Chin. Geogra. Sci.

2011 21(1) 001–016

doi: 10.1007/s11769-010-0426-0

Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed

Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries

George C S LIN
(Department of Geography, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China)

Abstract: History has brought us into a significant moment when the majority of the human kind has taken up resi-
dence in urban settlements. The focus of global urbanization has shifted to the developing world and the center of
manufacturing is no longer confined to the Global North. This paper provides a periodical assessment of the current
status of China′s urban transformation in the global context of a shifting emphasis of industrialization and urbaniza-
tion. China′s phenomenal urban transformation deserves a special attention not only because of its unparalleled
scale and speed but also because of its distinct trajectory of growth that does not conform to normal theoretical ex-
pectations. The results of assessment revealed an urban economy with remarkable hybridity, a society that is in-
creasingly stratified, polarized, and segregated, and a juxtaposed urban space undergoing restless and pervasive
transformation. A decentering world should entail a decentering knowledge production. A critical reflection upon the
Chinese patterns and processes of urban transformation has identified 4 main issues with great potentials for inno-
vative knowledge production, namely: 1) privatization and economic development; 2) state, society, and space; 3)
urbanization of capital, labor, and land; and 4) the environment and Chinese political ecology. The paper closes with
the remark that a rapidly transforming urban China has presented itself as a fertile and resourceful testing ground for
critical and innovative geographic enquiries.
Keywords: urban geography; urbanization; Chinese cities; political economy; China

1 Introduction
As the first decade of the new century and new millennium
comes to its closure, the devastating effects of the
2008–2009 global financial tsunami appear to be quiet
down and phased out thanks to the many stimulus pack-
ages and dosages injected by governments across the
globe. Although there existed different projections about
whether economic recovery will take an V or L shape, the
general belief is that a global financial catastrophe has
been narrowly avoided and that the world economy has
been placed back on track for continuing and sustained
growth. While financial specialists on Wall Street con-
tinue to enjoy their businesses as usual, there are profound
changes taking place quietly in the global economy, soci-
ety, and space. There exists evidence un-noticed probably
to suggest that the world coming out of the global financial
tsunami will not be the same as what it used to be.
The latest statistics of the World Bank and the United
Nations suggested that, for the first time in human his-
tory, the majority of the human population, 3×109 per-
sons or over 50%, has now taken up residence in what is
considered urban settlements and that two-thirds of the
human kind will live in cities by 2050 (World Bank,
2010). Moreover, the pace and magnitude of urbaniza-
tion—defined as the increased proportion of the popula-
tion living in urban settlements—have been found grea-
ter in developing countries than those in the developed
world. Meanwhile, the trend of a global shift in the em-
phasis of capital investment and industrial production
from advanced economies to less developed ones has
continued and indeed been accelerated as a consequence
of the recent meltdown of leading financial markets
across the Atlantic. These profound changes will un-
doubtedly have far-reaching impacts upon not only the
future of the global economy but also the way in which

Received date: 2010-06-25; accepted date: 2010-08-05

Foundation item: Under the auspices of the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (No. GRF
HKU-747509H), Mrs. Li Ka Shing Fund for Contemporary China Studies Strategic Research Theme (No. HKU-20388025), the Small
Project Funding of the University of Hong Kong (No. HKU-10400706)
Corresponding author: George C S LIN. E-mail: gcslin@hkucc.hku.hk
© Science Press, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
2 George C S LIN

we see our world (Lin, 2009c).
With the world′s largest population and second largest
manufacturing capacity, China expands and transforms its
economy rapidly, which occupied a position so indispen-
sable, if not central, to the growth and structural changes of
the globalizing world. The instrumental role played by
China′s 4×1012 yuan (RMB) economic stimulus package to
the recovery of the global economy has been widely rec-
ognized. The recent landmark transition of the emphasis of
the world′s population from rural to urban settlements has
coincided with the accelerated urbanization of the Chinese
population which, according to the state statistical authori-
ties, dramatically increased from 18% in 1978 to over 45%
in 2008 (NBSC, 2009). The functioning of the Chinese
economy has now become so essential and pivotal that any
attempt to understand the changing dynamics of almost any
aspect of the world economy can no longer afford to miss
out ′the China factor′.
The significance of China′s phenomenal economic and
social transformation has already attracted global attention
and has been extensively documented (Brandt and Raw-
ski, 2008; Huang, 2008; Lin, 2009a; Hsing, 2010). How-
ever, changes in the Chinese economy and society have
often been so dramatic, elusive, and unpredictable that
they constitute a ′moving target′ whose nature and dy-
namics cannot be easily captured without close monitoring
and instant updating. On the other hand, theoretical ad-
vancement in geography and other social sciences has
been characterized by frequent shifts in direction, ap-
proach, and fashion which may or may not be consistent
with the actual changes taking place outside of the ivory
towers. There is a requirement to constantly update the
knowledge about rapidly changes in the Chinese economy
and society. It is necessary to critically re-evaluate the
relevance of perceived notions in the existing literature in
light of new circumstances observed from the real world.
Against the backdrop highlighted above, this study is
conducted to fulfill two rather modest objectives, namely
to provide a periodical assessment of the current status of
the growth and transformation of the Chinese economy
focusing on the urban sector and to identify a number of
intriguing theoretical questions raised by the Chinese
case in the context of ongoing scholarly enquiries in the
geographical science. The information and data used in
this study are derived primarily from the Chinese state
statistical authorities. The approach adopted here is to
situate the China case in a global context and in relation
to theoretical advancements in urban and economic ge-
ography. No attempt will be made to provide either a
comprehensive documentation of the growth and struc-
tural changes of the Chinese economy or an exhaustible
inventory of the concepts and theories about China′s
social and economic transition. It is acknowledged that
any attempt to dis-entangle and unpack the complex
′China story′ must necessarily be single-sided and selec-
tive depending on different individual interests, value
and perspective. Yet only after many individual efforts
have been made cumulatively can we hope for not only
'getting the China story right' but also bringing about
conceptual and theoretical advancements in the Chinese
geographical science.
2 China under Transformation: Economic
Growth and Urbanization in Global Perspective
In the recent history of global development, the dramatic
growth of the Chinese economy has represented a major
milestone. Within a time span of less than two decades,
China has quickly emerged as one of the largest ′world
factories′ with its production capacity measured by GDP
upgrading from the world′s 11th position in 1990 to the
3rd in 2008. If a more realistic measurement of pur-
chasing power parity is adopted, China′s GDP would be
2nd, next only to that of the United States (World Bank,
2008). Just as Japan was suddenly recognized ′as Num-
ber One′ in the 1970s (Vogel, 1979), China at the dawn of
the 21st Century stands as the world′s second largest
exporter, the largest recipient of foreign direct invest-
ment (FDI) in the developing world, and, since 2006, the
world′s largest holder of foreign exchange reserves .
①

