On the shifting spatial logics of socioeconomic regulation in post-1949 China

Abstract

This paper argues that new rounds of socioeconomic reforms in post-1949 China, each with their distinct geographical expressions, constitute a complex palimpsest rather than a straightforward process of historical succession. Drawing on a review of extensive empirical evidence, the paper complicates two dichotomous portrayals of socioeconomic 'transition' in China, namely centralization and egalitarianism (the Mao era) and decentralization and uneven development (the postMao era). It demonstrates these binaries cannot adequately explain the post-Mao economic 'miracle' when decentralized governance and uneven development also characterized the Mao era. The paper concludes that decentralized governance and uneven development are not antithetical to the quest for perpetual CPC rule; just as the Mao administration strategically blended centralizing mechanisms with instituted uneven development to consolidate its power, the post-Mao regimes are repurposing Mao-era regulatory techniques to achieve the same objective.Key words: China; regulation; socioeconomic transition; uneven development; decentralization; centralization ! 1! On the shifting spatial logics of socioeconomic regulation in post-1949 ChinaAbstract: This paper argues that new rounds of socioeconomic reforms in post-1949 China, each with their distinct geographical expressions, constitute a complex palimpsest rather than a straightforward process of historical succession. Drawing on a review of extensive empirical evidence, the paper complicates two dichotomous portrayals of socioeconomic 'transition' in China, namely centralization and egalitarianism (the Mao era) and decentralization and uneven development (the post-Mao era). It demonstrates these binaries cannot adequately explain the post-Mao economic 'miracle' when decentralized governance and uneven development also characterized the Mao era. The paper concludes that decentralized governance and uneven development are not antithetical to the quest for perpetual CPC rule; just as the Mao administration strategically blended centralizing mechanisms with instituted uneven development to consolidate its power, the post-Mao regimes are repurposing Mao-era regulatory techniques to achieve the same objective.

The Chongqing vs. Guangdong developmental ‘models’ in post-Mao China: regional and historical perspectives on the dynamics of socioeconomic change

“…Accompanying this series of state-driven industrial reconfiguration was strong GDP growth in the aftermath of the crisis (ref. 1949 1952 1957 1962 1965 1970 1975 1978 1980 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (1937)(1938)(1939)(1940)(1941)(1942)(1943)(1944)(1945) and the Chinese civil war (1945)(1946)(1947)(1948)(1949). Source: Authors' compilation.…”

“…For a full geo-historical discussion, see Lim (2012). 8 This was possible because the Mao administration had deliberately emphasized a decentralized mode of governance (see Lim, 2016).…”

New spatial readings of the state

“…It is argued that these binaries cannot adequately explain the post-Mao economic 'miracle' when decentralized governance and uneven development also characterized the Mao-era. Lim (2016) also concludes that just as the Mao administration strategically blended centralizing mechanisms with instituted uneven development to consolidate its power, the post-Mao regimes are repurposing Mao-era regulatory techniques to achieve the same objective.…”

“…As a result, the spatiality of the state is always variegated. Lim (2016) addresses the variegated nature of Chinese state space by examining the historical transformation of spatial logics of socio-economic reforms in post-1949 China. He argues that new rounds of socioeconomic reforms in post-1949 China constitutes a complex palimpsest rather than a straightforward process of historical succession.…”

Shanghai swings: The Hongqiao project and competitive urbanism in the Yangtze River Delta

“…Thus many of the characteristics of contemporary competitive Chinese urbanism owe their existence to a territorial political economy that pre-dates the reform period. This can be seen in the precise correlation between spatial territory and political administration, meaning that the centre can manipulate territorial administrations according to its changing requirements even as local administrations jockey for position vis-à-vis central government while retaining significant levels of autonomy (Lim, 2016). Not only is the Chinese edifice of territorial administration strictly hierarchical but it is also deeply conditioned by the dual urban-rural structure, which tends to make local governments predatory as they seek to swallow up surrounding rural administrations and attain higher ranking (Cartier, 2015).…”