ABSTRACT
In one of his major contributions to the regional development literature, Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela, John Friedmann developed his core-periphery model (Friedmann 1966) which was subsequently elaborated in other publications including his book on urbanization and national development (Friedmann 1973). In the 1970s and 1980s, the concepts underlying the core-periphery model and the implied regional development strategies were adapted to the idea of growth poles/growth centres for regional development. Scholars and politicians alike embraced both the strategy of regional development and the terminology of growth poles. These concepts were successively adapted to development strategies based on export process zones or the now popular terminology of special economic zones. More recently, the centre-periphery concept was extended to the notion of ‘peripherality’ by researchers studying European regional and cross-border development (Copus 2001; Crone 2012). Several decades later, Friedmann, reflecting on development planning, commented that too many policy-makers thought just designating a region for growth was sufficient for development to take place. For Friedmann, development planning is a learning process, and who learns what is one of the crucial aspects of development planning (Friedmann 2009). Friedmann’s core-periphery model was conceived largely in a national
context. The term periphery was used in the sense of backward regions, or ones that are dependent on other regions. The periphery also refers to the region’s geographic location relative to the rest of the country. The more challenging cases are those that are dependent, underdeveloped and remote from the economic and population centres of the country. In this essay, the term periphery refers to regions geographically remote, economically dependent and lacking political autonomy. With few exceptions, the geographic periphery of one nation usually borders one or more neighbours. In such cases, the development of one nation’s periphery can have implications on the periphery of another by design or by circumstances. With few exceptions, these neighbouring regions are also dependent peripheries. Formulating development
policies for what might be called double-periphery is that much more demanding. This essay utilizes examples of cross-border regions to explore the complexities of double-periphery and the main elements that need to be considered for their development. The periphery is often imagined only as a recipient of development projects
and as a location of new public and private investments. Seldom are they involved as participants in formulating the projects. Friedmann (1973) noted the core regions tend to control decisions affecting the periphery (p.74). In countries as diverse as Myanmar, Russia and China, the development problems of the periphery are no less critical today than the period when Friedmann conducted his research in Venezuela (United Nations Development Programme Russia 2007; European Commission 2010). In many countries, regional inequalities have not diminished and nowhere is this more obvious than in China. After four decades of phenomenal economic growth, China is recognizing the deep divide between the economically advanced eastern region and parts of the central region, with the rest of the country. Since the 2000s, China has implemented ‘opening the West’ and ‘renewing the Northeast old Industrial Zones’ strategies to develop its periphery. China’s border economic cooperation zones (BECZ) are part of these development strategies. This essay compares the relevant characteristics of the periphery with the program’s premises to highlight the need for in-depth understanding of the periphery.