① The latest World Trade Report released by the World Trade Organization (2009) identified Germany as the largest merchandise ex-
portor with a volume of US$1.47×1012 and China as the second largest one with US$1.43×1012 in 2008. It has been understood that
China′s exports in real terms surpassed Germany although it was ranked lower because of the distortion of currency rates. The World
Development Report 2009 listed China as the world′s fourth largest recipient of FDI (net inflow) with a volume of US$78.1×109 in 2006,
next to the US, UK, and France. China′s foreign exchange reserves reached US$2.13×1012 in June 2009 and have been the largest in the
world since March 2006. They keep rising by about US$20×109 a month. China also manages US$200×109–300×109 in additional foreign
exchange assets that are not counted as official reserves.
 Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries
This developing economy is also the world′s 2nd largest
market for car and third largest market for luxury goods.
This is, of course, not surprising at all when we take into
account the fact that it is a nation with the largest popu-
lation and third largest land territory on earth.
What makes the Chinese case so special is the scale
and speed of its economic, social, and spatial transfor-
mation. A few statistics can be cited in order to illustrate
the scale of economic development taking place in China
and its global significance. Chinese state statistical au-
thorities reported that China produced a total of 1.4×109 t
of cement last year, sixteen times more than what was
produced in the United States (NBSC, 2009). With the
production of that huge amount of cement (presumably
consumption as cement cannot be stored for too long),
the entire country has literally been turned into one of the
largest, if not the largest, construction sites on earth. The
annual value of construction throughout China in the
2000s has been estimated at US$67×109, which ac-
counted for half of all new building space in the world.
Equally striking has been the production of raw steel
which is another essential material for construction.
China reportedly produced a total of 500×106 t of raw
steel last year, the largest in the world and five times
more than what was produced in the US. This most
populous nation of the world is the second largest con-
sumer of energy only behind the United States. Unfor-
tunately, 70% of China′s energy consumption relies on
burning coal and, as a consequence, China is both the
largest consumer and producer of coal in the world. In
2008, China consumed an estimated 3×109 short tons of
coal which represented nearly 40% of the world total and
a 129% increase since 2000. A direct consequence of this
coal-dependent energy consumption has been energy-re
lated carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 6.018×109 t in
①
2006, which was also No. 1 in the world .
The global significance of China′s rise lies not just in
its unparalleled size and scale but also in its rapidity of
change and distinct nature of transformation. Ever since
Reform and Opening-up was initiated in the late 1970s,
the Chinese economy has been expanding at average
annual growth rates of 7%–13% calculated on the basis
of real GDP after taking out the distortion of inflation.
The volume of exports has shot up since the 1990s, ac-
① Energy Information Administration, 2009. Country Analysis Briefs: China. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/pdf.pdf. Aug. 3,
2009.
3
celerating, especially after China joined WTO in 2001,
with an annual growth rate of 24% during 2000–2008.
The share of exports in GDP rose from 5% to 25% in the
first two decades and then to 30%–35% after the year
2000 (NBSC, 2009). There is also evidence to suggest
that, after decades of ′involutionary growth′ or ′growth
without development′, post-reform China has finally
experienced significant improvements in productivity,
personal income, and standard of living (Huang, 1990;
Lin, 1997). It was reported that personal disposable
income, workers′ wages, and urban consumer expendi-
ture increased by 6.8%, 6.9%, and 6.7% per year re-
spectively after price factors were deducted during
1996–2001 (Solinger, 2003). Increase in income has not
been evenly shared among the Chinese population, but
has been accompanied by a widening gap between the
urban and rural sectors, which has become an urgent
problem (Pei, 2006; McGee et al., 2007; Lin, 2009a).
The Chinese population is on the move as the nation is
dragged into the global theatre of incessant accumula-
tion. An estimated 200×106 migrants have left their home
in the interior and embarked on a new journey of so-
journing to the cities and regions of the coastal zone
where the forces of neoliberalization and globalization
have found their playfields (Fan, 2008). Accompanying
massive internal migration has been a phenomenal ur-
banization of the population at a pace and extent un-
precedented in the country.
For ideological and strategic reasons, pre-reform
China was characterized by a peculiar pattern and prac-
tice of ′industrialization with controlled urbanization′
(Fig. 1) (Lin, 1998). Despite a significant upgrading of
industrialization, China′s urbanization did not experi-
ence any substantial increase for most of the years dur-
ing 1951–1978. Market′s reforms and opening-up have
brought about urbanization at a scale and speed that can
hardly be matched by any country on earth. While it is
difficult to give an uncontroversial and accurate estimate
of the increase of China′s urban population, official sta-
tistics suggested that China′s urban population size ex-
panded from 172.45×106 in 1978 to 455.94×106 in 2000
and its percentage of the total population increased from
17.92 to 36.09. By the end of 2008, China reportedly
had had a total urban population of 606×106 or 45.68%
4 George C S LIN
of its total population (NBSC, 2009), which involved
changes in the classification of the urban population and
urban settlement as well as changes in the administrative
boundaries of many cities (Zhou and Ma, 2003; Chan,
2007).
Source: NBSC, 2009
Fig. 1 China′s industrialization and urbanization in 1951–2005
China′s accelerated urbanization has involved not
only population redistribution but also massive land
conversion from agricultural to industrial and urban de-
velopment. Chinese official statistics indicated that, in
the earlier period of market reforms, China′s cultivated
land shrank from 99.39×106 to 94.97×106 in 1978–1996,
with a net loss of 4.42×106 ha or 4.4%. Farmland loss
has continued and become accelerated in the recent
decade despite government′s alarming concern and ex-
traordinary attempts to bring it under control. Between
1996 and 2006, China′s cultivated land shrank further
from 130×106 to 121.8×106 ha with a reduction of 6.3%
in 10 years. Although much of the loss in cultivated land
was due to structural changes within the agricultural
sector (e.g. conversion of paddy rice fields into orchard
or fishing ponds), a significant portion was taken by
industrial and urban expansion (Lin and Ho, 2003; Ho
and Lin, 2004; Lin, 2009a). Between 1984 and 2005,
China′s urban built-up area dramatically expanded from
8 842 to 32 520 km2, a growth by 260% (NBSC, 2006).
The ratio of urban built-up area to total land area in-
creased dramatically from 8% in 1985 to 38% in 2008
(Fig. 2).
Dramatic urban transition is taking place in a much
shorter time frame in China than earlier transitions in
the developed countries in Europe and North America. It
took over 90 years for England and Wales to increase its
level of urbanization from 20% to 60%, but now it takes
less than 40 years for China to accomplish the same
Source: NBSC, 2009
Fig. 2 Ratio of urban population and urban built-up
areas to total population and total land area in 1985–2008
task (Marcotullion and Lee, 2003). As Ong (1999) com-
mented '…visiting these explosive cities was like being
caught up in the eye of the greatest typhoon in the his-
tory of capitalism'. This 'greatest typhoon' of human
history has taken a geographic pattern that is extremely
uneven. Figures 3 and 4 map out the spatial distribution
of China′s urbanization using the percentage of the ur-
ban population and built-up area as indicators for meas-
urement. High degree of urbanization has been found
primarily along the eastern coast, particularly in the
Zhujiang (Pearl) River Delta, Changjiang (Yangtze)
River Delta, and Shandong Peninsula that have func-
tioned essentially as the pioneers and frontiers of reform
and opening-up. By contrast, the level of urbanization of
population and land has remained below the national
average for the entire half of the territory in the west.
Among the many forces that have brought about ′the
greatest typhoon′ of China′s urbanization, globalization
and marketization have been especially powerful and
instrumental. However, the actual growth and transfor-
mation of China′s urban economy have demonstrated a
distinct nature and dynamics with remarkable hybridity.
Unlike the experiences of urban economic growth in
many less developed countries of the Global South, the
growth of the Chinese urban economy has never been
dependent upon or subsumed under the interests of
global capitalism. Figures 5 and 6 utilize the statistical
data for the cities at or above the prefectural level to
evaluate the importance of exports and FDI to the
growth of China′s urban economy. The ratio of exports
 Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries 5

