This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
This comparative analysis illuminates the intricate dynamics of mega-urban developments in Southeast Asia. By exploring the outcomes of market-led and hybrid approaches, the study contributes to a nuanced understanding of how different governance models address coordination failures in large-scale urban schemes. The findings underscore the importance of tailored strategies that consider the unique socio-political landscapes of each city and country, encouraging a reevaluation of conventional urban development paradigms. They challenge conventional notions of urban development politics, suggesting that the success of growth regimes, particularly in achieving integrated and sustainable urban growth, varies based on the interplay of government and private sector dynamics. Approaches with robust private sector involvement may offer a more sustainable and desirable model for urban development in certain contexts than purely private sector approaches, especially when aiming for broader societal benefits beyond project boundaries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huynh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: