Read/Search this Article
In contemporary cities in developing countries, many urban planning and urban development projects have been carried out with the aim of coping with the various problems created by rapid urbanization. Those projects, in many instances, utilize globalized knowledge and technologies through international development cooperation programs. How, then, are that knowledge and those technologies transformed or adjusted in their course towards becoming actually realized in specific cities? This paper aims to ethnographically describe and analyze a bus-interchange construction project in Hanoi, Vietnam, by focusing upon the transformative process of the concepts introduced by foreign experts in the context of specific urban conditions and the administrative decision-making process. Especially, the analysis pays close attention to the complicated situation existing among the technology, politics, and separate visions, as well as the (difficult) attempts by relevant actors to articulate them. The project was conducted mainly by the staff of the UT Center (under the Hanoi Department of Transport), along with foreign and domestic experts. It was part of the so-called "Public Mobility project," an international project based on cooperation with two European cities, with the aim of improving the public transportation system of Hanoi. After selecting the Gam Can area as the site of construction, where the dike road and the railway bridge intersect and traffic congestion was heavy, the project team constructed the design plan paying attention to the existing traffic conditions of the area and the future public transportation systems (the "South option"). It was innovative in constructing a big traffic island (i.e., a big roundabout) to regulate traffic flows and create an urban public space, as well as in making transfers between bus lines more efficient and comfortable. The plan had once been approved by the authorities, but was drastically altered to the "North option," the basic design of which had also been created by the project team but not selected, after the appointment of a new director of Hanoi's Department of Transport. On closer observation, the process of changing the interchange design was not simply described as some purely political move. The division between political intentions and technical rationality was blurred; or rather, such boundaries were things that the relevant actors tried to articulate to maneuver within uncertain situations. Many anthropological studies of development or policy have described such tactical social interactions that take place during the negotiation process over meanings of plans or roles of relevant parties. But, contrasting with such studies, which mainly analyze the relations between social groups, this case requires inquiry into the more micro processes at work in an organizational context embedded in the administrative structure. Based on my observations of the responses of the Public Mobility project team to the pressure from the new director to change the design, this paper argues that this process was similar to technical controversies analyzed by scholars of science studies, rather than social controversies analyzed in most anthropological literature. One of the characteristics of technical controversies is its involutional mechanism into detailed aspects of the artifacts in question. In other words, the scale of perspective was increasingly reduced in the course of technical controversies. However, the design process by the project team leading into the South option went in the other direction, by relating the concept of interchange with the surrounding elements, including a future Metro station. Here, the enlargement of the scale of perspective was at work; that is to say, the interchange evolved containing human and traffic flows within it. By contrast, the argument of the new director was based on cutting off such relations and considered the effect of the interchange upon traffic flows surrounding it as a problem. Therefore, in that situation of technical controversy, the project team tried to defend their perspective. But, at the same time, the scaling down of perspective triggered by the controversy elicited some weak points of the South option for the team as well. It seemed to be hard to decide unequivocally which perspective was "technically" superior to the other. In that uncertain situation -where distinctions between technology, politics and vision were blurred- rhetorical narratives were used by the foreign experts attempting to articulate boundaries, first between technology and politics, then later between technicalities and visions, which seemed to be not only directed at the new director, but also sent some instructive messages to the other members of the project team. Finally, however, the design was changed to the North option in spite of those attempts, although we should not necessarily conclude that the project failed to achieve its intended effects. In retrospect, we might interpret the Hanoi case as a confrontation between the two frames, namely, the public and private transport frames. But, such a conceptualization would overlook several asymmetric mechanisms in the process of the controversy that were not expanded socially, but contracted technically. Here, we can discern the difficulty of recasting issues as the selection of an appropriate vision for the future when the situation was once established as a technical controversy. The foreign experts of the project supported the South option with their "technical vision," in which technology and vision were hard to separate. On the other hand, the new director and his allies, who supported the North option, had no necessity to invoke a comparable vision for their claim: hence the asymmetry or disproportion in the technical controversy within the administrative structure. An urban artifact can have multiple meanings by being connected with diverse things, either material or ideal. One of the crucial points for analyzing urban dynamisms is the changing way that it creates relations and is cut off from them, and the institutional as well as situational forces surrounding such elasticity. This paper suggests that we should not overlook the asymmetric mechanism accompanying the administrative forces, where different visions and social logics are made to be invisible rather than to be apparent, such as in socially-problematized projects, although we should also explore the variability of the administrative forces themselves in a changing urban society.