Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T03:18:51.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Politics of Scale, Bargaining Power and Its Spatial Impacts: Planning for Intercity Railways in the Pearl River Delta, China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2020

Mengmeng Zhang Open the ORCID record for Mengmeng Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
Jiang Xu Open the ORCID record for Jiang Xu [Opens in a new window]  and
Calvin King Lam Chung Open the ORCID record for Calvin King Lam Chung [Opens in a new window]
Mengmeng Zhang*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Jiang Xu
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Email: jiangxu@cuhk.edu.hk.
Calvin King Lam Chung
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Email: calvin.chung@cuhk.edu.hk
*
Email: mmzhang58@gmail.com (corresponding author).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent proliferation of China's railways has posed challenges to the dominance of the national-level railway authority on railway development. Since the 2000s, the planning of new railways has evolved into a politics of scale in which actors across multiple scales of government have bargained over railway alignment and station siting for their respective interests. This politics is shaped by the uneven bargaining powers of the contending state agents over railway planning. Interscalar division of regulatory oversight over strategic resources for railway development enables state agents at some scales to bargain more successfully, whereas variations in administrative and economic standing further differentiate the interscalar bargaining powers of municipal governments. Different results of bargaining across scales for each city have produced, as intercity railway planning in the Pearl River Delta illustrates, significant intercity variations in average travel times to the stations for the new railways that these cities share. Owing to the peculiar scalar distribution of the costs and benefits of the new railways, municipal governments with greater bargaining power have, contrary to traditional wisdom, bargained for less accessibility to intercity railway stations.

摘要

摘要

近年来，中国铁路的扩张挑战了中央政府在铁路发展中的主导地位。自2000年代以来，新铁路线规划已经演变成为一种尺度政治，即不同层级的政府从各自的利益出发，就线路走向和车站选址进行博弈。受到铁路发展战略资源分配模式的影响，不同层级政府的博弈能力并不均等。某些层级博弈能力强，成功机会高。就市级政府而言，行政和经济实力的差异也导致了他们跨层级博弈能力的不同，博弈结果因而存在显著差别。珠江三角洲城际铁路规划的研究表明，居民到达车站的平均出行时间在不同城市间存在明显差异。由于新建铁路的成本和收益在不同层级政府间的特殊分配模式，具有更高博弈能力的市级政府更倾向于降低车站的可达性。这与传统认知大相径庭。

Keywords

politics of scalecentral–local relationslocal protectionismbargaining powerintercity railwayPearl River Delta尺度政治央地关系地方保护主义博弈能力城际铁路珠江三角洲
Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 243 , September 2020 , pp. 676 - 700
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS University of London 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brenner, Neil. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Calvin King Lam, and Xu, Jiang. 2016. “Scale as both material and discursive: a view through China's rescaling of urban planning system for environmental governance.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34(8), 1404–24.Google Scholar
CRC (China Railway Corporation). 2018. Zhongguo tielu zonggongsi 2017 niandu baogao (China Railway Corporation Annual Report 2017). Beijing: CRC.Google Scholar
CRSSDGC (China Railway Siyuan Survey and Design Group Corporation). 2009. “Zhujiang Sanjiaozhou diqu chengji guidao jiaotongwang guihua (2009 nian xiuding)” (Alignment plan for an intercity railway network in the Pearl River Delta region (revised in 2009)). Unpublished technical document.Google Scholar
Farrell, Kyle, and Westlund, Hans. 2018. “China's rapid urban ascent: an examination into the components of urban growth.” Asian Geographer 35(1), 85–106.Google Scholar
Jessop, Bob. 2002. The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kostka, Genia, and Nahm, Jonas. 2017. “Central–local relations: recentralization and environmental governance in China.” The China Quarterly 231, 567–582.Google Scholar
Lampton, David M. 1987. “Chinese politics: the bargaining treadmill.” Issues and Studies 23(3), 11–41.Google Scholar
Leitner, Helga, Sheppard, Eric and Sziarto, Kristin M.. 2008. “The spatialities of contentious politics.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Yi, and Wu, Fulong. 2012. “The transformation of regional governance in China: the rescaling of statehood.” Progress in Planning 78(2), 55–99.Google Scholar
Lieberthal, Kenneth. 2004. Governing China: From Revolution through Reform (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Lim, Kean Fan. 2018. “Researching state rescaling in China: methodological reflections.” Area Development and Policy 3(2), 170–184.Google Scholar
Lin, George C.S. 2007. “Chinese urbanism in question: state, society, and the reproduction of urban spaces.” Urban Geography 28(1), 7–29.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mertha, Andrew C. 2005. “China's ‘soft’ centralization: shifting tiao/kuai authority relations since 1998.” The China Quarterly 184, 791–810.Google Scholar
MOR (Ministry of Railways of the People's Republic of China). 2005. 2004 nian tiedao tongji gongbu (Statistical Bulletin on Railways 2004). Beijing: MOR.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1963. Community Power and Political Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Remick, Elizabeth J. 2002. “The significance of variation in local states: the case of twentieth century China.” Comparative Politics 34(4), 399–418.Google Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan B. 2006. “Who is powerful? Examining preferences and testing sources of bargaining strength at European intergovernmental conferences.” European Union Politics 7(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solinger, Dorothy J. 1996. “Despite decentralization: disadvantages, dependence and ongoing central power in the inland – the case of Wuhan.” The China Quarterly 145, 1–34.Google Scholar
Stokman, Frans, and Thomson, Robert. 2004. “Winners and losers in the European Union.” European Union Politics 5(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooij, Benjamin, Zhu, Qiaoqiao, Li, Na and Wang, Qiliang. 2017. “Centralizing trends and pollution law enforcement in China.” The China Quarterly 231, 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedeman, Andrew Hall. 2003. From Mao to Market: Rent Seeking, Local Protectionism, and Marketization in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Christine P.W. 2000. “Central–local relations revisited: the 1994 tax sharing reform and public expenditure management in China.” China Perspectives 31, 52–72.Google Scholar
Wu, Fulong. 2012. “China's eco-cities.” Geoforum 43(2), 169–171.Google Scholar
Xu, Jiang. 2008. “Governing city-regions in China: theoretical issues and perspectives for regional strategic planning.” Town Planning Review 79(2–3), 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Jiang. 2017. “Contentious space and politics of scale: planning for inter-city railway in China's mega-city regions.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 58(1), 57–73.Google Scholar
Xu, Jiang, and Yeh, Anthony G.O.. 2009. “Decoding urban land governance: state reconstruction in contemporary Chinese cities.” Urban Studies 46(3), 559–581.Google Scholar
Xu, Jiang, and Yeh, Anthony G.O.. 2013. “Interjurisdictional cooperation through bargaining: the case of the Guangzhou–Zhuhai railway in the Pearl River Delta, China.” The China Quarterly 213, 130–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Le-Yin. 1999. “Chinese central–provincial fiscal relationships, budgetary decline and the impact of the 1994 fiscal reform: an evaluation.” The China Quarterly 157, 115–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, Yongnian. 2007. De Facto Federalism in China: Reforms and Dynamics of Central–Local Relations. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar