Why do participatory reforms in authoritarian settings so often recentre, rather than diffuse, power? And how do institutional rules and the distribution of resources channel participatory initiatives toward outcomes that ultimately reinforce state dominance?
This book addresses these questions through an in-depth examination of participatory urban redevelopment in China. Traditional redevelopment institutions, long characterized by top-down state control and the exclusion of residents, generated widespread public resistance and social instability. In response, the Chinese state introduced participatory reforms that formally incorporated residents into decision-making processes, aiming to mitigate opposition to forced demolition, inadequate compensation, and escalating social tensions. While these reforms reshaped procedures and institutional mechanisms, their deeper effects on power relations remain poorly understood.
Building on Giddens structuration theory, Foucaults conception of power, and Ostroms Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, the book develops a power arena framework to examine how rules and resources structure interactions among stakeholders and shape the distribution of power in participatory urban redevelopment.
The findings demonstrate that participatory reforms have indeed enabled individual property owners and strengthened community-level capacities to engage in decision-making, partially constraining local governmental authority. However, rather than producing a shift toward collaborative governance, these reforms frequently recentre power within the state. Through its control over key institutional rules and strategic resources, local government continues to orchestrate interactions among stakeholders and maintain a dominant position within a hierarchical power structure.
By showing how participatory institutions in an authoritarian context can simultaneously empower social actors and reinforce state control, this book offers a novel explanation for the paradoxical outcomes of participation. It contributes to broader debates on power, participation, and urban governance by revealing why institutional reforms designed to diffuse authority often end up consolidating itand why understanding the rules and resources that underpin participation is crucial to explaining this outcome.
