IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v72y2018icp241-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional uncertainty, fragmented urbanization and spatial lock-in of the peri-urban area of China: A case of industrial land redevelopment in Panyu

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Boyi
  • Tian, Li
  • Yao, Zhihao

Abstract

Institutional arrangements can exert significant impact on land use and the spatial pattern for a region. Since the reform opening, the Pearl River Delta (PRD) area of China has witnessed an explosive amount of bottom-up rural industrialization. This situation has given rise to a fragmented urbanized landscape in peri-urban areas. In 2009 the Guangdong government initiated a comprehensive urban and rural redevelopment plan known as the Three-Renewal Policy. This paper begins with an analysis of the double-track land system and their impact on fragmented urbanization in peri-urban areas. Taking a typical peri-urban area such as the Panyu district of Guangzhou as a case study, this paper demonstrates the industrial land redevelopment practice created by the Three-Renewal Policy. The paper argues that the existing fragmented land use pattern in Panyu has been somewhat locked in, and the redevelopment of rural industrial land has been difficult due to historical institutional uncertainty and path dependency. The uncertainty caused by volatile redevelopment policies, absence of trust between local government and villagers, long-time reliance of villages on land leasing income, and high transaction costs to achieve consensus among villages serve as key barriers to redevelopment. These problems have led to a prolonged redevelopment process and low participation of villages. The results suggest that further institutional change and more collaboration among various parties are necessary to overcome the current barriers of spatial lock-in to push forward the redevelopment of collective industrial land.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Boyi & Tian, Li & Yao, Zhihao, 2018. "Institutional uncertainty, fragmented urbanization and spatial lock-in of the peri-urban area of China: A case of industrial land redevelopment in Panyu," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 241-249.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:241-249
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717310931
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    2. Geoffrey Meen & Christian Nygaard, 2011. "Local Housing Supply and the Impact of History and Geography," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(14), pages 3107-3124, November.
    3. Douglass C. North, 1990. "A Transaction Cost Theory of Politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(4), pages 355-367, October.
    4. Libecap, Gary D., 1986. "Property rights in economic history: Implications for research," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 227-252, July.
    5. Nitsch, Volker, 2003. "Does history matter for urban primacy? The case of Vienna," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 401-418, July.
    6. Ron Martin, 2009. "Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0910, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2009.
    7. Tanya Chavdarova, 2014. "Risky Businesses? Young People in Informal Self-Employment in Sofia," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 2060-2077, November.
    8. Him Chung & Su-Hong Zhou, 2011. "Planning for Plural Groups? Villages-in-the-city Redevelopment in Guangzhou City, China," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 333-353.
    9. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hu, Yingjie & Lu, Bin & Wu, Jiayu, 2019. "Value capture in industrial land renewal under the public leasehold system: A policy comparison in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 59-69.
    2. Yunfei Peng & Fangling Yang & Lingwei Zhu & Ruru Li & Chao Wu & Deng Chen, 2021. "Comparative Analysis of the Factors Influencing Land Use Change for Emerging Industry and Traditional Industry: A Case Study of Shenzhen City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Jinkun Yang & Zhouqian He & Haitao Ma, 2022. "Comparison of Collective-Led and State-Led Land Development in China from the Perspective of Institutional Arrangements: The Case of Guangzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Jinlong Gao & Zhixuan Wu & Jianglong Chen & Wen Chen, 2020. "Beyond the bid‐rent: Two tales of land use transition in contemporary China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 1336-1356, September.
    5. Jin Xie & Yinying Cai & Hang Tang & Yuanqin Liao, 2020. "Housing Wealth Status and Informal Accumulation of Rural Villages at the Rural-Urban Fringe in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Xianpu Xu & Shan Li, 2022. "Neighbor-Companion or Neighbor-Beggar? Estimating the Spatial Spillover Effects of Fiscal Decentralization on China’s Carbon Emissions Based on Spatial Econometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-26, August.
    7. Zhang, Xianchun & Sun, Yi, 2019. "Investigating institutional integration in the contexts of Chinese city-regionalization: Evidence from Shenzhen–Dongguan–Huizhou," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Wu, Haitao & Hao, Yu & Weng, Jia-Hsi, 2019. "How does energy consumption affect China's urbanization? New evidence from dynamic threshold panel models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 24-38.
    9. Fan Yang & Peihong Tao & Xiao Cai & Jiayin Wang, 2022. "Transformation for Feature Upgrades or Higher Property Prices: Evidence from Industrial Land Regeneration in Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Shiran Zhang & Jiaping Yang & Changdong Ye & Weixuan Chen & Yixuan Li, 2023. "Sustainable Development of Industrial Renovation: Renovation Paths of Village-Level Industrial Parks in Pearl River Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, June.
    11. Sunardi Sunardi & Miranti Ariyani & Susanti Withaningsih & Asep Priyatna Darma & Kusnadi Wikarta & Parikesit Parikesit & Mohd Khairul Amri Kamarudin & Oekan S. Abdoellah, 2021. "Peri-urbanization and sustainability of a groundwater resource," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 8394-8404, June.
