中美区域规划对比分析

Regional planning and equity: a comparative perspectiveRegional issues are the spatial reflection of the social issues existing in a society. In the U.S., perhaps the biggest social issues are income inequality and racial disparities. When income inequality and racial disparities interact with space, they create spatial and racial segregation, of which the most significant outcome is inequality between the inner city and suburbs. The city-suburban inequality is aggravated by a system of local autonomy, in which localities draw political boundaries to isolate themselves. Therefore, it is natural for many to think that, in order to address spatial disparities, a form of regional planning is required to overcome the parochial thoughts and practices embedded in autonomy municipalities. In the field of urban planning, a profession mainly shaped by liberal ideas, the aim of seeking equity is one of the major motives to promote regionalism.Is seeking equity through regionalism a universal theme across the world or is it unique to the American context? I believe that promoting regionalism for redistributive purpose is a universal idea because spatial inequality exists in almost all societies, but the forms of spatial inequality, the role of different levels of government, the means, and the outcomes vary across countries. In this short paper, I will illustrate this idea by comparing the redistributive regionalism practices in the U.S. with those in China.Since China opened its gate in 1978, the rising income inequality has increasingly become a serious social issue. For many years, however, income inequality was not regarded as an issue by the Chinese government. In fact, Chairman Xiaoping Deng used to tell the Chinese people that “we need to let some people to be rich first and they will lead the nation to become richer.” As a consequence, many national polices were designed to promote prosperity in the eastern coastal cities at the expense of the inner lands and the rural areas. It was not until the beginning of the 21 century when the Communist Party felt the increasing social unrest from income inequality and regional disparity that it started to pay attention to these issues. Partly due to international attention toward Tibet and the Xinjiang region (where most Uygurs live), the initial efforts were to bridge the income gap at the macro regional levelbetween the western region and eastern coastal region. More recently, facing more and more pressure from unrest rural residents, some attention has been diverted to improve the well-being of rural residents. Income inequity interacts with space in many different ways in China and in the U.S. In China, the most dramatic disparities are not within a single metropolitan area, but between regions. The widening gap between the eastern coastal areas and the inner lands creates prodigious difference in employment and educational opportunities, and access to social welfares. While disparities also exist between states and different parts of the country in the U.S., the degree of inequality is far less severe compared to China. Within metropolitan regions, income inequality exists between cities and rural areas, not between inner cities and suburbs. While in the U.S. race plays a large role in shaping the metropolitan landscape, in China it is the huko system (a system that divides people into urban and rural residents) that makes the largely homogenous population “different.” Another significant difference to be kept in mind is the level of fragmentation is far from similar. American cities experience a much high level of sprawl and during the process many suburban communities incorporated into self-governing municipalities. In contrast, the sprawl in most Chinese cities were within their own prefecture and almost new municipalities were created. In fact, Chinese cities tend to annex more territories as they grow and cities became a form of regional governments themselves. The distinct governmental regimes in the U.S. and China also contributes to the differences in regional planning practices. American localism makes municipalities in many ways functioning like neighborhood associations, and this tradition makes local residents resists an active role of higher level governments in promoting regional goals such as affordable housing sharing. As a consequence, state governments, particularly in traditional home-rule states, tend to shun away from intervening local matters. In contrast, since the local governments in China are commonly believed as the arms of central government and there is a long tradition of strong government in all aspects of life, Chinese citizens tend to accept regulations or regional goals imposed by higher level governments.The degree of governmental intervention and the degree of citizen activism often grow in opposite directions. In the U.S., while there is a weak government role in promoting regionalism, many civic groups form together to advocate for their interests and a more equitable future. Also municipalities facing similar challenges often form alliances (such as Metro Matters in Southeast Michigan) to gather enough political clout to push for change. In China, while the central government assumes a larger role in promoting regionalism (although in many cases not for the goal of promoting equity), there are less bottom-up initiatives to address regional disparities. The central governments involvement is usually allocating project funds to promote economic growth in less well-being regions. Sometimes it establis