The GDP purchasing power parity of the OIC countries is merely 12.77% of the world total; while the export and import stand at 13.47%, and 9.03% respectively of the world total (Wikipedia, 2012). The economy of OIC states is characterized by imbalances and bleak recovery performance in the recent years (SESRIC, 2011b). Inarguably, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has a strategic role to play in the quest to reverse such worries. Naturally, it commands respect due its control of Haramain (the two holy mosques and rallying points of Muslims) it could provide and influence a moral and economic leadership for the Islamic world. However, for the success of its economic diversification visions, the Kingdom needs to look at the experiences of other emerging economies. The economic miracle of the South East Asian economies has already redesigned the global economic architecture to their favour. It appears at the moment that Saudi Arabia and Malaysia have embraced urban spatial framework in designing their economic features. Both countries focus on creating growth poles alternatively termed growth centres, growth points, small towns or growth points. This regional economic planning concept is drawn from the ideas of French economist François Perroux (1903–1987). The theory is used to address regional economic imbalances, and promote economic renewal initiatives, and upgrading urban system (Parr, 1999). However, the success of any economy and polity will substantially depend on the role of peers. In addressing the challenges raised by the Arab spring we have seen the vital role that peer countries played in regime changes or dousing tensions. This show the potentials of peer review mechanism in helping economies. Another example of peer review is reflected in the ongoing European financial crises. At scale of special economic city projects, peer review could also help in creating paths of sustainability. Pagani (2002) defines peer review as: “the systematic examination and assessment of the performance of a state by other states, with the ultimate goal of helping the reviewed state improve its policy making, adopt best practices and comply with established standards and principles.” This tool could aid administrators of such economic projects to cross fertilise and share ideas and experiences.
3
This paper explores areas of strategic economic partnerships between Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and OIC states. The paper focuses on special emerging economic cities in both countries. These are namely Iskandar Malaysia and King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC). The specific objectives of this paper are as follows:
To identify the potentials of the Iskandar Malaysia and KAEC to OIC and global economy To identify areas for partnerships between the two emerging economic hubs from the cooperation context of the OIC economic cooperation charter To identify partnership areas and challenges to sustainability of the two city region
The paper’s conceptual framework is drawn from miscellaneous economic and spatial paradigms namely, peer review mechanism, growth centre theory, flying geese paradigm, global city theory and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) model. This combination of models and theories guides explanations of the two projects. These theoretical mixture aims to build broader and integrated perspectives on building socially, institutionally and ecologically stable economic partnership between the KSA, Malaysia and other member states of the OIC. The paper is divided into nine sections. 1. CITY AND GLOBAL ECONOMY Beaverstock et al. (2011) assert that “the city is the global fulcrum for production, exchange and consumption”. The United Nations marks the 21st century as the urban century (Bogardi, 2007). Cities are also centres of economic activities and contribute mega shares to the total national economic outputs. For instance, in India, cities contribute 60-80% of the country’s economy (Poddar, 2007). Many countries have designed special economic city regional development programs to restructure their economies into top global investment destinations. Shen et al (2011) give example of cities with special spatial and economic global economic growth points to include Melbourne, Hong Kong, Iskandar Malaysia, Barcelona, Mexico city, Taipei, Singapore, Chandigarh, and Pune. These projects entail urban renewals, integrated planning frameworks, economic and environmental sustainability parameters. In most countries, the planning of special economic regions is part of the greater national physical and socio economic development plans (Friedmann, 2005). Urban scholars have used some theories to explain the global city hierarchies and relations. These theories vary from Zipf’s law, Friedmann’s world city hypothesis, to Sassen’s global city theory (Friedmann, 1986; Sassen, 1991, Soo, 2002). The role of the economy in all these theories is monumental. In this age of globalisation, the role of the economy is becoming stronger in determining relations between different city regions across the world. This is due to increasing physical mobility and cyber interconnectivity. However, apart from the traditional global city theories, Musil (2009) argues that foreign direct investment (FDI) is crucial and complementary indicator of internationalisation of urban economies. In China, the success of its economic regions lies in four factors. These are scientific and technologic manpower; expenditure on science and technological activities, and expenditures on research and development (Licheng, 2011). This means that economic regions are science and technology productivity hubs.
