Urban Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haila, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Studies, Vol. 37, No. 12, 2241-2256 (2000)
DOI: 10.1080/00420980020002797
© 2000 Urban Studies Journal Limited

Real Estate in Global Cities: Singapore and Hong Kong as Property States

Anne Haila

Department of Social Policy, PO Box 18 (Snellmaninkatu 10), 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, haila{at}helsinki.fi

Land and buildings form a significant portion of the national wealth in most economies, but in Singapore and Hong Kong, two small city-states where land is scarce, real estate has an important role in the functioning of the whole economy. Transnational property and development companies are important players in Singapore and Hong Kong. They form an important part of the local stock market and have enjoyed considerable growth while providing substantial revenue for governments and wealth for individuals. Because of this important role, the paper redescribes Singapore and Hong Kong as property states, not rent-seeking economies as the term rent is usually used in discussing Asian capitalism. The importance of real estate, an immobile asset, is not only surprising in a global era defined in part by the mobility of capital, but also because in Singapore and Hong Kong land is publicly owned. The paper attempts to explain the anomaly by analysing the land allocation mechanisms in Singapore and Hong Kong. In spite of their similarities, real estate markets in Singapore and Hong Kong exhibit several differences, linked in turn to different policy options for their management.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?