Source: NBSC, 2009

Fig. 3 Spatial pattern of urbanization of China in 2008

Source: NBSC, 2009

Fig. 4 Percentage of urban built-up area in total land area in 2008

to GDP generated by Chinese cities has increased dra-
matically from less than a quarter in 2002 to nearly 60%
in 2006. Although there was a slight drop in the year
2008 as a consequence of the global financial turmoil,
the output generated by exports still took the equivalent
of over half of the urban economy (Fig. 5). In terms of
production, Chinese cities have clearly integrated them-
selves with the global economy. In terms of investment
and financing, however, Chinese cities have remained
driven predominantly by the capital mobilized from
various internal sources. The ratio of FDI to total fixed
asset capital investment in Chinese cities has never ex-
ceeded 20% and has actually declined in recent years
(Fig. 6). This decline has not been the result of any drop
in the absolute amount of FDI and instead the direct
outcome of a dramatic expansion of domestic capital that
6 George C S LIN
Sources: NBSC, 2006; 2009
Fig. 5 Ratio of exports to GDP in Chinese cities
at prefectural level and above in 2002–2008
Source: NBSC, 2009
Fig. 6 Ratio of FDI to fixed assets investment in Chinese
cities at prefectural level and above in 2001–2007
has made Chinese cities less dependent upon foreign
investment.
The nature and dynamics of China′s ongoing urban
transformation have been the subject of heated debates
between those who see Chinese cities as moving unam-
biguously into privatization and capitalism and others
who continue to highlight the persistent influence of the
socialist legacy (Walker and Buck, 2007; Huang, 2008;
Schubert, 2008; Wu, 2008; Ma, 2009). Figures 7 and 8
examine the ownership structure of above-scale indus-
trial enterprises in the Chinese cities at or above the
prefectural level. Despite increased marketization and
globalization, the ownership structure displayed has been
rather stable. Industrial enterprises owned by external
capital including foreign companies, Chinese Hong
Kong, Taiwan, a nd Macao′s companies accounted for
20% in terms of the number of firms and 30% in terms of
the output generated. This pattern is consistent with the
one displayed by FDI. In other words, the lion′s share of
industrial enterprises located in Chinese cities has re-
mained owned and operated internally. However, the
dominance of domestic firms cannot be taken as the
dominance of the legacy of the traditional socialist
economy because many of the domestic firms are on
longer owned and operated by the state in accordance
with central planning. In recent years, individual
economies have become one of the most dynamic and
rapidly expanding sectors of domestic enterprises. Even
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Chinese cities have
experienced profound transformation into share-holding
corporations. On the assumption that at least one-third of
domestic firms are owned and operated by the private
sectors, then we can estimate with confidence that over
half of the industrial enterprises in the Chinese cities at or
above the prefectural level has already been privatized.
The degree of privatization should normally be higher in
the smaller urban economies of the cities and towns be-
low the prefectural level because individual economies
tended to have a small size.
Yet the dominance of the private sector in the Chinese
urban economy cannot be taken uncritically as indicative
of a completed transition from socialism to capitalism
simply because the functioning of the private sector has
been, just like ′a bird within a cage′, effectively contained
and trapped in an economic, social, and institutional en-
vironment so different from what has been established in
the capitalist world. The bulk of fixed asset capital has
remained controlled by the state and not by the private
sector. Despite increased population mobility, the labor
market has been regulated and distorted by the household
registration system that remains influential to the deter-
mination of entitlements to social welfare. Most impor-
tant of all, land in cities and towns remains to be owned
by the state and that in the countryside owned by the rural
collectives (Lin and Ho, 2005). Under this special social
and institutional environment, it would be an over-exagg-
eration to speak of the private sector in Chinese cities as
identical to that found in its capitalist counterpart. The
ongoing transformation of Chinese cities is therefore
characterized by an incredible resilience of the elements
of state socialism. This resilience, in conjunction with the
forces of increased marketization and globalization, has
given rise to a remarkable mixture and hybridity: Chinese
cities today confirm neither socialism nor capitalism, but
have demonstrated the characteristics of both. Will Chi-
nese cities move decisively toward capitalism, maintain
its resilience and hybridity, or reverse backward to re-
 Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries
HK-MC-TW means Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan′s enterprises
Sources: NBSC, 2006; 2009
Fig. 7 Ownership structure of Chinese cities at
prefectural level and above by numbers of industrial
enterprises in 2002–2008
HK-MC-TW means Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan′s enterprises
Sources: NBSC, 2006; 2009
Fig. 8 Ownership structure of Chinese cities at
prefectural level and above by gross industrial
output value in 2001–2008
centralization and enhanced authoritarialism? Only time
can provide the answer.
If the transformation of China′s urban economy is
characterized by a striking hybridity, then the transfor-
mation of the urban space has been distinguished by a
noticeable juxtaposition of different elements arisen from
different sectors and different historical moments. Mar-
ket reforms and development of the agricultural sector
since the early 1980s have greatly improved efficiency
and productivity of the rural economy. As a consequence,
a large number of rural laborers are no longer required to
work in the farm and have been released to engage in
industrial and commercial activities located in the towns
and small cities of the rural vicinity. This has given rise to
the flourishing of towns and small cities throughout the
1980s. Many towns have expanded to surpass the
7
thresholds to become a city and small cities expanded to
become medium-sized cities. The restructuring of
China′s urban system in 1978–1995 has been featured by
the rapid growth of small cities that have taken a large
share of urban settlements (Fig. 9). This phenomenon has
been so pronounced that it has been captured as a distinct
track of ′urbanization from below′ because it is small-sc-
ale, spontaneous, and locally-driven (Ma and Lin, 1993;
Ma and Fan, 1994).
Source: NBSC, 2006
Fig. 9 Growth of China′s urban system in 1949–2005
It was not until the mid-1990s that large cities, espe-
cially extra-large cities on the eastern coast, have man-
aged to take on the challenges posed by small cities and
re-assert their leading position in China′s economic
growth and urbanization. A series of reforms and devel-
opments have taken place in large and extra-large cities
since the mid-1990s: marketization of state-owned en-
terprises, commoditization of the housing sector, reform
of the land system and land market, formulation of
China′s auto-industrial development strategy, access into
the World Trade Organization and, last but not least,
implementation of the controversial tax-sharing system.
These new developments have necessitated and enabled
large and extra-large cities to greatly increase economic
efficiency and urban competitiveness through a phe-
nomenal expansion and upgrading of the urban built-en-
vironment. The result has been a new track of urbaniza-
tion that is centered on large and extra-large cities (Fig.
9). This new track of urbanization has not replaced the
earlier one. Instead, the two tracks of urbanization with
different origins, nature, and characteristics have been
juxtaposed and blended together to constitute a distinct
dualistic model of contemporary Chinese urbanization
(Lin, 2002; 2007b; McGee et al., 2007).
8 George C S LIN
The hybrid and juxtaposed nature of China′s urban
transformation can also be found from the restructuring of
the urban space within cities. An uneasy engagement with
neoliberalism and capitalism has opened up new spaces of
modern and post-modern urbanism that co-exist and
blend with the traditional and socialist legacy. A newly
emergent upper class of the rich and successful complete
with modern luxurious goods and new cars as well as
home ownership lives side by side with a large and hidden
under-class of the laid-off and unemployed estimated at
60×106 or about 15% to 20% of the total urban labour
force (Solinger, 2003). Spectacular skyscrapers, Broad-
way-style boulevards, pedestrian shopping streets, fancy
shopping malls, water fronts, and gated communities are
intersected and mixed with migrant enclaves, poverty
neighborhoods, and many outlawed ′villages in the city′
(Lin, 2007b; McGee et al., 2007). Chinese cities today are