4
The five corridors were Iskandar Malaysia in Johor, the Northern Corridor Economic Region (NCER) covering the states of Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Peris and Perak’s four northern districts, the East Coast Economic Region (ECER) covering the states of Kelantan, Pahang, Terengganu and Johor’s Mersing district, the Sarawak Corridor for Renewable Energy (SCORE) and the Sabah Development Corridor (SDC). 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SAUDI ARABIA AND MALAYSIA Presently, Saudi Arabia has made giant strides in diversifying its economy. This shows significant change as compared to the past. In the last twenty years, the kingdom’s infrastructure investment environment was not encouraging (Looney, 1992). In the past, some researchers thought that the gas sector is the bedrock of Saudi economic liberalization (Robins, 2004). Nevertheless, the recent spirited efforts in the tourism sector are quite promising. The banking sector in the kingdom is also witnessing substantial transformations in recent years (Assaf et al. 2011). The kingdom has made giant strides in establishing industrial new towns to shelve regional economic disparities and transform the overall pace of industrialization in the country (Rahmaan and Fadaak, 1991). Following the uncertainties surrounding the hydro carbon economy, Saudi Arabia like other Gulf States borrows the knowledge economy formula for is future economic security and prosperity (Weber, 2011, Annemarie, 2011). This informs the robust investment in the education sector and science and technology. In what seems to be a serious effort for diversification of its economy, the government of the KSA has established cities that are biased to global economy (Abdulaal, 2012). These new cities include King Abdullah Economic City, Prince Abdullah Bin Mousaed Economic City, Knowledge City and Jazan Economic City. These special cities are planned to offer millions of jobs, logistics, services, manufacturing, tourism, agribusiness and attract foreign direct investments. Some of the developing countries have followed the paths of economic diversification for a longer time and have plucked the fruits of their job. One of them is Malaysia. In the 1980s, Malaysia experienced what Reinhardt (2000) calls “flying geese pattern of development”. This saw the country quickly jumping from export of its natural resources to manufacturing. Malaysia is not only diversifying economy at the moment, but ecologizing its industrial production methods (Er et al., 2012). Though Malaysia is an oil producing country, it also has high prospect for renewable energy through its oil palm rich plantations (Shuit et al., 2009). As a precursor, Malaysian government has put in place coherent policy on research and development to lubricate and leverage the country’s economic renaissance (Tidd and Brocklehurst, 1999). This spirit of innovative development sows the seed for Malaysia’s current development success scenarios. The role of innovation in boosting the export economy is apparent in Malaysia (Lee, 2011). Malaysia regional development policy accrued positive results since 1980s (Krüger, 1982). The country has also realized its tourism potentials since 1980s (Wells, 1982). According to SMECORP (2011), Malaysia has created an enabling environment that spurs its small and medium enterprises in the competitive global market. In general, Malaysia has witnessed an overwhelming influx of foreign direct investment recently (Anwar and Sun, 2011). Inarguably, the success of investments in infrastructure permits this development. Malaysia is one of the world’s hottest foreign direct
5
investment destinations (figure 1) which keeps jumping the levels of its peers. Special city regions play a major role in Malaysia’s current and future economic development. Example of the successful corridors are the Multimedia Super Corridor in Kuala Lumpur and Southern Johor Economic Region (SJER). SJER was established in 2006 and by its completion in 2025 it would gulp about US$100 billion of investments (Rizzo and Glasson, 2011).
Figure 1: Malaysia’s FDI ranking
3. KSA AND MALAYSIA: IDENTICAL PEERS? There are wide range of interesting similarities and fewer dissimilarities between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Federation of Malaysia. The two countries converge with each other on the following:
Islam is the official religion in Malaysia and KSA, the Muslim population and scholars in both countries follow Sunni school of thought. Geographically, both states are located on the strategic locations in the Asian continent.
