TOWARDS A COHERENT FRAMEWORK FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND POLICY : THE CASE OF SINGAPORE

Abstract

Among the factors that contributed to the success of Singapore's industrialization are effective policies and programs which dealt with the social, political and economic circumstances that have presented themselves, planned and unplanned, along the way. The juxtaposition of policies and programs with the dynamic external environment that has characterized Singapore's industrial development provides valuable lessons on land resource management which deserves more attention than has been accorded. The array of issues related to management of industrial land resource is extensive, and policies which address these issues have wide spread ramifications and long term consequences. This implies that a coherent framework for industrial land policy is both necessary and, ns evident in the case of Singapore, can be achieved. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine, within Singapore context, the rationale and the framework of ILP. The historical case study method is used to piece together internal and external factors, and process of implementation to 'derive' the ILP framework. In this study, the definition of ILP is considered to be more holistic than land-use planning. It is essentially a set of policies and programs directed at the development of physical industrial infrastructure to meet specific economic goals on the national level. Unlike larger and more developed countries, there is no basis for the use of ILP to achieve regional balance of jobs and output for a city-state like Singapore. The account of Singapore's industrialization oilers some other reasons. Of these, resource constraints and rapid social, economic and political changes are more fundamental. The functional components and the process of implementation of ILP are encapsulated in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 respectively. ILP implementation is depicted at two levels. The first level examines the process of economic and physical planning and implementation. These are parallel activities which are inter-related and broad based. The second level investigates two aspects of industrial land management - land banking and public and private industrial facility provision. Overall, the present framework is efficient, dynamic and coherent. This is largely attributed to specialization and integration of agencies, as well as strong commitment to national economic goals and emphasis on feedback. However, some missing linkages and inappropriate choice of instruments in certain areas may be identified. The recommendations of the study include strengthening the linkages between economic promotion and facility provision and increasing market presence on the supply side. Specifically, these include incorporation of private shares in wholly-owned subsidiaries of state agencies, joint-ventures with private developers for industrial park development, direct negotiation for sale of state land and the release of more 'white' sites for industrial purposes. Finally, the lessons learnt from this study reaffirm the value of a coherent framework for ILP in Singapore. The uniqueness of Singapore's industrial experience does not invalidate its usefulness as a model for other countries. For Singapore, the rationale for ILP has not diminished with time. On the contrary, in view of the growing complexity of the industrial milieu, the case for state intervention is even stronger than before, albeit, conducted with some difference in the future.