Planning centrality, market instruments: Governing Chinese urban transformation under state entrepreneurialism

Abstract

This article defines the key parameters of 'state entrepreneurialism' as a governance form that combines planning centrality and market instruments, and interprets how these two seemingly contradictory tendencies are made coherent in the political economic structures of post-reform China. Through examining urban regeneration programmes (in particular 'three olds regeneration', sanjiu gaizao), the development of suburban new towns and the reconstruction of the countryside, the article details institutional configurations that make the Chinese case different from a neoliberal growth machine. The contradiction of these tendencies gives room to urban residents and migrants to develop their agencies and their own spaces, and creates informalities in Chinese urban transformation.

The State as Both Regulator and Player: The Politics of Transfer of Development Rights in China

“…Instead, it is about leveraging the market to compensate for allocation deficits in a command-and-control regime. Marketization therefore contributes to the consolidation of state authority (Wu, 2018;Yeh et al, 2015). Given the current context of state-controlled TDR, we concur with other scholars (see, for example, Wu et al, 2007;Xu, 2018) that it is an oversimplification to view China's TDR as an ill-developed market and thus call for the clarification of property rights and the introduction of market players.…”

In‐Situ Marginalisation: Social Impact of Chinese Mega‐Projects

“…Shih () finds that some villages were gradually surrounded by industrial developments which adversely affected residents’ health over time. Our study argues that the cause of in‐situ marginalisation is strongly associated with China’s urban governance approach, which Wu () describes as state entrepreneurialism. The next section provides a definition of state entrepreneurialism and explains how it has produced in‐situ marginalisation.…”

“…Whilst the dominant discourse on mega projects is mostly based on empirical studies from the global North, mega projects have also proliferated in Asian countries (Shatkin ; Sonn et al ) whereby China has emerged as a hotbed for large‐scale urban projects (Jiang et al ; Li and Chiu ; Shen and Wu ; Wu and Waley ). However, increasingly more studies express doubt that the concept of neoliberalisation is suited to explain the Chinese urban development process (Wu ; Wu and Phelps ). In China, large‐scale displacement and forced evictions from mega developments such as the Shanghai Expo or the Beijing 2008 Olympic games continue to be of great concern (Shin ; Zhang ).…”

“…An increasing number of studies have highlighted the dominant role of the state in defining China’s urban governance (Jiang et al ; Li and Chiu ; Shatkin ; Wu ). Drawing on the concept of “state entrepreneurialism”, Wu (:1385) argues that China’s “local development and politics may not be limited to the growth machine and machine politics”.…”

“…We contend that the theoretical framework of neoliberalisation whereby mega projects mainly serve to garner financial profits through land revalorisation (Brenner and Theodore ; Swyngedouw et al ; Tarazona Vento ) cannot explain the social problems found in Lingang. Instead, we contend that the concept of “state entrepreneurialism”, which emphasises the role of mega projects as a means to realise the state’s strategic and political objectives (Wu ; Wu and Phelps ), has greater purchase in understanding what has led to the under‐researched phenomenon of in‐situ marginalisation in China.…”