6
Politically, both are monarchies of different functions. King of KSA has the full executive powers, whereas, the Malaysian King is symbolic and ceremonial. Demographically, the two have close population numbers (27.5 million for Malaysia and 27.1 for KSA [Wikipedia]). Arabic is the official language in KSA, while Malay is the official language, English is second language in both countries. Both countries have abundant oil and gas reserves (KSA with world one-fifth, Malaysia no 12 in gas reserves [Wikipedia]). Our two case study special cities are named after monarchs (King Abdullah and Sultan Iskandar). Both projects commenced almost simultaneously. KAEC in 2005 and Iskandar Malaysia in 2006. Both cities are located in state/province/cities that start with letter “J” ( ) as in Jeddah ( )جدةand Johor ()جوهر. Both are port cities of strategic importance. Flooding is a recurrent environmental disaster in both Jeddah and Johor, the locations of KAEC and Iskandar Malaysia respectively. Both special regions are expected to be fully completed by 2025
The key points of divergence include the following:
While the KSA is substantially of dry landscapes, Malaysia is largely wet and green. Oil and gas are the main stay of Saudi economy, Malaysia has a diverse economy that thrives on agro exports, tourism, services and manufacturing. The Saudi population is composed mainly of Arabs, Malaysia is largely Malay and ethnic Chinese and Indians. Many see KSA as conservative Muslim kingdom, and Malaysia as modern and progressive Muslim State
The similarities between the two countries make them :two birds of feathers flock together”. In other words, the two countries now target to ply same economic directions. Invariably, this makes them peers. On the other hand, divergence and convergence points of the two countries lies strengths and opportunities to explore means of advancing strategic economic visions of the states in the context of global and regional economic development. 4. PROFILE OF ISKANDAR MALAYSIA AND KAEC 4.1 ISKANDAR MALAYSIA Table 1: Facts and figures on Iskandar Malaysia
Location Areal coverage Population Spatial components
Johor State, peninsular Malaysia 2,217 square kilometers (3 times the areal size of Singapore) 1,3 million Five flagships zones: Johor Bahru city
7
Investments value
Focus/market population target Vision/Mission
centre(A), Nusajaya (B), Ramsar (C),Pasir-Gudang-Tanjong Langsat (D), and Senai-Skudai(E) Over US$25 billion surpassed the target for phase one. Total anticipated investment is put at US$ 100 billion Over 800 million population all in Asia “Strong Sustainable Metropolis of International Standing” Iskandar Development Authority
Administrators Source: http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my
Figure 2: Map of skandar Malaysia
4.2 KAEC PROFILE
Table 2: Facts and figures on KAEC
Location Areal coverage Population Spatial components
Investments value Focus/market target Vision/Mission
Administrators
Jeddah, KSA 173 km² Projected pollution of 2 million Sea port (A), Industrial zone (B), Central business district (C), Education (D), Resorts (E), Residential (F) US$100 billion Europe, Asia, pacific, and united states “To establish King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) as the greatest enabler of socioeconomic development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority
8
Figure 3: Map of KAEC
5. LANDMARK ACHIEVEMENTS IN ISKANDAR MALAYSIA & KAEC The two projects have accumulated state of art facilities and infrastructure to lay solid foundation for investors. Overwhelming success have been achieved in both economic cities as shown in table 3 and 4 below. Between flagships A to E in the Iskandar Malaysia several infrastructure upgrade were carried out. These include roads and bridges expansions designed to meet the new status of the area. There are also new projects, which mainly come under flagships B to E. On the other hand, in the KAEC almost all the development projects are new. This means both areas follow the flying geese paradigm (Ozawa, 2005). This justifiable by looking at the speed of projects carried out in the last five years. 6.1 ISKANDAR REGION PROJECTS
9
Table 3: projects overview in isknadar Malaysia
Flagships A JOHOR BAHRU CITY CENTRE
Projects
B NUSAJAYA
C WESTERN GATE DEVELOPMENT
D EASTERN GATE DEVELOPMENT E SENAI-SKUDAI
• Central Business District projects • Danga Bay Integrated Waterfront City • Upgrading of Central Business District • Tebrau-Plentong Mixed Development • Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Complex (CIQ) • Johor-Singapore Causeway & Lido Boulevard • Conservation and Heritage Zones • Kota Iskandar • Puteri Harbour • Medini • EduCity • Southern Industrial Logistic Clusters (SiLC) • Afiat Health Park • International Destination Resort • Housing and Residential Projects • Port of Tanjung Pelepas • Tanjung Bin Power Plant • Malaysia - Singapore Second Link • RAMSAR World Heritage • Tanjung Piai - Southernmost Tip of Mainland Asia • Free Trade Zone • Tanjung Langsat Industrial Complex • Tanjung Langsat Port • Johor Port • Pasir Gudang Industrial Park • APTEC (Lakehill Resort City) • Senai International Aiport • Senai Cargo Hub • Senai High-Tech Park • Sedenak Industrial Park • MSC Cyberport City • Johor Technology Park • Johor Premium Outlets
Source: Iskandar Malaysia 5 year report/ www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/investing-in-iskandar-malaysia
6.2 KAEC PROJECTS Table 4: Projects overview in KAEC
Flagships A Sea Port B Industrial zone C Business park D City Districts E Educational zone F Resorts G Residential Areas
Projects
Science and Research Complex Columbia University Thunderbird University Environment Protection Centre Ethraa, The Smart City Health Care City KAEC Media City The Cadre Technical City EMAL International Aluminum Smelter factory Total Oil factory Holiday Inn Express Hotel Ritz-Carlton Hotel & Resort Bay La Sun Village, and Esmeralda Suburb Mass infrastructure in IT, railways, electricity transmission
10
Source: http://www.kingabdullahcity.com/en/Home/index.html
6. SWOT ANALYSIS FOR ISKANDAR MALAYSIA AND KAEC The aim of this section is to evaluate briefly the two study areas in the context of SWOT model. Essentially, the strengths of the two regions lie in the commitment of the leadership of the two countries. Such commitment or political will creates the enabling environment for the success achieved within the short period. Secondly, the target population is a strong asset for both cities. Iskandar set a target of 800 million, but KAEC is silent on the number of its targeted population. Though, the two city regions enjoy high regional and global prospects, the halal trademark could be one important factor that could make them to attract more Sharia friendly investments in the products and services sectors. This could help both to have an edge over their competitors in their respective regions. The halal market is very large and is badly needed in OIC states and the Muslim diaspora. At the same time, it could earn them larger global market and investments as well. Currently, Malaysia is playing a leading global role on the concept of halal economy. The Malaysian halal industry engages scientific methods in tracing non-Halal items in consumables, while a public agency JAKIM is responsible for certification applications, auditing, monitoring, enforcement and upgrade of the status and integrity of Malaysian halal certification globally (Murugaiah et al. 2009, Halal Journal, 2011). The Third Industrial Master Plan (IMP3) tasks the Halal Development Cooperation to make Malaysia a global halal hub (HDC, 2011). This gives Malaysia an upper hand in globalization Sharia economy products and services. So many products and services in Iskandar region are Sharia friendly. The basic weakness of the two regions in the context of OIC economic agenda is the absence of frameworks that connect them. As such, they do not complement each other or connect to OIC economic framework. These projects are purely developed within the context of the individual country’s national economic development strategies. Despite this weakness of mutual invisibility between the economic growth points, there are still opportunities. For instance, it has been observed that Islamic financial services (IFS) connect so many global cities (Bassens, 2011). The two regions could In general, the two regions as peers could exploit the OIC economic charters to link up with all the OIC member states and prospective partners in the other parts of the globe. In respect of threats to the two economic growth points, the paper takes this from the viewpoint of sustainability of the investment climate as well as the environmental security. It is important to guard against any social and political instability or policies that could scare away investors. Singapore is the natural competitor for the Iskandar Malaysia. However, isknadar Malaysia has neutralised such threats by thoroughly engaging the Singapore’s FDI. On the other hand, other economic cities and project in the Gulf compete vigorously for the investors that KAEC targets. Sustaining the two economic hubs for posterity is necessary. Both KAEC and Iskandar Malaysia face similar ecological crises. Perennial floods are the major threats to the infrastructure and population in both places. This challenge is a result of global climate change and invariably local land use change due to the development of these
11
economic growth points as indicated in (Barau and Ludin, 2011a, Barau and Ludin, 2011b, Abdulaal, 2012). Another source of concern is that both IM and KAEC are developed in sprawl form and this has implications for sustainable urban development and transportation. The spatial disaggregation of Iskandar flagships create room for increased human mobility. On the other hand, the KAEC is located some 120 km from Jeddah and this makes it a transport dependent project.
