Journals

International Development Planning Review 41.1 Featured Article

The editors of International Development Planning Review have selected ‘Contesting socialist state visions for modern mobilities: informal motorbike taxi drivers’ struggles and strategies on Hanoi’s streets, Vietnam’ by Sarah Turner and  Ngô Thúy Hạnh as the Featured Article for IDPR 41.1.

The paper will be free to access for a limited time here.

When asked to describe the paper, and highlight its importance, Sarah Turner stated the following:

This paper came about because I had been working with street vendors in Hanoi, the capital city of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, for over a decade, and I was becoming increasingly concerned that restrictive and punitive measures being applied to these vendors by municipal officials, might be hampering the livelihoods of other informal economy workers who utilize the city’s streets as their workplace. Hanoi’s municipal authorities, with strong backing from the central government, are conceiving an urban space replete with security, orderliness, and modernity. This is resulting in rapid changes to the city’s urban form and access to infrastructure and amenities, while informal economy workers are being sidelined from official narratives of the city’s future.

And then came the city’s proposal to ban motorbikes by 2030. I immediately wondered how xe ôm drivers – informal motorbike taxi drivers – were going to cope. Moreover, I had witnessed the rapid rise in numbers of blue (UberMoto) and green (GrabBike) jacketed app-based drivers weaving through the city’s streets. My regular ‘traditional’ xe ôm driver, Hoà, often shook his head at these younger drivers’ inability to know where to go without their trusty GPS, and made rather disparaging comments about their lack of knowledge of the fastest routes…

Hence this project was born, with the aim of investigating the mobile livelihoods and everyday politics of xe ôm drivers in Hanoi. It would not have been possible without the help of Ngô Thúy Hạnh, my Hanoi-based research assistant and good friend, who goes out of her way to support my research endeavors, and those of my students, even when it means working long hours to complete our interviews alongside her regular job. Hạnh has a natural ability to put people at ease and gaining interviewees’ trust to learn about their livelihoods and concerns beyond the ‘public transcript’. Hạnh also actively introduces new questions and elements into our research endeavors. For example, she recently noticed that traditional xe ôm drivers are now buying green GrabBike jackets and helmets to mimic the new competitors. Moreover, now that GrabBike has bought out Uber and has little competition to keep prices in check, traditional xe ôm are gaining back customers. These customers are disgruntled at the price hikes GrabBike now places on evenings and weekends. As the ban inches closer, and the competition changes in nature, our research and rides continue…

horizontal

Journals

Viewpoint: Thoughts on internationalism and planning

Town Planning Review 89.4 features ‘Viewpoint: Thoughts on internationalism and planning’ by Ben Davy. In Town Planning Review 90.1, the first issue of 2019, Klaus Kunzmann contributed his paper ‘Viewpoint: Why not Italian? Differences matter! A comment on Ben Davy’s Viewpoint in TPR on ‘Thoughts on internationalism and planning’. Below, Ben Davy describes his paper and shares his thoughts on the subject.

Ben Davy’s paper in 89.4 will be free to read for a limited time here.

When I joined the team of Town Planning Review’s co-editors in November 2017, I had just come back from a UN Climate Change Conference where I had experienced an awkward, even embarrassing situation that made me think hard about the importance of internationalism (if you want to know more about this situation, please check my Viewpoint here). Despite my reflection, I have not been able to present a clear view on internationalism and planning. At least, Professor Klaus R. Kunzmann, my esteemed colleague from the University of Dortmund, thinks that my thoughts on internationalism and planning are »opaque«. He also assumes that differences do not matter to me, and that Mozart’s Zauberflöte best be performed in Italian. Since I prefer to listen to Emanuel Schikaneder’s original libretto (in German), I better hold my tongue on the Magic Flute.

So, what’s my view on internationalism and why it is important to planners? As I am writing this blog entry, the international community – or, at least, those parts of the international community that are still committed to internationalism – celebrate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a textbook example of internationalism. The Universal Declaration was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 1948, and 70 years later, global human rights have failed many tests in the real world which is still filled with injustice, violence, humiliation, and terror. Global human rights, however, have also sharpened our perception of territorial sovereignty (as limited) and the rights of every woman, man, or child against national governments (as augmented). Both achievements are today called into question by the Universal Declaration of Human Hate constantly streamed on Twitter, Facebook, and other anti-social media. In my Viewpoint, I am emphasizing the need to learn about and understand others because learning and understanding are entrenched elements of internationalism. I am happy that Professor Kunzmann and I seem to agree on this point because he announces that »[t]o this end Ben Davy is absolutely right.«

In my Viewpoint, I take the role of internationalism as an instrument of building world peace even a bit further—by taking it back several centuries. Internationalism is a child of neither the internet nor YouTube. Roman law was codified in the 6th century A.D. with a clear conception of ius gentium, the law of all peoples. Although legal internationalism always also has been an instrument of hegemony, international law can be considered, as Martti Koskenniemi thinks, the »gentle civilizer of nations«. On a much smaller scale, but very dear to me, planning can play a similar role which is not opaque, but much needed. Planning can be the »gentle civilizer« of land users worldwide. Although land use planning is always sub-national, planners benefit from an international exchange with other planners. In fact, many associations and networks already exist and trade knowledge and ideas between planners, who are curious about what goes on in other countries and other planning systems. Among these associations are the Association of African Planning Schools (AAPS; www.africanplanningschools.org.za), the Asian Planning School Association (APSA; http://apsaweb.org/), the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP; www.acsp.org), the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP; www.aesop-planning.eu) and other members of the Global Planning Education Association Network (GPEAN). Not in all, but in many discussions within these networks, English is the working language of choice. Italian or German are not. Appreciating this fact is not evidence of ignoring differences, it merely acknowledges that most congress hosts cannot afford to hire translators.

 

Follow us for more updates and sign up to our mailing list
#LUP120 | Sign up | @livunipress | Instagram
horizontal--no-image