In recent years a series of initiatives exploring âsustainable urban developmentâ, âeco-cityâ or âlow-carbon cityâ concepts have been established in many Chinese cities. Some of these projects are the fruit of bilateral partnerships with other countries, and involve the partners in the testing of various methods and measures to improve the liveability of existing cities or to develop new cities capable of displaying sound environmental and social performances. Similarly to other urban-focused initiatives targeting developing countries, these projects share the objective of transferring knowledge, competences, recommendations, and / or technology to the targeted cities. Broadly speaking, it can also be said that a variety of approaches and collaboration patterns exists. Sometimes these collaborations try to offer policy and technical solutions in the field of city development, or in the field of urban renewal. Others offer opportunities to explore new construction concepts and to embrace ecologically and socially oriented practices, sometimes involving substantial investments from the cooperating partners. Some other projects also aim at building capacities to ensure the adoption of the approaches and measures explored via international collaborations. We can also find projects that promote specific planning and technological solutions, often proposed by famous names in the field of urban construction and design.
Scholars have interrogated the appropriateness and relevance of these interventions in different contexts, reflecting on the design of cooperation projects and on their specific requirements (Louargant et al. 2011); on participating actors, on the concrete activities on the ground as well as on the results, which often turned out to be disappointing for âdonorâ agencies (cf. de Jong 2013; de Jong et al. 2013a, b; Landel 2011). This study fits into this general research direction, which aims at interrogating the validity and the conditions of the diffusion of (Western) models of urban development in developing or transition countries (cf. Koop and Amilhat 2011). In particular, as this study focuses on China, it asks about what happens when ideas and knowledge in the field of urban development/urban planning travel from Europe to China, and about the impacts they produce. It also asks whether models and/or approaches developed in a specific setting can be valid for other very different contexts, whether they have the capacity to inspire change in local policies and paradigms, whether they are emulated in their scopes and contents or whether they are incompatible with local practices, policymaking styles and institutions.
To answer these questions, this research focuses on the impacts, from a policy-transfer perspective, of a project of international cooperation that was conducted in Yangzhou, a Chinese city in the Jiangsu province, more than 10 years ago. Looking at the reception of âCareful Urban Renewalâ, an approach developed in West Berlin in the 1980s to renovate old buildings and quarters in a careful and sustainable manner, the study analyses whether such an approach could inspire change in the practices and policies of urban renewal in Yangzhou. As such, this study aims at contributing to the policy transfer literature by focusing on a context â China â which remains somewhat unexplored by this field of studies (Zhang and Marsh 2016). It hopes to shed light on as-yet-unanswered questions such as how much China learns from the West and what mechanisms promote or hinder diffusion/transfers in China, etc., which have been asked by scholars interested in assessing the impacts of international models on Chinaâs reforms and in diffusion/transfer processes in China (Christensen et al. 2008, 2012; Foster 2005).
In particular, borrowing a classical question of Richard Rose (1993, p. 22) the study sets out to illustrate what happens when a concept developed âin one settingâ is transferred elsewhere, whether this programme âis capable of being put into effectâ in another context, and, if so, whether it takes roots in this setting. The case of Yangzhou is particularly fruitful to explore these questions. It shows that a foreign model such as Careful Urban Renewal could find fertile land also in Yangzhou, as it has been adopted and adapted by the local administration. It also shows, however, that the process that led to the âinventive appropriationâ (Bayart 1996) of this model was bumpy and uncertain from the beginning, and its results are still unpredictable. In particular, the study points out at the presence of an intermittent opening and closing of âwindows for policy learningâ, which is at the heart of the uncertainties of the local process of policy learning. This study argues that this intermittence has to be ascribed to the particular institutional system of the local government in China, which prevents the policy learning process from having continuity, from being consistent as well as from being capable of supporting paradigmatic changes and the rooting of certain practices and institutions. To capture these particular aspects, this study puts forward the concept of âlearning under multiple hierarchiesâ.