7. DISCUSSIONS It is clear that Iskandar Malaysia has enjoyed more influx of FDI as compared to KAEC (refer to figure 1). This is even more so if one considers the fact that the targeted FDI in the two areas are of the same size. Besides, Iskandar Malaysia covers larger area in the sense that KAEC is less than 10% of Iskandar Malaysia. The 5-year annual report of Iskandar Malaysia has shown that the new metropolis has even surpassed its expected investment set for the phase by more than 40% (IRDA, 2011). This truly makes it to fit flying geese paradigm (Ozawa, 2005). From the viewpoint of peer review mechanism, KAEC could a lot from the experiences of the Iskandar Malaysia. What are its strategies for the yielded breakthroughs? It is quite understandable that the KAEC started from scratch, but at the same time, the Iskandar Malaysia has also virtually started afresh three of its flagship areas. While even the existing infrastructure have been redesigned and upgraded to meet the objectives, mission and vision of the Iskandar metropolis. There is no doubt that both Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and Prime Minister of Malaysia have given due attention and priority. The visions set for the two special cities as reflected in tables 1 and 2 above may ultimately determine the impacts and performance of the two ambitious projects. The vision of KAEC is set to be catalyst for the economic development of the KSA while the vision of Iskandar Malaysia is to be global metropolis in a competitive region. There is no doubt that KAEC has global perspectives, however, it is obvious that it lacks innovative and competitive dimensions similar to that of Iskandar Malaysia. As example, Iskandar Malaysia aims to target projects of highest global ranking. The Iskandar Lego land is designed to be the world’s no.1 and first of its kind in Asia. It also sets a target of receiving 30 million tourists by 2014 (IRDA, 2011). The investment areas for Iskandar Malaysia are basically in education, electrical and electronics, financial services, food and agro processing, healthcare, logistics, petrochemical and oleochemical, tourism, and under all these lie the creative sector under the concept of “invest, work, live, and play”. The KAEC has similar investment areas and just like the Iskandar Malaysia, it has witnessed unprecedented success. One of the basic differences between the two regions is that, the development projects in Iskandar are carried out largely by indigenous manpower and firms, while in the KAEC, most of the projects are executed by foreign firms and fewer indigenous ones. On the point of investment, today FDI constitute more than 40% of the investments and local investment constitute above 50%. On the other hand, in the KSA most of the investments come from the public sector. Based on the
12
competitive nature of the Asia pacific region, Iskandar Malaysia has sought innovate ways to make its relevance felt in particular ways. Iskandar has paid due attention to the halal concept in many sectors. The halal sector and trade gives Iskandar region a peculiar priority to attract investors on the Muslim consumer products and services.
8. CONCLUSIONS The 21st century represents the time for the spirited efforts of the developing countries to transform their economies into more prosperous ones. Malaysia and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia represent good examples of the economic renewal efforts. Both Saudi Arabia share several socioeconomic and cultural features. The two countries target diversification of their economies through special economic growth centres. This economic transformation strides in the two countries are characterised by short time accomplishments on the targets set. There is need for bilateral and multilateral cooperation between the two countries on one hand and the OIC on the other. KAEC can learn a lot from the experiences of Iskandar Malaysia. Iskandar Malaysia is larger, more innovative and advanced. It is important to suggest that the diversity of environment between the two countries could serve as a strong basis for cooperation between the two regions. For instance, as the Saudi Arabia is largely desert, Malaysia is almost all green. This could create a good avenue for tourism industry between the two countries. It is obvious that the recent reinvigoration of the tourism industry in the KSA through the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities (SCTA) would help this target to be realised. Malaysians travel to KSA for Hajj and Umrah and this opportunity could be harnessed to optimum levels. Based on the sprawl risks associated with both city regions, it becomes imperative to come up with more innovative ideas for sustainable transportation. In order to sustain the viability of these two important projects, it is vital for the governments to consider shifting and re-diversifying them into research and innovation hubs for each sector of their interest after the year 2025, when the phases of the two projects would have been completed.
