Mirza Fanzikri
The smart city concept has become a global discourse as a city development trajectory (Joss et al., 2019). Even beyond city governance, Singapore, as a state whose full regions are urban areas, has self-declared a smart nation (Joo et al., 2020). However, the smart city concept frequently varied in scholars’ perspectives and policy implementation across countries. This paper aims to discuss the concept of a smart city from a scholar’s perspective and asks to what extent how countries adopt the smart city concept into a practical policy, particularly in Southeast Asia. From a rationalist perspective, I argue that different smart city policy implementations are determined by differences in starting points and goal achievement orientation among countries.
“…different smart city policy implementations are determined by differences in starting points and goal achievement orientation among countries.”
What is the concept of Smart City?
Reviewed at least twenty-three scholars who have viewed the term smart city with different definitions, Albina et al. (2015) concluded that the debate on the smart city concept is divided into hard and soft domains. Hard domains refer to the orientation of the smart city concept to achieve some buildings, energy grids, natural resources, water management, waste management, mobility, and logistics (Neirotti et al., 2014), where ICT can play a decisive role in the functions of the systems. Meanwhile, the soft domains tend to prioritise education, culture, policy innovations, social inclusion, and government, where the application of ICT is not usually decisive. Albino et al. (2015) work was religiously explained some debate regarding the smart city concept. Several concepts are associated with smart city terminology, including intelligent city (Mulay et al., 2013; Komninos, 2006), ubiquitous city (Anthopoulos & Fitsilis, 2010), digital city (Rezende et al., 2014; Cocchia, 2014), city information (Piro et al., 2014) and knowledge city (Yigitcanlar, 2008).
The broad definition should be accommodated between two domains and put into one smart city concept to enchant the standard of liveable cities. Kitching (2016) argues that the smart city concept is not limited to technological solutionism. As urban planning involves a complex social system, political and economic contestation as a necessary variable should be considered. Bakici et al. (2012) defined a smart city as a high-tech, intensive, and advanced city that connects people, information, and city elements using new technologies to create a sustainable, greener city, competitive and innovative commerce, and increased quality of life. Additionally, Giffinger et al. (2007) define a smart city as a city that performs well in a forward-looking way in terms of economy, people, governance, mobility, environment, and living, built on the smart combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent, and aware citizens. A smart city generally refers to searching for and identifying intelligent solutions that allow modern cities to enhance the quality of the services provided to citizens.
The main features of a smart city include technology, people (creativity, diversity, and education), and institutions (governance and policy).”
Agreeing to Nam and Pardo (2011) defined, I stand that the main features of a smart city include technology, people (creativity, diversity, and education), and institutions (governance and policy). It is able to spare between these aspect that interconnected as trilogy of development approaches. As a development sector, moreover, Lombardi et al. (2012) state that at least six components of smart city development are smart economy, smart people, smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment, and smart living.
The Smart City in Southeast Asia
Even though it has an equal term of a smart city vision, it is undeniable that implementing a smart city policy in different countries implies a different smart city concept in practice. In Southeast Asia, with about 42 per cent of the population living in urban areas in 2010, some countries have adopted smart cities as an urban development trajectory planning in urban areas, even as the national goal. Singapore, for instance, established a policy outstanding as a smart nation with developed a high digital technology infrastructure as a brand of state characteristic oriented as a hub for global investment and business activities in regions (Joo et al., 2020). Meanwhile, in other regions, such as Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand, smart city policy spreads in various regions and sectors with technology and cultural enhancement to provide public goods services.
In Southeast Asia, Singapore is a leading country that has been adopting a smart city concept since 1981, when it established a national computerization plan to improve public services and expanded its policy into the national IT plan by applying it to the private sector in 1986. Boosting a comprehensive digitalization for government services, Singapore has developed as an intelligent Island report/IT through the Singapore ONE program from 1992 to 2000. It has become a global leader in info-comm and e-governance in the region. Unsurprisingly, being a full population in an urban area, Singapore declared goes beyond a smart city, it declared a smart nation. I view it as good from a structural perspective; however, it is more challenging to apply in practice, particularly regarding social inclusion issues. The government should ensure that all citizens, including the elderly and disabled communities, are able to access public services equally.
In contrast, adopting a smart city concept in a country with a large population spread across urban and rural areas was more challenging. In Indonesia, for instance, in 2017, the central government launched the 100 Smart Cities initiative to mark the rise of smart city concepts in urban development (Pratama, 2021; Offenhuber, 2018; Rizkinaswara, 2018). Even though some cities, such as Bandung and Jakarta, have initiated smart city development since 2013-2014 (Pratama, 2021). However, implementing the concept of a smart city as a whole is still limited to the central government’s program in the Ministry of Communication and Informatics Affairs. Instead, Indonesian urban development planning was dominantly ruled by local autonomy as a leader in local development.
A similar pattern to Indonesian policy occurred in some Southeast Asian countries, where the smart city concept is a government program in particular sectors rather than a state development trajectory vision as a whole. Adopting digital technology in public service is still dominantly viewed as implementing the smart city concept in several countries. In 2016, Thailand launched the Thailand 4.0 policy as an economic model based on creativity, innovation, and high-level services supported by advanced digital technology. Also, the Philippines declared the National ICT Ecosystem Framework in 2019, and the Malaysian government issued the Malaysia Smart City Framework (MSCF) in the same year. Additionally, in 2018, Vietnam ratified the concept of smart cities as part of a national plan for the development of smart, sustainable cities. Cambodia followed the step by launching the Cambodia Digital Economy and Society Policy Framework in 2021.
Final note
Based on a brief study of smart cities in Southeast Asia, using a rational choice approach, the variation of smart city adaptation among countries can be analysed by considering the existing starting point condition and the country’s development trajectory orientation dynamics. The variation of smart city policy implementations are determined by differences in starting points and goal achievement orientation among countries. Adopting Lombardi et al.‘s measurements, in this context, the starting point refers to the country’s existing condition of six features of a smart city, including the condition of industry (economy), education (people), e-democracy (governance), logistics and infrastructures (mobility), efficiency and sustainability (environment), and security and quality (living standard). Additionally, goal achievement orientation refers to the government’s desire to pursue national and sub-national interests toward a smart city fully adopted, including a smart economy, smart people, smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment, and smart living.