Community Governance and Pastorship in Shanghai: A Case Study of Luwan District

Abstract

The current literature on Chinese urban studies and governmentality undertheorises the reform of local governance with regard to the activation and empowerment of community in China. Inspired by Dean’s and Sigley’s discussions of non-liberal or ‘Chinese governmentality’, this paper seeks to understand and conceptualise one of China’s most noted examples of community development, the so-called Shanghai model, using the Foucauldian concept of pastorship. Understood here as distinct from the notion of ‘advanced liberal’ governmentality, it is argued that Shanghai’s community governance depends on the governing concepts and technologies associated with the socio-political construction of the ‘pastoral’ relationship between local Party leaders and citizens. By focusing on the case study of Luwan district and one of its grass-roots community organisations (Wuliqiao Street Office), this paper will demonstrate the characteristics, institutionalisation and limitations of, pastoral governance.

Community Disaster Resilience in the COVID-19 Outbreak: Insights from Shanghai’s Experience in China

“…50 Although government organizations remain in charge of community governance, existing literature shows that, in China's developed cities, such as Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shenyang, and Shanghai, community governance has focused on the pursuit of good governance, highlighting a more efficient and participatory pattern with various stakeholders involved. [51][52][53] As previously mentioned, community capacity depends on collaboration, which means that agencies, organizations, neighborhood groups, and public human service systems must work together to plan strategically and, critically, must coordinate their efforts. 8 Due to the unique system of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the party committee at the grassroots level retains the core role of being responsible for risk control and resource allocation in the community.…”

The Resilient Bond With Zhujiajiao: (Re)making Community in a Chinese Tourism Town

“…Specifically, ‘community’ was adopted by the government to play a key administrative role at the grass roots level through policy programmes such as ‘community construction’ and ‘community service’ (Shieh and Friedmann, 2008). As a result, Western literature about community in contemporary China has been mainly about strategies of urban governance (Bray, 2006; Lin and Kuo, 2013) or the power dynamic between community members and the state (Heberer and Göbel, 2011; Tang, 2015). However, this article suggests that the concept of community requires more nuanced understandings beyond viewing it as a form of self-governance or governmental intervention.…”

Mobilising the dispositive: Exploring the role of dockless public bike sharing in transforming urban governance in Shanghai

“…This situation, as a cycling policy expert explained in interview, came about because local leaders saw it as an opportunity to articulate an ethic of care for their citizens: '[they] decide to spend money on local… people to give them this kind welfare… This guides by a power of will, that is to say, I set up this thing and give it free by my will, not a market operation... or professional decision' This leader-led implementation refers to Lin and Kuo's (2013) concept of territorialised 'pastorship' of governing social welfare and communities. In this pastoral relationship of governance, the governors gain legitimacy from their people not necessarily by legal or professional administration, but by demonstrating his/her kindness or political rightnessrighteousness, like a pastor demonstrating benevolence and truth to his flock (Lin & Kuo, 2013). However, this self-governing territorialised 'pastorship' causes a politicaleconomic fragmentation and unevenness of PBSS 1.0 because local leaders want to take credit for it (in order to be recognized as benevolent and progressive), and therefore ensure it mainly operates within their territory.…”