9. Recommendations Based on the experiences of the Iskandar Malaysia as larger economic city and even more accomplishing at least at the moment and in the context of the need for sustainability we outline the following recommendations for the KAEC administrators.
Set the target of its market population to serve with its products and services It is important to outline its green ideas on land use by setting blueprints to aid in averting serious ecological crises Build and integrate the Halal tourism trademark to its tourism and recreation, halal package is to attract or target more visitors from the OIC states and the muslim diaspora. Draft more innovative ideas and policy to overcome prospect competitors.
13
REFERENCES Abdulaal, W.A. (2012) “Large urban developments as the new driver for land development in Jeddah.” Habitat International, 36(1)36-46 DOI 10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.05.004. Annemarie, P. (2011) “The Middle East at a crossroad: an educational revolution.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 1257–1261. Anwar, S.; Sun, S. (2011) “Financial development, foreign investment and economic growth in Malaysia.” Journal of Asian Economics, 22(4) 335-342. DOI 10.1016/j.asieco.2011.04.001. Assaf, A.G; Barros, C.P.; Matousek, R. (2011) “Technical efficiency in Saudi banks.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (5) 5781-5786, DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.054. Barau, A.S.; Ludin, A.N.M. (2011a) How Sustainable is Iskandar Region? Paper presented at the 5th Southeast Asian Technological Universities Consortium (SEATUC), held at Hanoi Science and Technology University, February, 2011. Barau, A.S.; Ludin, A.N.M. (2011b) Industrial Agitation vs Climatic Disruption: Flood Vulnerabilities and Spatial Planning in Iskandar Metropolis. Paper presented at Cities at Risk II conference, held at Chinese Academy of Science, Taiwan April, 2011.
14
Bassens, D.; Derudder, B.; Witlox, F. (2011) “Setting Shari’a standards: On the role, power and spatialities of interlocking Shari’a boards in Islamic financial services.” Geoforum,42(1)94-103.DOI 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.10.004. Beaverstock, J.V.; Faulconbridge, J.R.; Hoyle, M. (2011). “Globalisation and City” in: A. Leyshon, R. Lee, L. McDowell and P. Sunley (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Economic Geography London: SAGE, pp. 189-201. Bogardi, J.(2007) “Foreword” In Bohle, H.; Warner, K. (eds.): Megacities, Resilience and Social Vulnerability. UNU-EHS, Bonn, SOURCE No.10, p.7. Er, A.C; Mol, A.P.J.; (Kris) van Koppen, C.S.A. (2012) “Ecological modernization in selected Malaysian industrial sectors: political modernization and sector variations.” Journal of Cleaner Production 24, 66-75, DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.042 Friedmann, J. (1986). 'The world city hypothesis' Development and Change 17: 69-83. Friedmann, J. (2005) “Globalization and the emerging culture of planning.” Progress in Planning, 64, 183–234. HDC (2011) Halal Industry Development Corporation http://www.hdcglobal.com/publisher/bhi_why_malaysia Halal Journal (2011) “JAKIM Takes Over Halal Certification from HDC” http://www.halaljournal.com/article/3927/jakim-takes-over-halal-certification-from-hdc http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/investing-in-iskandar-malaysia http://www.kingabdullahcity.com/en/Home/index.html IRDA (2011) Iskandar Malaysia Five Year Progress Report. IRDA, Johor Bahru. Lee, C.(2011) “Trade, productivity, and innovation: Firm-level evidence from Malaysian manufacturing.” Journal of Asian Economics, 22(4)284-294, DOI10.1016/j.asieco.2011.05.003. Licheng, W. (2011) “Science & Technology Input and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Three Major Coastal Economic Regions of China.” Energy Procedia, DOI 5, 1779-1783 DOI 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.303. Krüger, K.(1982) “Regional policy in Malaysia.” Geoforum, 13(2) 133-149, DOI 10.1016/0016-7185(82)90022-7. Looney, R.E (1992) “Real or illusory growth in an oil-based economy: Government expenditures and private sector investment in Saudi Arabia.” World Development, 20(9) 1367-1375. DOI, 10.1016/0305-750X(92)90084-9. Murugaiah, C.; Noor, Z.M.; Mastakim, M.; Bilung, M.; Selamat,J.; Radu,S. (2009)”Meat species identification and Halal authentication analysis using mitochondrial DNA.” Meat Science, 83(1)57-61,DOI 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.03.015.
