Uncorking the neoliberal bottle: neoliberal critique and urban change in China

Neoliberalism’s theoretical ascendancy within urban geography coincided with the rapid growth of scholarly attention to Chinese cities. Therefore, it is unsurprising that neoliberal causality has been a widely used tool for interpreting China’s spatial transformation. This paper critically reviews some of the most prominent debates on neoliberalism in the Chinese context. China’s Leninist political hierarchy and Dual Structure, crucial institutions for the management and regulation of society and economy under Mao, are now reduced to the quirks of “actually existing neoliberalism.” Neoliberal critique applied to China, however, fails to adequately explain China’s spatial development because it assigns causality for social and economic inequality to globalized processes of capital accumulation while ignoring the continued importance of Maoist institutions in China’s present-day political economy. Uncritical acceptance of neoliberalism’s explanatory power for spatial change has led to flawed and inaccurate portrayals of the development and future trajectories of Chinese cities, and misrepresents the sources of social injustice in Chinese society.     

Book reviews

Efectos regionales del presupuesto europeo en España [Regional Effects of the European Budget in Spain]. M.D. Correa García and S. Maluquer i Amorós. Inistitut d'Estudis Autonòmics, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona 1998, 216 pp., 4500 ptas, ISBN 84 393 4544 5

Urban Environmental Planning: Policies, Instruments and Methods in an International Perspective. Donald Miller and Gert de Roo (Eds). Avebury, Aldershot 1997, 336 pp., £52.00, ISBN 1 859 72593 7

Worlds of Production: the Action Frameworks of the Economy. Michael Storper and Robert Salais. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA/London, 1997, 370 pp., £29.95 (hb), ISBN 0–67496–203–6     

Local Governments and Indigenous Australians: Developments and Dilemmas in Contrasting Circumstances

This paper examines developments and dilemmas in relations between local governments and indigenous Australians over the last quarter century. It establishes a framework for analysis based on differences in local government systems, circumstances and populations. It then examines two sets of developments in relations which have occurred in contrasting circumstances. The first is ongoing poor relations in incorporated local government areas, focusing on a complex of issues surrounding landownership, rates and services. The second is discrete predominantly Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities in sparsely settled areas themselves becoming local governments. Both of these sets of developments are seen as being accompanied by significant dilemmas. In relation to the first, the major dilemma identified is how superordinate levels of government should best proceed in attempts to improve relations. In relation to the second, major dilemmas are identified relating to indigenous 'ownership' of the resulting local government structures and the weakness of the financial position of these newly emerging local governments. The paper suggests there have been some very significant and quite complex developments in relations between local governments and indigenous Australians over the last quarter century. However, these developments have only tentatively moved relations in a more positive direction, if indeed at all. Poor relations still predominate between local governments and indigenous Australians.     

Understanding Public Support for Time Limits and Other Welfare Reforms

This article presents results of a reanalysis of data from a survey of New York residents regarding that state's welfare system and proposed welfare reform. The data danger from most previous studies of public opinion about welfare because questions were asked about a range of specific welfare reform options, such as various time limits, eligibility restrictions, and work requirements, that are key features of the new federal welfare law. Specifically, the analysis explores the extent to which public support for these reforms can be explained by self interest factors, political qualification, and beliefs regarding the poor, social rights, and the welfare system. White these variables have been found to be important in prior research, they provide a somewhat less consistent explanation of support for specific features of the new welfare system in the United States.