no longer clean, orderly, uniform, standardized, and dull.
As Pannell has correctly pointed out: ′These cities then
are at once the progress and hope of the country and at the
same time places of anxiety, despair, and misery′
(Pannell, 1992). Indeed, the urban space in contemporary
China is characterized by a hybrid juxtaposition of many
different kinds of spaces: ′the space of elitist consump-
tion′ (shopping malls, supermarkets, hotels, restaurants,
etc.), ′the space of globalization′ (development zones,
industrial parks, convention centers, etc.), and ′spaces of
differentiation and marginalization′ (gated communities,
urban villages, migrant enclaves, etc.) (Ma and Wu,
2005; McGee et al., 2007).
3 Engaging with China′s Urban Transforma-
tion: New Challenges and Opportunities
The phenomenal transformation of the Chinese economy
has posed new challenges to policy makers and aca-
demics. While planners and policy makers are pressed
for the formulation of innovative policies and approaches
to ensure a urban development in the vigorous, sustain-
able, balanced, and harmonious fashion, academics are
demanded for the production of new knowledge to shed
light over the complex nature and dynamics of China′s
staggering urban transformation now and in the years to
come. This paper is devoted to highlighting a few areas
of scholarly enquiry that are believed to have great po-
tentials for critical and innovative knowledge production
in the geographical science. Given the complex nature of
the subject matter and the existence of an enormous lit-
erature, no attempt will be made to venture into the futile
and impossible mission of an inventory of what has been
written so as to develop a comprehensive research
agenda. Instead, emphasis will be placed on several
current issues that remain highly controversial and yet
fundamental to the understanding of the changing geog-
raphy of China and the world, namely 1) privatization
and economic development; 2) state, society, and space;
3) urbanization of capital, land, and labor; and 4) the
environment and Chinese political ecology.
3.1 Privatization and economic development
One of the most long-lasting and commonly held beliefs
fundamental to neoliberal economic doctrines is the
cause-effect relationship between property rights, in-
vestment behavior, and economic growth. Conventional
wisdom holds that an unambiguous definition of property
rights, guaranteed most effectively by private ownership,
produces the necessary security and incentives to the
producers for an efficient use of economic assets which
will in turn lead to optimal production and sustained
economic growth. Natural resources and economic assets
with unclear and insecure assignment of property rights
and exposed to open access will lead to short-sighted and
dampened investment behavior, wasteful and irrational
use of the land, and even worse, intense competition and
over-exploitation, leading to ′the tragedy of the com-
mons′ (Hardin, 1968; Putterman, 1995; Ho, 2005). In this
perspective, privatization is the prerequisite for rational
investment behavior and efficient as well as sustainable
economic growth. It is based on this belief that neoliberal
initiatives in the name of deregulation, privatization, and
rationalization have been adopted on both sides of the
Atlantic since the 1980s and further prescribed by the
IMF/World Bank advisors to the former Soviet Union as
a magic dosage to cure the disease of state socialism.
Against this backdrop, the recent growth and struc-
tural change of the Chinese economy appear to be a
mysterious case that deviates significantly from the
conventional wisdom of neoliberal economics. At the
macro level, the Chinese economy has shown both a
dramatic expansion of production capacity and remark-
able improvements in productivity since the 1980s
without any once-and-for-all ′big bang′ privatization of
key economic assets matching that adopted by the for-
mer Soviet Union. Despite increased marketization of
 Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries
the planned economy and decentralization of the power
of decision making, key economic assets such as infra-
structure facilities, land and natural resources, monetary
capital and financial institutions, and social welfare re-
main firmly in the hands of the state. Land, as one of the
basic input factors of production, remains publicly
owned in cities and towns and collectively owned in the
countryside. As noted by institutional economists, the
factors responsible for recent sustained growth and sub-
stantial improvements of the Chinese economy lie not so
much in the privatization of the means of production but
more in the reform of the mechanism of distributing
what has been produced (Nee and Swedberg, 2007). The
peculiar Chinese experience has been a subject of com-
peting interpretations. Proponents have argued that the
Chinese case represents a viable alternative to the ′shock
therapy′ practiced by the former Soviet Union with
fewer undesirable effects. Opponents have blamed the
Chinese government for a continuing distortion of the
market and insisted that the current Chinese approach
has never solved the deeply rooted structural problems
which will lead to an inevitable collapse of the economy
(Putterman, 1995; Walder, 1995).
How do we make sense of the peculiar Chinese experi-
ence of rapid economic growth without wholesale privati-
zation? Is the cause-effect relationship between privatiza-
tion and efficient economic growth as described by neo-
liberalism universally applicable, or, is it contingent upon
varying political and social conditions? Is the privatization
of economic assets or an unambiguous and exclusive defi-
nition of property rights a pre-condition of economic gro-
wth or is it conditional upon the nature and stages of eco-
nomic growth? More broadly, is institutional reform an
action of social engineering independent of political, so-
cial, cultural, and geographic conditions or is it more an
explanandum than explanan? These are some of the issues
with direct relevance to economic and social transforma-
tion in different world regions. They require careful and
immediate investigations in order to update our knowl-
edge about the sophisticated dynamics and mechanism of
economic development.
3.2 State, society, and space
Until recently, much of the existing geographic literature
on neoliberalism has been generated around the forma-
tion of a state-market relation that has now turned out to
be one of the root causes of the miserable economic
9
downturn since September 2009. A great deal of ink has
been spilled over the way in which ′the neoliberal state′ in
theory and practice has to make space to accommodate
the interests of global market forces in an environment of
intensified competition (Peck, 2001; Brenner and
Theodore, 2002; Jessop, 2002; Harvey, 2005). The crisis
of the Fordist-Keynesian regime of accumulation was
believed to be institutionally ′fixed′ by such neoliberal
initiatives as state deregulation of major industries, lib-
eralization of competitive market forces, privatization of
public services, dismantling of state-financed welfare
programs, reduction of corporate taxes and lowering or
removal of trading barriers, and an assault on organized
labor to increase labor market flexibility (Tickell and
Peck, 1995; MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999; Harvey,
2005). In this perspective, neoliberalism essentially in-
volves a retrenchment or ′hollowing out′ of the state in
order to make room for competitive global market forces
to play their role. Fundamental to neoliberalism is
therefore the ′creative destruction′ of state-market rela-
tions although the precise nature of the redefined
state-market relations is still subject to debates. Indeed,
our attention has been so focused on changes in
state-market relations under globalization that few have
ever been concerned with changes in other political and
social relations. As Brenner and Theodore (2002) com-
mented, ′neoliberal doctrine represents states and mar-
kets as if they were diametrically opposed principles of
social organization, rather than recognizing the politi-
cally constructed character of all economic relations′.
One may add that there is also a lack of recognition of
place-specific and historically contingent economic and
social relations in other regions of the world outside the
Anglo-American core (McGee, 1991; Lin and Wei,
2002; Yeung and Lin, 2003).
In contrast to the prevailing theory of neoliberalism,
the transformation of the Chinese economy, past and
present, has demonstrated a distinct dynamic in which
state-society relations have always occupied a position
no less significant, if not greater, than state-market rela-
tions (Solinger, 1999; Nathan, 2003; Lin, 2007b; Nee
and Swedberg, 2007; Schubert, 2008; Wu, 2008; Ma,
2009). In analyzing the relationship between state and
society, it has been well recognized that the two concepts
under study are characterized by remarkable ambiva-
lence. On one hand, state and society are distinct realms
of social formation. On the other hand, they are inextri-
10 George C S LIN

