Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers (한국지역지리학회지)

The Korean Association of Regional Geographers (한국지역지리학회)
권호 표지

State Territoriality and Spaces of Exception in East Asia : Universalities and Particularities of East Asian Special Zones

동아시아에서 국가의 영토성과 예외적 공간 : 동아시아 특구의 보편성과 특수성

  • Park, Bae-Gyoon (Department of Geography Education, Seoul National University)
  • 박배균 (서울대학교 지리교육과)
  • Received : 2017.04.26
  • Accepted : 2017.05.20
  • Published : 2017.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a conceptual framework to see the special zones in East Asia in relation to the territorialities of the state. For this, it will introduce Aihwa Ong's notion of 'spaces of exception', and provide some critical discussions on it. Unlike Ong, I do not see the spaces of exception as an outcome of neoliberal changes of the state. Instead, I propose to see the special zones in terms of the internal limitations of the modern state territoriality. In particular, I try to theorize the special zones in relation to the dialectics of the contradictory relations between mobility and fixity inherent in the territoriality of the modern nation state. In addition, it will be suggested to see special zones as an essential part of the spatiality of the East Asian developmental states, given the spatio-temporal contexts of the East Asian capitalist development. On the basis of these theoretical discussions, this paper will divide the special zones that have been developed in East Asia since the 1960s into 3 different types, including 1) developmentalist special zones, 2) neo-liberal special zones, and 3) special zones for transition, and discuss their characteristics.

