.png)
 |
| Landon Lauder Class of 2017 |
China’s cities
were and remain quite large. So what
exactly is “urban” in China? Professor Richard Dilworth from Drexel
University seemed to have a hint at an answer.
According to Dr.
Dilworth, much of China’s urban growth occurred in the past two decades and
rose somewhere between 10 to 20 percent. This amount of growth landed China at
260 people per square mile, whereas in the United States, excluding Alaska, we
are at a dwarfed 70 people per square mile.
China’s causes of
urbanization were, as Dr. Dilworth seemed to indicate, hard to pinpoint. This
is due to the Hukou system implemented by the government to entice citizens to
move towards urban centers as China increasingly turned towards manufacturing.
Additionally, once China began to open up to foreign private investment, there
were additional incentives and allure ascribed to China’s urban areas. These
intertwined factors of urbanization all told the story of internal migration,
much like what the United States experienced in the pre and post WWII era.
Yet, here is
where the similarities seem to end between the United States and China. This is
because the urban government structure in China is vastly different than the
United States. This should come at no surprise due to the centralized nature of
the Chinese government.
Dr. Dilworth
adapted a flowchart from a dissertation that basically broke down the Chinese
urban government structure down by each level. They are, in order from highest
to lowest: the central (main) government, provincial government, city
government, urban district government, street office, and then residence
committees. While this may look oddly familiar to the United States system of
urban governance, every step is controlled/managed by the central government.
For example, while “residence committees” are still technically part of the Chinese
central government, in the United States, we have neighborhood or homeowner’s
associations that are all private.
This central
structure has recently led China into quite a bit of a conundrum according to
Dr. Dilworth. This mostly has to do with what are called “ghost cities.”
Ghost cities are
cities that are planned and built in advance of a need or settlement and due to
economic or social forces, remain unoccupied, yet built. China apparently has
many of these failed investments. Not only that, but when cities are occupied,
local governments are responsible for providing up to 80% of public services alone.
When overinvestment in city planning is combined with the massive burden of
public services, cities accrue quite a large amount of debt very quickly. And
they have. According to Dr. Dilworth, most of China’s public debt is owned by
city governments.
But, if city
governments are owned by the central government, why the distinction in debt? Due
to the massive size and obligations of cities, some of them are their own
province when also accounting for their “suburban” areas as well. This is
certainly the case for Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin (and possibly others).
These cities/provinces are so large that they actually become viewed by the
central government as lobbyists to the central government and be awarded some
distinctions as such. Unfortunately, one of these distinctions is debt.
Returning to the
question of “What is ‘urban’ in China,” we may not have a good answer for it just
yet. It is arguably a recent movement in China, despite the presence of massive
urban centers before “urbanization.” Additionally, we may be viewing it with
too much of a Western urban bias, resulting is misaligned analysis.
Nevertheless, as my primary academic interest is urban affairs, this is a topic
I will increasingly turn towards once I arrive in China.
Landon Lauder is a junior McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville. He studies political science, psychology, and social change.