cably intertwined, deeply interpenetrative, densely inter-
active, and mutually reproduced. Society can be different
from or sometimes going against the state, but it can also
be integrated into the state. This ambivalence is the result
of the fact that both state and society are organizations of
people in distinct spheres (i.e. political and social) (Lin,
2007a). Unlike many countries in Europe and North
America, China under Confucianism had long been kno-
wn for its relatively strong state, poor market, and weak
society. There is a well established Chinese tradition in
which state authorities and social order are valued much
higher than individual freedom, and community interests
and social harmony usually override justice and fairness.
Most of the elements fundamental to the formation of a
bourgeois society, namely free market competition, pri-
vate property rights, guild structure, and bourgeois law,
were not found in China (Smart, 1997). In contrast to
Europe, the state in China has stronger power to determine
both the social and spatial arrangements of people.
State-society relations are not uni-directional, but are
mutually constituted and reproduced in the case of China.
Under the Confucian doctrine of ′excellence in scholar-
ship would make one a government official′, the state
bureaucracy in imperial China was constituted and sus-
tained primarily by scholarly officials who were placed
in the upper class of the stratified society and recruited by
merit rather than by birth. In the early of the founding of
P. R. China, the reorganized and transformed socialist
society, consisting of state-created Danwei (workplace
units) and organized neighborhoods in cities and people′s
communes, brigades, and production teams in the coun-
tryside, was made an integral part of the socialist state.
Even after major institutional changes were made by the
post-Mao regime in recent decades, an increasingly dif-
ferentiated society has remained inextricably ensnared
within the state and contributing willingly or unwillingly
to the maintenance of the state. To maintain and con-
solidate political legitimacy, the party-state has in recent
years made continuing efforts to minimize frictions be-
tween state and society through the introduction of ′the
theory of three represents′ under the previous admini-
stration of Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji (1998–2003) and
more recently the campaign to promote ′a harmonious
society′ under the current leadership of Hu Jintao and
①
Wen Jiabao since 2004 (Solinger, 2003; Lin, 2007b).
The formation of state-society relations is not inde-
pendent of space. On the contrary, it has always been
operationalized through a spatial system that determines
②
the location and mobility of people (Chan, 2007). As
such, changes in state-society relations can be important
sources of fresh theoretical insights into the dynamics of
social, economic and spatial transformation in the Chi-
nese case. How, then, do we conceptualize the relation-
ship between state, society, and space in China under
different historical contexts? If the formation of state-so-
ciety relations has contributed to what Nathan (2003)
called ′authoritarian resilience′ of the party-state, despite
the growth of capitalism in the socialist territory, how has
it contributed to the growth of ′market socialism with
Chinese characteristics′ or what Ma (2009) called ′auth-
oritarian capitalism′ which is distinct from liberal de-
mocratic capitalism in the West? More importantly, how
have changes in state-society relations shaped the growth
and spatiality of hybrid capitalism in contemporary
China? Studies of these questions have great potentials to
fill the awkward gaps existing in the literature of neo-
liberalism that has been so overwhelmingly concerned
with state-market relations.
3.3 Urbanization of capital, land, and labor
Despite the existence of some earlier theoretical attempts
to probe into the relationship between the accumulation

