The Meaning of “Private Governance” in Urban China: Researching Residents’ Preferences and Satisfaction

Tingting Lu,Fangzhu Zhang,Fulong Wu

doi:10.1080/08111146.2019.1578955

Tingting Lu, Fangzhu Zhang + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2019.1578955

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe existing literature suggests that gated communities and master-planned estates represent a form of private governance. They are a response to the state’s retreat from providing public goods. In post-reform China, newer residential development projects also take the form of gated neighbourhoods. To what extent do these neighbourhoods represent a new form of “private governance”? Results from the perspective of residents reveal that the meaning of “private governance” refers to services delivered by private organisations rather than self-governance. Gated neighbourhoods in urban China are a response to the state’s intention to retreat from serviced land provision while retaining neighbourhood control.

Highlights

Since the 1990s, gated residential neighbourhoods have been widely developed in different regions, reflecting shifts towards neoliberal modes of urban governance (Blakely and Snyder 1997, Chen and Webster 2005, Glasze et al 2005, Roitman 2005, Cséfalvay 2011, Pow 2011), and representing a form of private governance (McKenzie 1994)
Burgeoning research has concentrated on gated residential neighbourhoods, ranging from masterplanned estates in Australia (McGuirk and Dowling 2007), gated communities in North America (Low 2003, Kirby 2008) and Europe (Webster 2002, Raposo 2006, Cséfalvay 2011, Hirt 2012), enclaves for the global elite in Singapore (Pow 2011), to porous space in the Philippines (Fauveaud 2016)
Private governance has been encouraged as an innovative approach for local neighbourhoods to navigate urban changes since the end of the twentieth century (Imrie and Raco 1999)

Summary

Introduction

Since the 1990s, gated residential neighbourhoods have been widely developed in different regions, reflecting shifts towards neoliberal modes of urban governance (Blakely and Snyder 1997, Chen and Webster 2005, Glasze et al 2005, Roitman 2005, Cséfalvay 2011, Pow 2011), and representing a form of private governance (McKenzie 1994). One reason is that the weakness of the private sector, for example, civic organisations, in China has restricted residents’ choices (Read 2012, Fu and Lin 2013); another reason is that housing privatisation is designed to secure greater household privacy under state hegemony for the emerging middle class, as indicated by Pow’s (2009) research in Shanghai, rather than giving residents choices regarding neighbourhood governance. Under such circumstances, a more nuanced understanding of the meaning of “private governance” in urban China is worth considering. Further discussions of the meaning of “private governance” in urban China and a conclusion are provided

The Current Debate on Private Governance

The Emergence of “Private Governance” in Post-Reform China

Data and Methods

Findings

Conclusion