15
Musil, R. (2009) “Global capital control and city hierarchies: an attempt to reposition Vienna in a world city network.” Cities, 26, 5, 255-265.DOI 10.1016/j.cities.2009.07.002. Ozawa, T. (2005) Institutions, Industrial Upgrading, and Economic Performance in Japan – The ‘Flying-Geese Paradigm of Catch-up Growth. Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pagani, F. (2002) “Peer review as a tool for co-operation and change: An analysis of an OECD working method.” African Security Review, 11 (4) DOI:10.1080/10246029.2002.9628141. Parr, J (1999) “Growth-pole Strategies in Regional Economic Planning: A Retrospective View. Part 1. Origins and Advocacy.” Urban Studies, 36(7)1195-1215. Poddar, T. (2007) “India’s Urbanisation: Emerging Opportunities.” Asia Economics Analysts 7(13)3-11, Goldman Sachs. Rahmaan, A.; Fadaak, T.A. (1991) “New towns in Saudi Arabia.” Habitat International, 15(1–2) 167-179, DOI10.1016/0197-3975(91)90013-B. Reinhardt, N(2000) “Back to Basics in Malaysia and Thailand: The Role of Resource-Based Exports in Their Export-Led Growth.” World Development, 28(1) 57-77, DOI 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00111-4 Rizzo, A., & Glasson, J. (2011) DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2011.03.003.
City
Profile:
“Iskandar
Malaysia.”
Cities
Robins, P. (2004) “Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow: Saudi Arabia's ‘Gas Initiative” Energy Policy, 32(3)321-333. Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City. Princeton University Press, Princeton. SESRIC (2011a) Annual Economic Report on the OIC Countries 2011. The Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC), Ankara. SESRIC (2011a) SWOT Outlook on the OIC Member Countries. The Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC), Ankara. Shen, L.; Jorge Ochoa, J.; Shah, M.N.; Zhang, X. (2011) ‘The application of urban sustainability indicators - A comparison between various practices’ Habitat International (35) 17-29. Shuit, S.H.; Tan, K.T.; Lee, K.T.; Kamaruddin, A.H.(2009) Oil palm biomass as a sustainable energy source: A Malaysian case study, Energy 34( 9) 1225-1235, DOI10.1016/j.energy.2009.05.008.. SME CORP (2011) SME Corporation Malaysia. http://www.smecorp.gov.my/v4/node/12
16
Soo, K.T. (2002). Zipf’s Law for Cities: A Cross Country Investigation. www2.econ.uu.nl/users/marrewijk/geography/zipf/kwoktongsoo.pdf Tidd, J.; Brocklehurst, M. (1999) “Routes to Technological Learning and Development: An Assessment of Malaysia's Innovation Policy and Performance, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 62(3) 239-257, DOI 10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00047-5. Weber, A.S. (2011) “The role of education in knowledge economies in developing countries.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2589-2594, DOI 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.151. Weiffen, B. (2011) “Liberalizing Autocracies in the Gulf Region? Reform Strategies in the Face of a Cultural-Economic Syndrome.”, World Development, 36(12) 2586-2604, DOI 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.009. Wells, R.J.G. (1982) “Tourism planning in a presently developing country: The case of Malaysia.” Tourism Management, 3(2)98-107, DOI 10.1016/0261-5177(82)90005-X. Wikipedia (2012) “Economy of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation#Statisti cs.
17
Source: http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/06/24/five-corridors-gateway-to-prosperity/
18