① The ′theory of three represents′ suggests that the Chinese Communist Party should represent the development trend of advanced
productive forces, the orientation of advanced culture, and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese peo-
ple. It was originally developed by several academic followers of the former Party General Secretary and state President Jiang Zemin
and subsequently articulated in a speech delivered by Jiang in Guangdong Province in early 2000. This theory was then incorporated
into the Constitution of the CCP in its 16th National Congress in 2004. It has been noted that this theory shows a tendency in favor of
the upper and middle class of the society. Solinger even argues that the lowest stratum of the society has been intentionally excluded
from the ′three represents′. The latest statistics reported that the Chinese Communist Party had a total membership of 75.93×106 includ-
ing peasants (31.1%), professionals and managerial personnel (22.2%), retired people (18.8%), workers (9.7%), government officials
and staffs (8.2%), students (2.7%), and other occupations (7.4%). Changes in state-society relations and their impacts on the growth and
spatiality of urbanism are significant.
② A prime example is the Hukou (household registration) system that separates the Chinese population into urban and rural with dif-
ferent entitlements to rationed foods, employment, housing, medical care, education, and many other social services.
 Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries
of capital and transformation of the urban built envi-
ronment (Harvey, 1985; Logan and Molotch, 1987;
Stone, 1989; Harvey, 2003), much of the recent litera-
ture on the dynamics of urban and regional development
has been generated on the basis of such concepts as ag-
glomeration economies or urbanization economies,
global production networks, institutional thickness, in-
novative milieus, and learning regions (Amin and Thrift,
1994; Saxenian, 1994; Storper, 1997; Scott, 1998; Scott
and Storper, 2003). The wealth of nations and regions is
believed to be generated by those with the ′competitive
advantages′ of an innovative labor force, dense produc-
tion networks, and cooperative regional institutions as
well as supportive technological infrastructure (Porter,
1990; 1998; Krugman, 1991; 1995). Attention has been
drawn overwhelmingly to those city-regions that are
economically advanced, technologically innovative, and
locationally competitive enough to outperform others
that continue to suffer from the misery of poverty and
backwardness. Among the basic input factors for pro-
duction, emphasis has been clearly placed on technology,
labor market relations, and human resources conditions
with capital and land generally taken for granted.
Recent growth and transformation of the Chinese
economy have shown a pattern and process for which
the influential theory of ′new economic geography′ or
′new regionalism′ cannot offer a satisfactory explanation.
In contrast to the cities and regions of the advanced
economies where labor cost reduction and technological
innovation significantly out-weigh capital mobilization
and land development, urban and regional economic
growth in China and other less developed countries is
usually hampered by the shortage of capital. The mobi-
lization of initial capital to ignite the engine of eco-
nomic growth is therefore the first and foremost impera-
tive that has concerned economic planners and devel-
opment practitioners.
In the context of a less developed economy just ex-
posed to global capitalism, initial capital has to be mo-
bilized and accumulated primarily through the com-
modification of two input factors, namely labor and land.
This commodification process has been based on cities
many of which serve as the gateway for the entrance of
global capitalism or the sites for ′accumulation by dis-
possession′ (Harvey, 2003; Glassman, 2006; Walker and
Buck, 2007; Lin, 2007a; 2009a). The result has been a
distinct phenomenon that may be described as the ur-
11
banization of capital, labor and land, which is charac-
terized by a growing concentration in cities and towns
of the accumulation and (re)investment of capital, de-
velopment of a labor market with an influx of migrant
workers from the countryside, and phenomenal expan-
sion of urban land into the rural areas. Here, urbaniza-
tion has functioned not as a passive outcome of eco-
nomic growth involving only the shifting of the popula-
tion from rural to urban settlements. Rather, urbaniza-
tion has been practiced as a state project actively pur-
sued by central and local governments in order to mate-
rialize the declared ideological conviction, enhance
place attractiveness and competitiveness, and mobilize
the needed capital for economic development.
How significant is the Chinese practice of urbaniza-
tion to our understanding of the dynamics of urban and
regional development in different political, economic,
and social contexts? Is the urbanization of capital, labor,
and land unique to China or is it a common practice
shared among the developing countries in the Asia-Paci-
fic? How does the Chinese practice compare with what
has been documented earlier in the thesis of the urbani-
zation of capital, the ′growth machine′ model, the notion
of urban regime, and the theory of urban politics (Har-
vey, 1985; Logan and Molotch, 1987; Stone, 1989;
Harvey, 2003)? What are the social and political under-
pinnings of the Chinese approach and what are the im-
pacts of this city-based capital accumulation and land
development on the changes of urban-rural disparity,
regional inequality, and social stability? Studies of these
issues should help enhance a better and more complete
understanding of the diverse practices and cause-effect
relationships of urban and regional developments in dif-
ferent parts of the globalizing world.
3.4 Environment and Chinese political ecology
It has come as no surprise that the phenomenal expansion
of the Chinese economy in recent decades has been ac-
companied by a depletion of the shrinking natural re-
sources base and exploitation of the natural environment.
Meanwhile, the natural environment has suffered from
devastating interference and disruptions to an extent and
intensity unprecedented in human history causing
long-term and irreversible damages not just for the
country but for the whole earth as well. The latest official
statistics reported that China′s greenhouse gas emissions
reached 6.1×109 t in 2008, of which 5×109 t or 83% was
12 George C S LIN
the emission of carbon dioxide. As the scale and speed of
urbanization escalates, so does the extent and frequency
of urban heat-island effects (Oke, 1982; 1987). The
generation of solid wastes is equally astonishing. The
Ministry of Environmental Protection reported that in
2008 the country generated 1.9×109 t of industrial waste
and over 150×106 t of household trash, most of which
ended up in rubbish dumps without proper treatment. In
2007, water quality at half of 197 monitored rivers of
China was rated as heavily polluted (Fu, 2008). Over the
past 20 years, the total cost from environmental pollu-
tion and ecological deterioration is estimated to have
been 7% to 20% of annual GDP (Fu et al., 2007). Inter-
nationally, environmental degradation in this largest
developing country on earth has already caused alarm.
Domestically, intensified competition over access to the
shrinking resource base has become a main source of the
social discontents and riots escalating and mushrooming
throughout the country to pose threats to China′s long
term interests in sustainable economic growth and social
stability (Lin, 2009a; 2009b). While responsible policy
makers are posed with the challenging task to come up
with immediate and effective solutions, serious scholars
are pressed for innovative logical explanations.
Depletion of land-based natural resources and degra-
dation of the natural environment as a consequence of
economic growth are not unique to China. They can be
found in many other developing countries as well. There
exists a small yet burgeoning theoretical literature on the
dynamic interaction of land-based environmental and
political as well as social forces in the context of the
Global South. Known as Third World political ecology
and lately expanded into regional political ecology, this
line of scholarly enquiry seeks to identify and explain
changes in land-based natural resources (i.e. degradation,
desertification, deforestation, etc.) and their social as
well as political origins. The approach adopted is char-
acterized by a combination of ′the concerns of ecology
and a broadly defined political economy′ with an em-
phasis placed on ′the constantly shifting dialectic be-
tween society and land-based resources, and also within
classes and groups within society itself′ (Blaikie and
Brookfield, 1987). The main concern here is with the
relationship between society and nature, particularly with
the issue of how and why land-based natural resources
have been (re)produced and transformed under some
regionally-specific social conditions, and with what po-
litical and social ramifications. Third World political
ecology with a focus on the interaction of nature and
society has been subsequently modified and applied to
other regions of the world including the Global North
where the (re)production of natural resources such as
forests and the endangered species has increasingly been
understood as being shaped by some regionally-specific
social and political relations (McCarthy, 2002; Prudham,
2005; Walker, 2003; 2005; 2006).
Interestingly enough, Third World political ecology
has not yet had any significant influence on the enquiry
into the dynamics of land development and environ-
mental degradation in contemporary China. One possible
explanation might be the perceived difference between
China with a strong authoritarian state and countries in
