Literature on how cities get connected through networks of firms has been increasing in recent years. In particular, advanced producer service (APS) firms are being widely used to build intra-firm linkages to establish urban networks. In contrast to studies applying intra-firm networks, this study proposes an alternative strategy to build urban networks based on inter-firm service provision relationships during the process of initial public offering (IPO) in which APS firms – including securities, law firms and accounting firms – provide professional services for firms aiming to be publicly listed. Based on service provision connections between APS firms and their clients, this study provides fresh insights on urban networks in China. The results show that Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai strategically hold dominant positions within Chinese urban networks and they are the lead command and financial centres within the country. Particularly, Beijing has overwhelmingly more influence over other cities. The urban networks are embedded in China’s unique institutional context where market and state power together have shaped these networks. Since the urban network is built up based on real economic linkages, the findings might have further implications for policy-making and could contribute to ongoing debates regarding financial centres in China. It implies that connections between firms based on real economic activities can be an effective way to construct urban networks in future research.

This paper provides a heuristic framework to address issues about China’s ongoing urbanization in relation to the role of land and built environment as triggers for economic growth and to the increasing financialization of urban production. While a dominant field of literature highlights the interrelation between land and capital within a specific institutional setting between Central and local governments, it argues to include other key linkages between infrastructures, property development and finance to understand China’s recent exponential urban growth. It first places the current consequent local governments’ debt into perspective along with the evolution of financial circuits for urban infrastructures resulting from Central Government policy and regulation changes. Next, and in line with the real estate literature that highlights the key role of demand, it develops an original understanding of the financialization of urban production from the perspective of China’s property industry. Besides the role of homeownership policies since 1998 which boosted urban production based on use value, various ways of the transformation of property into financial assets have occurred. Chinese households as the main investors have not only been able to directly invest in housing and in non-housing by purchasing flats or commercial property but indirectly by increasing investments in special purpose vehicles such as trust-bank and funds finance and new kinds of investment platforms. In both cases, Central Government macropolicies, both stimulating and restricting from 2008–2016, have gone in hand with increasing financialization processes for local governments’ debt, urban infrastructure financing and real estate.

No abstract

c school of Humanities & social science, the chinese university of Hong Kong, shenzhen, china; d center for population and Development studies, renmin university of china, Beijing, china; e Key laboratory of Geographic Information science, ministry of education, east china normal university, shanghai, china