IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v9y2019i1p21-d211592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Governance Re-Arrangements: The One-Country One-System (OCOS) Versus One-Country Two-System (OCTS) Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Cheonjae Lee

    (Department of Land Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstrasse 21, 80333 München, Germany)

  • Walter Timo de Vries

    (Department of Land Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstrasse 21, 80333 München, Germany)

  • Uchendu Eugene Chigbu

    (Department of Land Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstrasse 21, 80333 München, Germany)

Abstract

This paper evaluates how land governance is re-arranged in a state re-structuring process. We compare the cases of the (re-)unification of China with Hong Kong with that of West and East Germany. The division and (re-)unification of these states mark different land governance re-arrangements. The China-Hong Kong (re-)unification relied on a one-country two-system (OCTS) approach, while in West and East Germany, (re-)unification resulted in the creation of a one-country one-system (OCOS). Our key interest is to identify similarities and differences in both cases and the implications of the differences. To support the analysis, we view land governance and (re-)unification from theoretical to practical lenses—structuration theory and the government tools-based approach. This supports the construction of a conceptual and analytical framework, with which we conduct an in-depth exploration to evaluate land governance re-arrangements. We find that the conceptual and analytical framework proves effective for countries, with entirely different land governance regimes, to decide whether to merge or adapt. We do not conclude which approaches for (re-)unification are appropriate to land governance re-arrangements since all countries have different historical contexts and institutional arrangements. Instead, we recommend that governments consider adaptive land governance in signification structures and focus on hierarchical enforcement in legitimation structures. While multi-level land governance in the domination structure phase is strongly required, issue-and-project-based land governance has a pivotal role in providing cross-boundary infrastructures. Nevertheless, further empirical analysis is recommended to verify how and where the re-arrangement processes are initiated and structured.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheonjae Lee & Walter Timo de Vries & Uchendu Eugene Chigbu, 2019. "Land Governance Re-Arrangements: The One-Country One-System (OCOS) Versus One-Country Two-System (OCTS) Approach," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:21-:d:211592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/9/1/21/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/9/1/21/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daquan Huang & Yuncheng Huang & Xingshuo Zhao & Zhen Liu, 2017. "How Do Differences in Land Ownership Types in China Affect Land Development? A Case from Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Wolz, Axel, 2013. "The organisation of agricultural production in East Germany since World War II: Historical roots and present situation [Organisation der Agrarproduktion in Ostdeutschland seit dem 2. Weltkrieg: His," IAMO Discussion Papers 139, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    3. Matthew Carmona, 2017. "The formal and informal tools of design governance," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 1-36, January.
    4. Daniel Henstra, 2016. "The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 496-521, May.
    5. Wolz, Axel, 2012. "The Transformation of the Agricultural Administration and Associations in East Germany Before and After Unification: Are There Lessons for the Korean Peninsula?," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 35(2), pages 1-33, July.
    6. Meg Elizabeth Rithmire, 2017. "Land Institutions and Chinese Political Economy," Politics & Society, , vol. 45(1), pages 123-153, March.
    7. L.H. Li & K.G. McKinnell & A. Walker, 2000. "Convergence of the land tenure systems of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan?," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 339-352.
    8. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2000. "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 404-428, August.
    9. Lee, Cheonjae & de Vries, Walter Timo, 2018. "A divided nation: Rethinking and rescaling land tenure in the Korean (re-)unification," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 127-136.
    10. Damon Golsorkhi & Linda Rouleau & David Seidl & Eero Vaara, 2015. "Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice," Post-Print hal-02298228, HAL.
    11. Ling Hin Li, 1999. "Impacts of Land Use Rights Reform on Urban Development in China," Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 193-205, November.
    12. Jun Zhang, 2012. "From Hong Kong’s Capitalist Fundamentals to Singapore’s Authoritarian Governance: The Policy Mobility of Neo-liberalising Shenzhen, China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(13), pages 2853-2871, October.
    13. repec:zbw:iamodp:158736 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Macintosh, Norman B. & Scapens, Robert W., 1990. "Structuration theory in management accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 455-477.
    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. Kohima, Jennilee Magdalena & Chigbu, Uchendu Eugene & Mazambani, Malcon Liyali & Mabakeng, Menare Royal, 2023. "(Neo-)segregation, (neo-)racism, and one-city two-system planning in Windhoek, Namibia: What can a new national urban policy do?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Gwaleba, Method Julius & Chigbu, Uchendu Eugene, 2020. "Participation in property formation: Insights from land-use planning in an informal urban settlement in Tanzania," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Salman, Faris & Mori, Akihisa, 2023. "When, where, and how can land governance overcome path dependency? A trajectory of land governance change," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. James Natia Adam & Timothy Adams & Jean-David Gerber, 2021. "The Politics of Decentralization: Competition in Land Administration and Management in Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Adewunmi, Yewande & Chigbu, Uchendu Eugene & Mwando, Sam & Kahireke, Uaurika, 2023. "Entrepreneurship role in the co-production of public services in informal settlements − A scoping review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    6. Chen, Liming & Du, Ziqing & Hu, Zhihao, 2020. "Impact of economic policy uncertainty on exchange rate volatility of China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).