By opening up the âblack boxâ of the city government of Yangzhou and undertaking a longitudinal study of the local process of policy learning and lesson drawing, it was indeed possible to observe that the capacities for policy learning of the local administration are influenced by different levels of the state, as well as by different departments and units within the local government, defending different interests as well as political and technical positions. The presence of different objectives and interests in the local administration, as well as the impacts of policies defined at different levels of government, were at the heart of the bumpy process of policy learning and adaptation, of its challenges, as well as of unexpected re-elaborations of the policy model transferred. The study, in particular, underlines the role of the particular hierarchical structure to which the government of a city like Yangzhou is subjected, which may allow for the opening of windows for policy learning, or conversely, may cause their closure.1 It shows that the presence of opportunities for policy learning is dependent on the particular interactions between different levels of the state (e.g. the national government, the provincial government, the city government, the district government, etc.) and the presence or absence of local policy entrepreneurs willing and being capable to experiment with new ideas and propose new policies. It also shows that international cooperation can trigger and support policy learning, by offering local policy entrepreneurs precious chances for policy experimentation and for policy advocacy.
Albeit that the insights collected in this research suggest that whatever attempt at writing any conclusion would be in vain, given that it is an ongoing process, this study hopes to prove useful for scholars interested in public policy analysis, in China studies, and in urban studies. In particular, this study sets itself two main goals. First of all, it wishes to shed light on the âmicro-dynamics of policy transfersâ (Hadjiisky et al. 2017) of a case located in China, analysing the ânitty and grittyâ of transfer and learning processes in a Chinese locality. As such, it cares to answer questions interested in the role and use of foreign knowledge in the realisation of reforms in China. Secondly, by building knowledge on processes of policy transfer and policy diffusion in China, this book wishes to contribute to this field of studies, recently enriched by the works of scholars looking at new contexts well beyond the classical focus on Western countries. These elements will be briefly expounded in the following paragraphs.
1.1 The Contribution of an Analysis of the Micro-Dynamics of Transfer in a Chinese City
This study explores the micro-dynamics of policy transfer in a Chinese city, providing insights into how the local administration makes use of foreign knowledge. This choice responds to a call made more than 10 years ago by scholars in administrative sciences who stressed the need to gain more in-depth knowledge about the âprocesses of influenceâ and impacts of Western norms and models in Chinese reform processes (Christensen et al. 2008). As such, this study focuses on the external dimension of reform origins in China, complementing studies that have principally focused on domestic factors. This perspective, in particular, adds up to analyses in the field of China studies that have developed separately from policy transfer studies, but have nevertheless revealed some peculiar characteristics of policy diffusion and policy learning in the country when triggered by domestic reform initiatives (cf. Teets and Hurst 2015; Heilmann 2008).
This study can thus be seen as a further contribution to this literature, dedicated to the characteristics of the policy process in China, in particular exploring how international influences trigger processes of policy learning in China and how the country transforms its policy paradigms in interaction with foreign knowledge. To this end, the study adopts the perspective of policy transfer studies and tries to provide a detailed picture of transfer dynamics in a Chinese city, with a special focus on processes of policy learning and knowledge use, as suggested by the recent literature on policy transfers (Dolowitz 2017; Hadjiisky et al. 2017). The adoption of this perspective aims at contributing to build knowledge about transfers and policy learning in China, while making this country a relevant case study to draw general lessons for the study of policy transfers, and more broadly for political studies. The complexification of transfer and diffusion phenomena indeed requires this literature to expand beyond its traditional boundaries and to consider more generally the multiple origins and destinations of travelling policy objects. Moreover, the adoption of the policy transfer perspective also seeks to promote the de-compartmentalisation of China-related studies, and suggests to study China as a ânormalâ country (Rocca 2006).
This last remark is developed in response to works that stressed so-called Chinese characteristics (Zhongguo tese â ä¸ĺ˝çšč˛) to provide explanations to the processes and outcomes of reforms observed in contemporary China. As pointed out by Jean-Louis Rocca (1996, 2006, 2016), some of these studies share, implicitly or explicitly, the similar viewpoint that as China has unique, peculiar characteristics (e.g. its culture, historical legacy and political regime), its social phenomena and trajectories are also peculiar and incomparable. C...