이 글은 동아시아의 특구가 지니는 정치-경제-사회적 의미를 국가 영토성과의 관련 속에서 이론적으로 검토하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 특구를 신자유주의적 통치성이 발현되는 예외적 공간이라 개념화한 아이와 옹의 논의를 소개하고 비판적으로 검토할 것이다. 옹과 달리 특구를 단지 신자유주의적 변화의 결과인 것으로만 이해하지 않고, 특구라는 현상을 근대국가의 영토성이 지닌 내적 한계와 연결시켜 설명할 것이다. 특히, 특구를 근대적 국민국가의 영토성에 내재된 이동성과 고착성 사이의 모순적 경향이 변증법적으로 발현된 것으로 바라본다. 또한, 동아시아 자본주의 발달의 시공간적 맥락 속에서 보았을 때 특구는 동아시아 발전주의 국가의 공간성에 내재된 기본적 속성 중의 하나임을 주장한다. 이러한 논의를 바탕으로 지난 1960년대 이래로 동아시아 발전주의 국가의 맥락에서 시도된 다양한 특구 전략을 1) 발전주의 특구, 2) 신자유주의 특구, 3) 체제전환형 특구라는 3개의 유형으로 나누고, 그 특징에 대해 논의할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김은혜.박배균, 2016, 2000년 이후, 일본의 국가 스일 재편과 특구 전략, 공간과 사회, 26(2), 10-43.
  2. 남덕우 외, 2003, 경제특구: 한국경제 생존 프로젝트, 삼성경제연구소.
  3. 동아일보 미래전략연구소 편, 2010, 경제자유구역: 미래의 성장기지, 동아일보사.
  4. 박배균, 2012, 한국 지역균형정책에 대한 국가공간론적 해석, 기억과 전망, 27, 81-130.
  5. 박배균.장세훈.김동완, 2014, 산업경관의 탄생: 다중 스케일 관점에서 본 발전주의 공업단지, 알트.
  6. 박철현, 2016, 중국 발전모델 전환형 특구의 형성, 공간과 사회, 26(2), 80-131.
  7. 손정원, 2006, 개발국가의 공간적 차원에 대한 연구: 1970년대의 한국의 경험을 사례로, 공간과 사회, 25, 41-79.
  8. 지주형, 2016, 한국의 발전국가와 신자유주의 국가: 역사적 변동과 형태분석, 인문논총, 41, 219-261.
  9. 이일영 엮음, 2008, 경제특구 선전의 복합성: 창과 거울, 한신대학교 출판부.
  10. 이종수, 2009, 행정학사전, 대영문화사.
  11. 細谷祐二(호소야 유지), 2009, 産業立地政策, 地域 産業政策の歴史的展開, 産業立地, 1, 41-49.
  12. 陈险峰.王建民, 台湾自由经济示范区评析, 统一论 坛, 2013.6.23.
  13. 本刊课题组, 四大自贸区发展特点与经验综述, 天津 经济, 256, 32-33.
  14. Agnew, J., 1994, The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory, Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692299408434268
  15. Albert, M., David, J, and Yosef, L., 2001, Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  16. Amsden, A., 1989, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Boyenge, J. P. S., 2007, ILO Database on Export Processing Zones, International Labor Office.
  18. Braudel, F., 1973, Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800, (김홍식 역, 2012, 물질문명과 자본 주의 읽기: 자본주의라는 이름의 히드라 이야기, 갈라파고스: 서울).
  19. Brenner, N., 2004, New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Castells, M., 1992, Four Asian tigers with a dragon head: a comparative analysis of the state, economy, and society in the Asian Pacific Rim, States and development in the Asian Pacific Rim, Edited by Appelbaum, Richard P. and Henderson, Jordan., London: Sage, 33-70.
  21. Easterling, K., 2014, Extrastatecraft: the Power of Infrastructure Space, London: Verso.
  22. Elden, S., 2013, The Birth of Territory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Evnas, P., 2010, Construction the 21st century developmental state: potentialities and pitfalls, Constructing a Democratic Developmental State in South Africa, Edited by Omano Edigheji, Cape town: HSRC Press, 37-58.
  24. Foucault, M., 2004, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977-1978 (심세광.전혜리.조성은 역, 2011, 안전, 영토, 인구, 난장: 서울).
  25. Glassman, J., 2010, Bounding the Mekong: The Asian Development Bank, China and Thailand, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  26. Glassman, J. and Choi, Young-Jin., 2014, The Chaebol and the US Military-Industrial Complex: Cold War Geo-Political Economy and South Korean Industrialization, Environment and Planning A, 46(5), 1160-1180. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130025p
  27. Glassman, J., Park, B. G. and Choi, Y. J., 2008, Failed Internationalism and Social Movement Decline, Critical Asian Studies, 40(3), 339-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672710802274110
  28. Grande, E. and Pauly, L. W., 2005, Complex sovereignty and the emergence of transnational authority, Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century, Edited by Grande, Edgar. and Pauly, Louis W. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 285-299.
  29. Harvey, D., 1982, The Limits to Capital, Oxford.
  30. Harvey, D., 1985, The geopolitics of capitalism, in Social relations and spatial structures, Edited by Gregory, D. and Urry, J., London: Macmillan.
  31. Harvey, D., 1989, The Urban Experience, Oxford: Blackwell.
  32. Hirst, P., and Thompson, G., 1999, Globalisation in question (2nd Ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press.
  33. Hsu, J. Y. and Chu, L. I.. 2017, Economic Development Zones, The International Encyclopedia of Geography, 1-9.
  34. Jessop, B., 1990, State Theory: Putting Capitalist State in their Place, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  35. Johnson, C., 1982, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: the growth of industrial policy, 1925-1975, Stanford, CA: Stanford Universtiy Press.
  36. Jonathan, B., 2011, Modernity and the Urban Imagination in Economic Zones, Theory, Culture & Society, 28(5), 98-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411411495
  37. Jones, M. R., 1997, Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance, Environment and Planning A, 29(5), 831-864. https://doi.org/10.1068/a290831
  38. Karl, R. E., 2007, Reviewed Work: Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty by Aihwa Ong, The China Quarterly, 189, 188-190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030574100600097X
  39. Keating, M., 2001, Nations against the state: The new politics of nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland(2nd Ed.), Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  40. Kim, M. S., 2014, Why No Westphalia-like Peace Order after the Toyotomi Hideyoshi War in Korea(1592-98)?, Korea Observer, 45(1), 117-152.
  41. Knight, J. B., 2014, China as a Developmental State, The World Economy, 37(10), 1335-1347. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12215
  42. Krasner, S. D., 1999, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  43. Lin, J. C-Y., 2010, Planning and development of industrial land in Taiwan, In Roger Bristow (ed.), Planning in Taiwan: spatial planning in the 21th century, Oxon: Routledge.
  44. Nee, V., Opper, S. and Wong, S., 2007, Developmental State and Corporate Governance in China, Management and Organization Review, 3(1), 19-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00061.x
  45. Ong, A., 2000, Graduated sovereignty in South East Asia, Theory, Culture & Society, 17(4), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760022051310
  46. Ong, A., 2007, Neoliberalism as exception: mutations in citizenship and sovereignty, Durham: Duke University Press.
  47. Park, B. G., Hill, R. C. and Saito, A., 2012, Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia Neoliberalizing Spaces in Developmental States, Oxford: Blackwell.
  48. Park, B. G. and Lepawsky, J., 2012, Spatially Selective Liberalization in South Korea and Malaysia: Neoliberalization in Asian Developmental States, in Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing Spaces in Developmental States, Edited by Park, B. G., Hill, R. C. and Saito, A., Oxford: Blackwell.
  49. Pauly, L. W. and Grande, E., 2005, Reconstituting political authority: Sovereignty, effectiveness, and legitimacy in a transnational order, in Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century, Edited by Pauly, L. W. and Grande. T., University of Toronto Press, 3-21.
  50. Peck, J. and Tickell, A. 1994, Jungle law breaks out: Neoliberalism and global-local disorder, Area, 26(4), 317-326.
  51. Peters, B. G., 2005, Governance: A garbage can perspective, in Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century, Edited by Grande, E. and Pauly, L. W., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 68-92.
  52. Smith, N., 2004, Scale Bending and the Fate of the National, in Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society and Method, Edited by Sheppard, E. and McMaster, R. B., Malden, MA: Blackwell, 192-212.
  53. Wade, R., 1990, Governing the Market: Economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization, Princeton: Princeton University Press.