Speaker
Description
In the context of globalisation, the city regions have progressively supplanted individual cities as the primary spatial unit for global competition (Zhang and Zhao,2023). Consequently, regional governance and transboundary planning issues have emerged as pivotal considerations in regional spatial research (Purkarthofer, Humer and Mäntysalo,2021). The New Regionalism Theory underscores the significance of multi-level governance and integrated planning (Wheeler,2002), offering a robust analytical tool for examining city-region governance and planning. This research will undertake a comparative analysis of city-region governance and planning practices in England and China, representing developed and developing countries, respectively. As a pioneer in modern urban planning, England possesses a wealth of experience in city region governance and planning. Conversely, with a more recent initiation into urban and regional planning, China has diligently assimilated global best practices, including those from England, to establish a distinct city region governance and planning system tailored to its institutional context.
The research methodology employed in this article encompasses a comprehensive review of relevant literature, document analysis, and interviews. The analytical framework is based on the "Actor-Instrument-Structure" paradigm (Yan and Growe,2022). Firstly, the study will provide a concise overview of the historical development of city region governance and planning in England and China. Secondly, it will delineate the general characteristics of contemporary governance practices, emphasizing Combined Authority governance in England and multilevel governance in China. Thirdly, the empirical analysis, the most essential part of this paper, will be conducted through case studies focusing on the Liverpool city region in England and the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle in China. This empirical exploration will reveal the characteristics of city region governance and the role of planning at three levels: regional, local, and sub-regional, as well as three dimensions: actors, instruments, and structures.
The findings indicate a discernible degree of governance theoretical and planning system diffusion between England and China, notwithstanding the existence of unique Chinese characteristics. Specifically, 1) Regarding the ‘Actors’, England and China incorporate the central government, local governments, the private economic sector, social groups, etc, at different levels. However, at the regional level, England is characterized by a formally established statutory Combined Authority. In contrast, China mainly adopts the "Party and Government Leadership Group-Officer- Specialized Working Groups" system, which is semi-formal. 2) Regarding the ‘Instruments’, England and China employ a repertoire of legal, administrative, and market-oriented means. Examples include the devolution order in England and collaborative legislation in China regarding legal means, the formulation of a Spatial Development Strategy and local plans in England, and the requisite establishment of a regional spatial plan (a sector plan within China's formal planning system) and local spatial plans in China regarding administrative means. Despite these shared features, substantial disparities persist. Notably, in the Chinese context, a distinctive facet is a specialized spatial plan for transboundary areas at the sub-regional level, constituting a statutory sector plan within the planning system. For market instruments, England has set up Local Enterprise Partnerships, and China has set up investment and development companies at the city-region level. 3) Regarding the ‘Structure’, England exhibits a multi-layered and networked governance model with a bias toward flat structures. In contrast, while also multi-layered and networked, China's city region governance model entails substantial private sector and social organizations involvement. However, governmental entities at various levels continue to dominate governance at the city-region level.
References
[1] ZHANG Yishuai, ZHAO Min. (2023) ‘Spatial Delineation, Characteristics Analysis, and Classification of China's Metropolitan Regions’, Urban Planning Forum, 2(02):67-76.DOI:10.16361/j.upf.202302009.
[2] Eva Purkarthofer, Alois Humer & Raine Mäntysalo. (2021) ‘Regional planning: an arena of interests, institutions and relations’, Regional Studies, 55(5), 773-777, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2021.1875128
[3] Stephen M. Wheeler. (2002) The New Regionalism: Key Characteristics of an Emerging Movement, Journal of the American Planning Association, 68:3, 267-278, DOI: 10.1080/01944360208976272
[4] Yan, Simin, and Anna Growe. (2022) ‘Regional Planning, Land-Use Management, and Governance in German Metropolitan Regions—The Case of Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region’, Land, 11(11): 2088. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112088
| Keywords | Keywords: City region, Multi-level governance, Transboundary planning, England, China |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