Latin America where nation-states are supposedly not
strong enough to resist the interests of global capitalism
in the depletion and exploitation of natural resources. But
if the approach of Third World political ecology could be
borrowed, with necessary modification of course, to
investigate environmental problems in the global north
and generate fresh theoretical insights, there is really no
reason why it cannot be utilized as one of the conceptual
and methodological tools to examine the dynamics of
land development and environmental degradation in
globalizing China. Lin′s (2007a; 2009b) study of land
development in southern China has suggested that this
is indeed an undertaking that is not only feasible but
also with great potentials to bring about significant
theoretical advancements. Further research is needed to
see whether or not similar application can be extended to
the studies of other environmental problems and other
Chinese regions. Given the continental scale of the
country and complexity of nature-society interaction,
there may exist the opportunity to build on the conceptual
and methodological strengths of Third World/regional
political ecology and develop a distinct Chinese political
ecology.
The issues identified above are by no means exhaus-
tive and complete. They are only meant to be illustrative
of an ongoing trend to decenter theorization in geography
that has been and will continue to be facilitated by the
growth and transformation of the regional economies in
China and the Asia-Pacific. In the not too distant past
when the world was separated into capitalist and socialist
camps, the isolation of China from the Western world
effectively precluded any possibility of direct geographic
 Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries
investigation to produce ′grounded knowledge′ (McGee,
①
2007) . In the current era of economic as well as intel-
lectual globalization, an open and reformed China has
been brought into the ′theatre of accumulation′ and ex-
posed to the ′virus′ of global capitalism (Armstrong and
McGee, 1985; Walker and Buck, 2007). There is no
reason why the conceptual and methodological strength
already built up in Western geography cannot be ex-
tended to China where market transition has injected a
strong dosage of capitalism into its dynamic economy.
Equally important are the new circumstances under
which geographic exploration and enquiry in rapidly
changing China should be able to produce ground-brea-
king knowledge and ′theorize back′ to Western geogra-
phy (Yeung and Lin, 2003). With a huge land mass and
population, high and rapid growth rates, and great re-
gional variation, contemporary China has presented itself
to geographers and other social scientists as a rare and
valuable laboratory for innovative research and experi-
ments.
4 Conclusions
For centuries, the majority of the human population had
taken up residence in those settlements considered to be
rural with relatively low density and agriculture as the
main occupation. Technological advancement and in-
dustrialization have facilitated a process of urbanization
or transition of human settlements from the rural to urban
areas. Because advanced economies took the lead in
technological innovation and industrialization, they were
considered to be leaders and main drivers of global ur-
banization. Developing countries as the late-comers and
followers would simply replicate the pattern and process
of urbanization already gone through in the developed
world. As such, the theories and models of urbanization
derived from advanced countries were believed to be
applicable to developing countries. The end of the cold
war and heightened effects of globalization have further
re-assured the belief in a global convergence of urbani-
zation and the assertion that ′there should now be a single
urban discourse′ indifferent to various social, cultural,
① In his recent re-cap of how multiple knowledge′s about Southeast Asia have been produced, Terry McGee identified three kinds of
knowledge(s): ′above ground knowledge′ refers to some higher up theories supposedly applicable anywhere irrespective of local par-
ticularities; ′grounded knowledge′ is the idea ′embedded in realities′; and ′underground knowledge′ refers to the ideas that are not orthodox
and that contest dominant theories.
13
and regional contexts (Dick and Rimmer, 1998).
This paper analyzes China′s ongoing urban trans-
formation in the global context and challenges some of
the widely held theoretical beliefs in the light of the
rapidly changing reality. History has brought us to a
critical moment—a watershed in human civilization—
when the majority of the human kind has now lived in
urban settlements. The speed and scale of urbanization in
developing countries have been more phenomenal than
those in the developed world. The center of industrializa-
tion and urbanization has no longer been confined only to
the Global North and this trend toward a polycentric and
decentering world has become even more pronounced
after the recent global financial tsunami. Moreover, the
nature and dynamics of urban transformation in a de-
veloping country such as China have demonstrated disti-
nct characteristics that do not conform to the conven-
tional wisdom developed on the basis of the experiences
of advanced economies. The emergence of a decentering,
multi-polar, and cosmopolitan new world will be difficult
to be dealt with by those who have long been used to see
the others remotely through a homemade theoretical
telescope or those who have been obsessed with the
mission of universalising knowledge production. Yet it is
a new world that could be discovered and explored most
productively and fruitfully by the geographers who are
courageous and open-minded enough to navigate upon a
virgin terrain for ground-breaking theoretical cultivation
and construction.
For a long while, we have been told that, as a conse-
quence of globalization, the world we live in has become
′borderless′ and ′flat′ to which geography has lost its
relevance and over which nation-states can no longer
exert effective controls (Ohmae, 1990; Friedman, 2005).
It was only lately that World Bank economists and de-
velopment advisors have finally come to accept the fact
that ′the world is not flat′ and that ′the best predictor of
income in the world today is not what or whom you
know, but where you work′ (World Bank, 2008). Where-
as geography was conventionally treated as a negligible
variable for sophisticated econometric modeling, the
recent World Development Report 2009 has unprece-
14 George C S LIN
dentedly opted for ′reshaping economic geography′ as its
feature and mandated itself for a mission to ′advance the
influence of geography on economic activity by elevating
space and place from mere undercurrents in policy to a
major focus′ (World Bank, 2008). It is certainly en-
couraging to see the great excitements of World Bank
economists at their ′discovery′ of geography after a long
lag. What the World Bank experts have yet to learn is not
the simple fact that ′the world is not flat′ but rather the
ways in which many logics of economics, widely be-
lieved to be universally applicable, have actually been
played out differently in different locales. The growth
and transformation of China′s urbanizing economy have
presented an extraordinary case for us to investigate and
demonstrate how the economy of the globalizing world
has been and will continue to be grounded upon geograp-
hic conditions.
References
Amin A, Thrift N, 1994. Globalization, Institutions and Regional
Development in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Armstrong W, McGee T G, 1985. Theatres of Accumulation:
Studies in Asian and Latin American Urbanization. London:
Methuen.
Blaikie P, Brookfield H, 1987. Land Degradation and Society.
London: Methuen.
Brandt L, Rawski T, 2008. China′s Great Economic Transforma-
tion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brenner Neil, Theodore Nik, 2002. Spaces of Neoliberalism:
Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chan Kam Wing, 2007. Misconceptions and complexities in the
study of China′s cities: Definitions, statistics, and implications.
Eurasian Geography and Economics, 48(4): 382–412. DOI:
10.2747/1538-7216.48.4.383
Dick H W, Rimmer P J, 1998. Beyond the third world city: The
new urban geography of south-east Asia. Urban Studies, 35(12):
2303–2321. DOI: 10.1080/0042098983890
Fan C Cindy, 2008. China on the Move: Migration, the State, and
the Household. London: Routledge.
Friedman Thomas L, 2005. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of
The Globalized World in The Twenty-First Century. London:
Allen Lane.
Fu B J, 2008. Blue skies for China. Science, 321: 611.
Fu B J, Zhuang X L, Jiang G B et al., 2007. Environmental prob-
lems and challenges in China. Environmental Science & Tech-
nology, 42: 7597–7602.
Glassman Jim, 2006. Primitive accumulation, accumulation by
dispossession, accumulation by ′extra-economic′ means. Pro-
gress in Human Geography, 30(5): 608–625. DOI:
10.1177/03-09132506070172.
Hardin G, 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, (162):
1243–1248.
Harvey D, 1985. The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the His-
tory and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Harvey D, 2003. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Harvey D, 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ho Peter, 2005. Introduction: the chicken of institutions or the egg
of reforms. In: Peter Ho (ed.). Developmental Dilemmas: Land
Reform and Institutional Change in China. London: Routledge.
Ho Samuel P S, Lin George C S, 2004. Converting land to nonag-
ricultural use in China′s coastal provinces: Evidence from Ji-
angsu. Modern China, 30(1): 81–112. DOI: 10.1177/00977004-
03259131
Hsing You-tien, 2010. The Great Urban Transformation. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Huang P C C, 1990. The Peasant Family and Rural Development