    12. Lai, Yani & Tang, Bosin & Chen, Xiangsheng & Zheng, Xian, 2021. "Spatial determinants of land redevelopment in the urban renewal processes in Shenzhen, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Roberta Fontan Pereira Galvão & Andrea Yuri Flores Urushima & Shoichiro Hara & Wil De Jong, 2020. "Analysis of Land Transition Features and Mechanisms in Peripheral Areas of Kyoto (1950–1960)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-22, June.
    14. Yuan, Dinghuan & Yau, Yung & Bao, Haijun & Lin, Wenyi, 2020. "A Framework for Understanding the Institutional Arrangements of Urban Village Redevelopment Projects in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Yani Lai & Lin Jiang & Xiaoxiao Xu, 2021. "Exploring Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Urban Village Redevelopment: The Case of Shenzhen, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, September.
    16. Fang He & Wendong Wu & Taozhi Zhuang & Yuan Yi, 2019. "Exploring the Diverse Expectations of Stakeholders in Industrial Land Redevelopment Projects in China: The Case of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-27, August.
    17. Tong, De & Yuan, Yuxi & Wang, Xiaoguang, 2021. "The coupled relationships between land development and land ownership at China’s urban fringe: A structural equation modeling approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    18. Yao Luo & Chen Li & Junjun Zhi & Qun Wu & Jiajing Yao, 2022. "Policy Innovation of Life Cycle Management of Industrial Land Supply in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Gaofeng Xu & Jian Liu, 2023. "Institutional Diversity or Isomorphism? Research on the Evolution of Collective-Owned Construction Land Marketization Reform since the 1990s—The Case of Shunde and Wujiang, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791.
    2. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Mega-projects’ cost performance and lock-in: problems and solutions," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 15, pages 333-355, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Foxon, Timothy J. & Pearson, Peter J.G. & Arapostathis, Stathis & Carlsson-Hyslop, Anna & Thornton, Judith, 2013. "Branching points for transition pathways: assessing responses of actors to challenges on pathways to a low carbon future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 146-158.
    4. Megan Hansen & Randy T. Simmons & Ryan M. Yonk, 2016. "The Regulatory Noose: Logan City’s Adventures in Micro-Hydropower," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Frank, Joshua, 2005. "Technological lock-in, positive institutional feedback, and research on laboratory animals," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 557-575, December.
    6. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Battke, Benedikt & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Do deployment policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—A simulation of investment decisions in technologies with multiple applications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1965-1983.
    7. Edward B. Barbier, 2013. "Is a global crisis required to prevent climate change? A historical–institutional perspective," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 28, pages 598-614, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Hannon, Matthew J. & Foxon, Timothy J. & Gale, William F., 2013. "The co-evolutionary relationship between Energy Service Companies and the UK energy system: Implications for a low-carbon transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1031-1045.
    9. Esther Pittroff, 2016. "Whistle-blowing regulation in different corporate governance systems: an analysis of the regulation approaches from the view of path dependence theory," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 20(4), pages 703-727, December.
    10. Luigi Marengo & Paolo Zeppini, 2016. "The arrival of the new," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 171-194, March.
    11. Choi, Chang Gyu & Lee, Sugie & Kim, Heungsoon & Seong, Eun Yeong, 2019. "Critical junctures and path dependence in urban planning and housing policy: A review of greenbelts and New Towns in Korea’s Seoul metropolitan area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 195-204.
    12. Christian Nygaard & Geoffrey Meen, 2013. "The Distribution of London Residential Property Prices and the Role of Spatial Lock-in," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(12), pages 2535-2552, September.
    13. Pamela Jeziorska-Biel & Katarzyna Leśniewska-Napierała & Konrad Czapiewski, 2021. "(Circular) Path Dependence—The Role of Vineyards in Land Use, Society and Regional Development—The Case of Lubuskie Region (Poland)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Ron Martin, 2010. "Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography—Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, January.
    15. Jan Fagerberg & David C Mowery & Bart Verspagen, 2009. "The evolution of Norway's national innovation system," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(6), pages 431-444, July.
    16. Foxon, Timothy J., 2011. "A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2258-2267.
    17. Timothy J. Foxon, 2014. "Technological lock-in and the role of innovation," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 20, pages 304-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Björn Toelstede, 2019. "How path-creating mechanisms and structural lock-ins make societies drift from democracy to authoritarianism," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(2), pages 233-262, May.
    19. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett & Darryl S L Jarvis & M Ramesh, 2022. "Long-term policy impacts of the coronavirus: normalization, adaptation, and acceleration in the post-COVID state [Racial, economic, and health inequality and COVID-19 infection in the United States," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    20. EEA Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2018. "‘Time to move on’ or ‘taking more time’? How disregarding multiple perspectives on time can increase policy-making conflict," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 340-356, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:241-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.