This paper examines the historial, political and economic forces behind the borderland integration efforts of Singapore and Hong Kong and the cross-interests at work between capital, state and community as integration proceeds. The comparison between Hong Kong and Singapore shows how colonialization created and maintained herders and how changes in interstate relations led to the closing and the reopening of border hinterlands. The pressures of economic restructuring in Hong Kong and Singapore in the 1980s also fed the borderland integration process. The analysis shows that there are significant differences between the two cases with respect to agency (state versus private capital initiatives) and the structure (bilateral versus a triangular arrangement) and direction (one-way versus two-way economic linkages) of integration. The semi-peripheral status of Hong Kong and Singapore mean that while borderland integration can be pursued as an initial strategy of economic 'exploitation' before moving to more distant shores, hegemony cannot be fully achieved because of small size and the absence of military and economic sanctions wielded by core countries. While borderland integration may benefit states and capital, the process is marked by a number of conflicts involving federal and provincial government and between sending and receiving communities. Copyright (C) 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.