    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. Eero Vaara & Juha-Antti Lamberg, 2016. "Taking historical embeddedness seriously : Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research," Post-Print hal-02276732, HAL.
    2. Maran, Laura & Bracci, Enrico & Inglis, Robert, 2018. "Performance management systems' stability: Unfolding the human factor – A case from the Italian public sector," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 324-339.
    3. Shirumisha Kwayu & Banita Lal & Mumin Abubakre, 2018. "Enhancing Organisational Competitiveness Via Social Media - a Strategy as Practice Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 439-456, June.
    4. Englund, Hans & Gerdin, Jonas & Burns, John, 2011. "25 Years of Giddens in accounting research: Achievements, limitations and the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 494-513.
    5. Englund, Hans & Gerdin, Jonas, 2011. "Agency and structure in management accounting research: Reflections and extensions of Kilfoyle and Richardson," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 581-592.
    6. Sylvain Mondon, 2021. "Temporalités d’action et pratiques d'anticipation stratégique en contexte extrême : le cas de l’émergence d’une crise en course au large," Post-Print halshs-03324387, HAL.
    7. Tamim Elbasha & Alex Wright, 2017. "Reconciling structure and agency in strategy -as-practice research: Towards a strong- structuration theory approach," Post-Print hal-01557268, HAL.
    8. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    9. Gary T. Burke & Carola Wolf, 2021. "The Process Affordances of Strategy Toolmaking when Addressing Wicked Problems," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 359-388, March.
    10. David Vallat, 2015. "Une alternative au dualisme État-Marché : l’économie collaborative, questions pratiques et épistémologiques," Working Papers halshs-01249308, HAL.
    11. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.
    12. Dickinson, Daniella & Shahab, Sina, 2021. "Post planning-decision process: Ensuring the delivery of high-quality developments in Cardiff," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    13. Pandza, Krsto & Ellwood, Paul, 2013. "Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1112-1125.
    14. Aaltonen, Aleksi Ville & Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2021. "The making of data commodities: data analytics as an embedded process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110296, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Sulin Ba & Jan Stallaert & Andrew B. Whinston, 2001. "Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design—The Case for Incentive Alignment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 225-239, September.
    16. Wang, Bo & Li, Fan & Feng, Shuyi & Shen, Tong, 2020. "Transfer of development rights, farmland preservation, and economic growth: a case study of Chongqing’s land quotas trading program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. Tammar B. Zilber, 2011. "Institutional Multiplicity in Practice: A Tale of Two High-Tech Conferences in Israel," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1539-1559, December.
    18. Lise Arena & Anthony Hussenot, 2021. "From Innovations at Work to Innovative Ways of Conceptualizing Organization: A Brief History of Organization Studies," Post-Print hal-03290300, HAL.
    19. François-Xavier de Vaujany & Sabine Carton & Carine Dominguez-Perry & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2012. "Performativity and Information Technologies: An inter-organizational perspective," Post-Print halshs-00851315, HAL.
    20. Högström, Claes & Tronvoll, Bård, 2012. "The enactment of socially embedded service systems: Fear and resourcing in the London Borough of Sutton," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 427-437.

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:21-:d:211592. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.