The Protean Environmental State in Dongguan: Reconceptualising the local state and ecological development in China

Abstract

How China copes with the deep-rooted challenges of improving its environmental quality raises questions about how economic and environmental tensions arise, whether they can be reconciled, and if so, how that might be achieved. In this paper, we critically examine evolving environmental governance challenges at the city level since it is here that much public policy delivery takes place. In major urban areas, problems of poor waste management, and air and water pollution have been experienced by citizens for some time. What is novel is that municipal governments now have some capacity to act to improve local environmental conditions. Moreover, municipal governments are being assisted, to some extent, in their rethinking of environment–economy relations by a central government policy agenda that is moving from an overwhelming preoccupation with development to taking on board welfare and environmental concerns. This is demanding a reconceptualisation of the local state from being one that is almost wholly development oriented to one that recognises environmental imperatives. The paper outlines key perspectives on the local state, particularly the ideas of a developmental, entrepreneurial and green state. It draws on these accounts to produce a more nuanced analysis of the multi-faceted nature of environmental governance. We call this the Protean Environmental State. To put these debates into a local context we analyse how one early industrialising city, Dongguan, is facing up to its polluted environment and seeking to steer its way towards a new, more ecologically friendly development pathway.

Governing people, governing places: advancing the Protean environmental state in China

“…Since the early 2010s, we have been involved in environmental and economic transition research in rural and urban China. Our field work has involved key person interviews with government and Party officials responsible for land development and environmental/resource, businesses and farmers (see for example, Chan & Flynn, 2018;Flynn et al, 2017;Flynn et al, 2016;Flynn & Yu, 2019;Xie et al, 2019b). Over time we have noticed that our key person interviews have become more circumspect and have rarely been one-to-one.…”

“…The developing Chinese state has pragmatically adapted and evolved its mode of environmental governance over time. We recognise this shift as being at the heart of another new approach called the 'Protean Environmental State' (PES) (Flynn & Yu, 2019) which draws on Harvey's (1989) focus on place and individuals. In China, subnational and local governments now have some capacity to act to improve local environmental conditions.…”

“…Moreover, municipal governments are being assisted, to some extent, in their rethinking of environment-economy relations by a central government policy agenda that is moving from an overwhelming preoccupation with development to taking on board welfare and environmental concerns. This is demanding a reconceptualisation of the local state from being one that is almost wholly development oriented to one that recognises environmental imperative The PES is therefore a 'more nuanced analysis of the multi-faceted nature of environmental governance' than that envisaged by Ecological Modernisation (Flynn & Yu, 2019).…”

“…The dominant social construction of the environment matters for our understanding of the environmental state (cf. Flynn & Yu, 2019). This is because, first, it is highly anthropocentric, and therefore likely to be supportive of economic development.…”

Rethinking China’s urban governance: The role of the state in neighbourhoods, cities and regions

“…Second, rapid urban growth requires the state to cope with environmental pressure and ecological crises (Chung et al, 2018; Flynn and Yu, 2020; Tian et al, 2015; Zhang and Wu, 2021). Examining the actual national and local politics of governing environmental sustainability reveals both top-down, low-carbon state control and bottom-up, middle-class desire for a better quality of urban living.…”