Sarah Moser

A growing body of scholarship examines new cities being built from scratch that are developed and governed by the private sector. While this scholarship explores discourse and rhetoric, economic objectives, and some social and environmental impacts of new private cities, scholars to date have not taken a social or environmental justice approach to analysing new city projects. In this article we examine Forest City, a private city project being built on artificial islands off the coast of Malaysia by one of China’s largest property development companies, and its unique governance and claims to being ‘eco’, despite the significant environmental damage it has caused. Intended as a lush and exclusive gated enclave for Chinese nationals, Forest City is a productive case study through which to consider the consequences of a private city using the frameworks of social and environmental justice. We suggest more critical research that engages with social and environmental justice is needed on the many emerging projects branded as eco-cities of the future, a troubling claim that signals a growing normalisation of mega-scale privatisation and loose or absent regulations regarding social inclusivity and environmental protection.

This paper examines how Chinese transnational investments, as (re)framed in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), contribute to changes in urbanisation processes in Southeast Asia. On the ground, the BRI becomes contextualised and intersects with local and national development trajectories. The growing presence of Chinese actors in the region intensifies urban dynamics, especially in secondary cities and emerging urban sites, where the BRI is used as a lever for local internationalisation strategies. The heterogeneous nature of the links between the BRI and various large urban projects is demonstrated on the basis of case studies involving changing consortia of private and public Chinese and Southeast Asian actors. A regional approach allows us to identify connections and shared processes across Southeast Asian countries. It provides a historically grounded understanding of how the BRI incorporates long‐term interactions with China and more recent partnerships in Southeast Asian countries. The paper paves the way for a research agenda that contests the image of China as a monolithic actor implementing the BRI uniformly and consistently. Further analyses are needed to examine systems and networks of actors as well as the local urban politics that affect the BRI on the ground.