This paper takes issue with the desakota model developed by Terry McGee by elucidating the illegal land use and construction in the rural–urban transition zone in China, with the additional case study of Tianhe Village in Guangzhou City. The paper emphasises the need to examine the geography of illegal activities along the approach of geographies of difference. It has shown that illegal land use and construction is prevalent in rural China. In rural areas where cultivated land has been converted to non‐agricultural purposes, peasants are left with no alternative but to use land and construct buildings illegally. Some have increased their income by leasing out flats to migrant workers, whereas others have not been able to do this. This study has revealed that underneath the positive and integrative picture portrayed by the desakota model is its negative and disintegrative counterpart. Illegal land use and construction is one such example. Unless we incorporate both into our studies, we will not be able to comprehend the urban morphology of Chinese city regions in the new millennium.

This article reviews the literature on urban planning in China. The literature has traditionally viewed urban planning in terms of changing styles over time. It was found wanting both methodologically and theoretically. Methodologically, it has failed to situate the various styles of governmental practices. Theoretically, the socialist state has been uniformly conceptualized as homogeneous and monolithic. This has led to the adoption of a technorational concept of urban planning, which, in turn, has privileged the instrumental nature of urban planning knowledge. Finally, the literature has conveyed the myth that urban planing is a distinctive profession. In conclusion, the article suggests that all the above problems of the literature can be improved by adopting Foucault’s concept of governmentality, which means that urban planning in China must be situated in political rationality and understood as a technology of government.

Beyond Gentrification: Hegemonic Redevelopment in Hong Kong wing-shing tang abstractLike other concepts, gentrification must be situated in the socio-historical context in which it was produced. Since its coinage the concept has travelled widely, yet it has been applied unevenly, and in some cases uncritically, in various locations now including Asian cities. This essay challenges the application of the concept of gentrification to Hong Kong, as attempted by an article previously published in this journal. It responds through two main lines of inquiry. First, it demonstrates how the absence of historical, geographical and socio-political context weakens the basis for a critical urban geography. Second, in constructing a historical baseline, this essay proposes to conceive urban redevelopment through hegemony-cum-alienation, which is a more complicated process than displacement of the working class. Alienated hegemonic redevelopment perpetuates systemic reproduction and associated power politics, yet with the primary source of contradiction residing in landed and property relations. Conclusions suggest the urgency of developing new approaches instead of relying on more empirical studies as evidence for an already over-developed concept. Analysis of the Hong Kong case suggests how the spent concept of gentrification could be superseded by alternatives.

No abstract

No abstract