in the Yangzi Delta: 1350–1988. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Huang Yasheng, 2008. Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics:
Entrepreneurship and The State. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Jessop B, 2002. Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance:
A state-theoretical perspective. In: Brenner Neil et al. (eds.).
Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America
and Western Europe. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 105–125.
Krugman P, 1991. Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Krugman P, 1995. Development, Geography and Economic The-
ory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Liang Z, Ma Z, 2004. China′s floating population: New evidence
from the 2000 census. Population and Development Review,
30(3): 467–488. DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2004.00024.x
Lin G C S, 1997. Red Capitalism in South China: Growth and
Development of the Pearl River Delta. Vancouver: University of
British Columbia Press.
Lin G C S, 1998. China′s industrialization with controlled ur-
banization: Anti-urbanism or urban-biased? Issues & Studies,
34(6): 98–116.
Lin G C S, 2002. The growth and structural change of Chinese
Cities: A contextual and geographic analysis. Cities, 19(5):
299–316. DOI: 10.1016/S0264-2751(02)00039-2
Lin G C S, 2007a. Reproducing spaces of Chinese urbanization:
New city-based and land-centered urban transformation. Urban
Studies, 44(9): 1827–1855. DOI: 10.1080/00420980701426673
Lin G C S, 2007b. Chinese urbanism in question: State, society,
and the reproduction of urban spaces. Urban Geography, 28(1):
 Urban China in Transformation: Hybrid Economy, Juxtaposed Space, and New Testing Ground for Geographical Enquiries
7–29. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.28.1.7
Lin G C S, 2009a. Developing China: Land, Politics, and Social
Conditions. London: Routledge.
Lin G C S, 2009b. Scaling-up regional development in globalizing
China: Local capital accumulation, land-centred politics, and
reproduction of space. Regional Studies, 43(3): 429–447. DOI:
10.1080/00343400802662625
Lin G C S, 2009c. Decentering geography in a globalizing world:
A golden jubilee celebration of UBC′s area studies tradition.
World Regional Studies, 18(4): 1–16. (in Chinese)
Lin G C S, Ho S P S, 2003. China′s land resources and land use
change: Insights from the 1996 land survey. Land Use Policy,
20(3): 92. DOI: 10.1016/S0264-8377(03)00007-3
Lin G C S, Ho S P S, 2005. The state, land system, and land
development processes in contemporary China. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 95(2): 411–436. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00467.x
Lin G C S, Wei Y H D, 2002. China′s restless urban landscape 1:
New challenges for theoretical reconstruction. Environment and
Planning A, 34(9): 1535–1544. DOI: 10.1068/a3409ed
Logan J, Molotch H, 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political
Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ma Laurence J C, 2009. China′s authoritarian capitalism: Growth,
elitism and legitimacy. International Development Planning
Review, 31(1): i–xii. DOI: 10.3828/idpr.31.1.1
Ma Laurence J C, Fan M, 1994. Urbanization from below—The
growth of towns in Jiangsu, China. Urban Studies, 31(10):
1625–1645. DOI: 10.1080/00420989420081551
Ma Laurence J C, Lin G C S, 1993. Development of towns in
China: A case study of Guangdong Province. Population and
Development Review, 19(3): 583–606.
Ma Laurence J C, Wu Fulong, 2005. Restructuring the Chinese
city: Diverse processes and reconstituted spaces. In: Laurence J
C Ma et al. (eds.). Restructuring the Chinese City. London:
Routledge, 1–20.
MacLeod G, Goodwin M, 1999. Space, scale and state strategy:
Rethinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human
Geography, 23(4): 503–527. DOI: 10.1191/030913299669861-
026
Marcotullion P J, Lee Y S F, 2003. Urban environmental transi-
tions and urban transportation systems: A comparison of the
North American and Asian experiences. International Devel-
opment Planning Review, 25(4): 325–354. DOI: 10.3828/idpr.
25.4.2
McCarthy J, 2002. First world political ecology: Lessons from the
wise use movement. Environment and Planning A, 34:
1281–1302. DOI: 10.1068/a3526
McGee T G, 1991. Presidential address: Eurocentrism in geog-
raphy: The case of Asian urbanization. Canadian Geographer:
35(4): 332–344. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.1991.tb01298.x
McGee T G, 2007. Many knowledge(s) of Southeast Asia:
15
Rethinking Southeast Asia in read time. Asia Pacific Viewpoint,
48(2): 270–280. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2007.00339.x
McGee T G, Lin George C S, Marton Andrew M et al., 2007.
China′s Urban Space: Development under Market Socialism.
London: Routledge.
Nathan, Andrew, 2003. Authoritarian resilience. Journal of De-
mocracy, 9(1): 6–17. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2003.0019
NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China), 2006. China
Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press. (in Chi-
nese)
NBSC, 2009. China Statistical Abstract (2009). Beijing: China
Statistics Press. (in Chinese)
Nee Victor, Swedberg Richard, 2007. On Capitalism. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Ohmae K, 1990. The Borderless World. London: HarperCollins.
Oke T R, 1982. The energetic basis of the urban heat island.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 108:
1–24. DOI: 10.1002/qj.49710845502
Oke T R, 1987. Boundary Layer Climate. London: Methuen.
Ong Aihwa, 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of
Transnationality. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Pannell Clifton W, 1992. The role of great cities in China. In: G E
Guldin (ed.). Urbanizing China. Westport: Greenwood Press,
11–39.
Peck Jamie, 2001. Neoliberalizing states: Thin policies/hard out-
comes. Progress in Human Geography, 25(3): 445–455. DOI:
10.1191/030913201680191772
Pei Minxin, 2006. China′s Trapped Transition: The Limits of
Developmental Autocracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Porter M, 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London:
Macmillan.
Porter M, 1998. On Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ-
ersity Press.
Prudham W S, 2005. Knock on Wood: Nature as Commodity in
Douglas-Fir Country. New York: Routledge.
Putterman Louis, 1995. The role of ownership and property rights
in China′s economic transition. The China Quarterly, 144:
1047–1064. DOI: 10.1017/S0305741000004720
Saxenian A L, 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition
in Silicon Valley and route 128. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Schubert Gunter, 2008. One-party rule and the question of legiti-
macy in contemporary China: Preliminary thoughts on setting
up a new research agenda. Journal of Contemporary China,
17(54): 191–204. DOI: 10.1080/10670560701693153
Scott A J, 1998. Regions and the World Economy: The Coming
Shape of Global Production, Competition, and Political Order.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott A J, Storper M, 2003. Regions, globalization, development.
Regional Studies, 37(6 & 7): 579–593. DOI: 10.1080/003434
16 George C S LIN
0032000108697
Smart A, 1997. Oriental despotism and sugar-coated bullets:
Representations of the market in China. In: James G Carrier
(ed.). Meanings of the Market. Oxford: Berg. 159–194.
Solinger D J, 1999. Contesting Citizenship in Urban China.
Berkeley C A: University of California Press.
Solinger D J, 2003. State and society in urban China in the wake of
the 16th Party Congress. The China Quarterly, 176: 943–959.
DOI: 10.1017/S0305741003000560
Stone C, 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988.
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Storper M, 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in
a Global Economy. New York: Guilford.
Tickell A T, Peck J A, 1995. Social regulation after-Fordism:
Regulation theory, neoliberalism and the global-local nexus.
Economy and Society, 24(3): 357–386. DOI: 10.1080/0308514-
9500000015
Vogel E F, 1979. Japan as Number One: Lessons for America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walder Andrew G, 1995. China′s transitional economy: Inter-
preting its significance. The China Quarterly, 144: 963–979.
DOI: 10.1017/S0305741000004689
Walker P A, 2003. Reconsidering ′regional′ political ecologies:
Toward a political ecology of the rural American West. Pro-
gress in Human Geography, 27(1): 7–24. DOI: 10.1191/030913
2503ph410oa
Walker P A, 2005. Political ecology: Where is the ecology? Prog-
ress in Human Geography, 29(1): 73–82. DOI: 10.1191/0309-
132505ph530pr
Walker P A, 2006. Political ecology: Where is the policy? Pro-
gress in Human Geography, 30(3): 382–395. DOI: 10.1191/03-
09132506ph613pr
Walker Richard, Buck Daniel, 2007. The Chinese road: Cities in
the transition to capitalism. New Left Review, 46: 39–66.
World Bank, 2008. World Development Report 2009: Reshaping
Economic Geography. Washington, D.C.: the World Bank.
World Bank, 2010. Cities growing as people move from the
countryside in search of better jobs and living conditions.
Available from: http://youthink.worldbank.org/issues/urban-
ization Accessed 16 July 2010.
Wu Fulong, 2008. China′s great transformation: Neoliberalization
as establishing a market society. Geoforum, 39: 1093–1096.
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.01.007
Yeung H W C, Lin G C S, 2003. Theorizing Economic Geograp-
hies of Asia. Economic Geography, 79(2): 107–128. DOI: 10.
1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00204.x
Zhou Y, Ma L J C, 2003. China′s urbanization levels: Recon-
structuring a baseline from the fifth population census. The
China Quarterly, 173: 176–196. DOI: 10.1017/S00094439030-
0010X