The changing faces of community development in China: the case of Beijing

Abstract

The concept of community governance became prevalent throughout the world in the 1990s. Neoliberalist globalization reinforced the spread of this mode of governance in northern developed countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, and in southern developing countries. A general lowering of the quality of life for low income and disadvantaged communities and increasing social risks for the wider population had become evident in numerous cities. A steady retrenchment of welfare provision by the public sector accompanied this (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Alcock and Craig, 2010; DeFilippis et al., 2010; van den Berk-Clark and Pyles, 2012). The so-called ‘Washington consensus’ was critical in advancing the structural adjustment of developing southern countries, particularly the diminishing role of the state in delivering welfare (Mayer and Rankin, 2002; Midgley and Livermore, 2005). The significance of the role of community in urban governance has thus risen, leading to what is now known as communitarian governance. Here, community participation is emphasized in urban policymaking and implementation, particularly in the provision of welfare services for disadvantaged communities. This emphasis has also proliferated since the 1990s (Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Jessop, 2002; Leitner et al., 2007). Shifting the welfare load from the state to community self-help and/or volunteering activities and sustaining social order through programmes such as community watches are typical examples of the prevalence of this mode of governance (Cummings, 2001; Mayer, 2007; Popple, 2007).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.