000 02313nab a2200253 4500
999 _c11550
_d11550
003 OSt
005 20210323103028.0
007 cr aa aaaaa
008 210323b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100 _a Li, Xiang
_945347
245 _aUrban consolidation, power relations, and dilapidated residential redevelopment in Mutoulong, Shenzhen, China
260 _bSage
_c2019.
300 _aVol 56, Issue 13, 2019,(2802-2819 p.)
520 _aRecent policy initiatives for urban development have changed the relationships among stakeholders in China’s urban consolidation processes. Building upon Giddens’ (Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.) structuration theory and Ostrom’s (Ostrom E (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) institutional analysis and development thesis, this paper develops a power arena analytic framework, and uses it to examine the new power relations among the stakeholders in a dilapidated residential redevelopment project in Shenzhen. Our findings reveal that Shenzhen’s new approach incentivised the developer to frame a local decision-making structure which aligned the property owners into two broad groups: those who supported the developer, or cooperative, and those who disputed with the developer, or un-cooperative. Shenzhen’s new attempt was unable to balance power distribution between the main stakeholders and caused intense conflicts and poor project outcomes. A range of factors, including passive participation of residents in project preparation, weak mechanisms to curb speculation, and policy inconsistency associated with tiers of governments, were responsible for the poor performance. These findings contribute to the understanding of the complexity in power relations underlying urban development influenced by planning policy.
650 _adilapidated residential redevelopment,
_945348
650 _a power arena,
_945349
650 _a Shenzhen,
_944769
650 _aurban consolidation
_945350
700 _aHan, Sun Sheng
_940778
700 _aWu, Hao
_943182
773 0 _011188
_915499
_dsage, 2019.
_tUrban studies
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018799950
942 _2ddc
_cART