Examining collaborative planning processes and outcomes in urban regeneration: A deliberative turn in China?

Since its inception in the early 1990s, collaborative planning theory has gained global traction, especially in the realm of urban regeneration. Collaborative planning promotes dialogue-centred planning processes where all relevant stakeholders engage in Habermasian ideal-type communication to achieve consensus building. However, the inherent complexity and conflicting interests among diverse stakeholders, driven by pluralistic values, have often obscured this ideal. Previous studies highlight a “communicative turn” in Chinese planning, characterised by authoritarian deliberation. Despite involving government, private, and civil society actors, significant differences persist between Western and Chinese collaborative planning practices. These discrepancies stem primarily from China’s authoritarian contexts, which contrasts with the democratic contexts underpinning Western collaborative planning.

Our paper titled “Examining the Processes and Outcomes of Collaborative Planning in Urban Regeneration: A Deliberative Turn in China?” delves into these differences, exploring how collaborative planning practices unfold in urban regeneration in China, with a focus on the processes and outcomes. The collaborative planning theory is often criticised for emphasising planning processes characterised by inclusive and open dialogue among equal partners while ignoring planning outcomes, especially those that cannot be changed by the processes. Building on the collaborative planning theory, its criticism, and authoritarian deliberation, this paper presents a conceptual framework focusing on why, how, and what outcomes result from deliberations in collaborative planning. Through a detailed case study of Enning Road micro-regeneration project in Guangzhou, the research reveals that the complexity of urban regeneration in a historical area prompted the local government to launch a deliberation platform. This platform aimed to address or mitigate conflicting issues, maintain social order, and improve governance performance in the regeneration project. Several key findings emerged. First, the collaborative processes in the Enning Road project demonstrated a relatively high degree of openness and inclusiveness. Stakeholders, including residents, professional planners and university professors, media representatives, and government officials, participated in several deliberations that were open to the public and allowed freedom of speech. However, these discussions were confined to pre-filtered topics within restricted scopes and boundaries. Second, while the deliberations did influence planning outcomes, their impact was limited to marginal planning issues. Major decisions, such as the project’s fundamental regeneration methods and business plans, remained largely unchanged. Additionally, the collaborative planning processes generated new social, knowledge, and political capital, including stronger community ties, shared understanding and knowledge, and increased capacity for collective action.

This research contributes to understanding collaborative planning within an authoritarian context. First, the findings suggest that while collaborative processes can foster wider public participation and conflict resolution, their ability to influence substantive planning outcomes is limited due to the overarching control of the state. Second, this research marks the adoption of deliberative methods by local authorities in response to the complexities of urban regeneration in China. These local deliberative practices primarily involve non-political conversations among different interest groups, in which rational communication is challenging when actors defend competing interests. In addition, the feasibility and substance of deliberation depend on specific conditions and the level of contestation in various fields. Third, we underscore that the use of collaborative planning approaches serves as a supplementary measure to market instrument in Chinese state entrepreneurialism to maintain state power. We recommend future research to explore the stages during a planning process where deliberation is initiated, as early-stage initiation of deliberations might yield more substantial influence on planning outcomes. In addition, examining collaborative planning practices in different political contexts can provide a broader understanding of how these practices can be tailored to varying institutional settings.

We invite readers to read the full paper to explore these findings in greater detail and join the conversation on advancing collaborative planning practices in diverse political landscapes.

Read the full article on Urban Studies OnlineFirst here.