Search

Copyright of Journal of Planning Education & Research is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Rural revitalization calls for a new type of urban–rural relations in urbanizing China. Although the importance of urban–rural dichotomy has received increasing attention by scholars interested in studying urban development and governance in contemporary China, their interpretations about the connection between urban and rural areas remain fragmented and ambiguous. This article seeks to trace the origin of the Chinese city and its relations with the countryside in the imperial era. It generates a more complete understanding of the rural–urban relationship in the traditional Chinese society and to appeal for a more rounded research agenda for the Chinese urbanization based on a sound historical perspective. The findings of this study explain why and how the traditional urban–rural continuum has disappeared in contemporary China, and identifies the key lessons and wisdoms that we can borrow from the imperial era when we come to tackle the present urban–rural development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Grassroots village organizations are crucial for understanding the interplay between the decentralization of state power and growing income inequality in periurban China. Based on a study of 380 shareholding cooperatives and 43 administrative villages in Guangdong, we examine how state policy has interacted with village institutions to determine the management and distribution of collective income among villagers. Our findings suggest that the decentralization of power over collective asset management and distribution to these grassroots organizations did not cause a retreat in the state's capacity for strategic intervention and local regulatory controls. Rather, the state made continued attempts to regain power over village governance through institutional formalization. Such interventions enhanced the access of villagers to state welfare. However, they worsened income disparities among villagers by undermining the village redistributive mechanism based on informal rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]