![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The call for citizen participation is a prominent theme in academic, public, and political discussions. Taking the S Village transformation project in Guangzhou City as a case study, this article examines how urban planners, as experts, contributed to improving citizen participation in local community planning. The planners constructed forums for expert-citizen interaction in which they provided residents with professional knowledge, performed multiple roles as both experts and communicators, and promoted capacity building; citizens were largely mobilized to perform active participation in this transformation project. The findings show that planners reframed the transformation plan based on villagers’ community identity towards the village history, which played an important role in reaching a mutual agreement regarding community development. The article echoes the argument that such professional groups have, as planners, emerged as mediators linking the government and citizens in Chinese community governance and discovers their role as an engine for promoting villagers’ innovation and self-development capacity. However, the study reveals that experts’ role in supporting citizens’ participation is restricted due to such factors as a lack of institutional support and high operating costs. More research needs to be done to explore how experts could better facilitate civic participation in different contexts.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.
Notes
1 See Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment; Li and Marsh, “New Forms of Political Participation”.
2 See Putnam, Bowling Alone; Krishna, “Enhancing Political Participation in Democracies”; Huang, “Renmen Ruhe Juanru Gonggong Canyu Shijian?”; Bingham et al., “The New Governance”; Froissart, “From Outsiders to Insiders”; Zhu, “Policy Change and Expert Involvement in China”; Almén, “Local Participatory Innovations and Experts as Political Entrepreneurs”; Xia and Guan, “Practicing Democratic Citizenship in China”; Hasmath and Hsu, “A Community of Practice for Chinese NGOs”.
3 See Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment; Yang and Lan, “Internet’s Impact on Expert-Citizen Interactions”; Van Assche, “Changing Frames”.
4 See, for example, Kiptoo et al., “Towards Citizen-expert Knowledge Exchange”.
5 See, Fischer, “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise”; Derkzen and Bock, “The Construction of Professional Identity”; Yang and Lan, “Internet’s Impact on Expert-citizen Interactions”.
6 See Fischer, “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise”; Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment; Brydon and Vining, “Combining Citizen Participation and Expert Analysis”.
7 See, for example, Whitmarsh et al., “Participation of Experts and non-experts”.
8 See Rowe and Gammack, “Promise and Perils of Electronic Public Engagement”; Yang and Lan, “Internet’s Impact on Expert-citizen interactions”; See Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment.
9 See, for example, Brooks, Planning Theory for Practitioners.
10 See Day, “Citizenship Participation in the Planning Process”; Simpson and Bretherton, “Reconciling Expert Advice and Community Opinion”; Lindell and Akademi, “Deliberative Walks”.
11 See, for example, Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment, 29.
12 See, Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment.
13 See for example Cidler, “Public Administration and the Paradox of Professionalization”.
14 See, for example, Rifkin and Martin, “Negotiating Expert Status”.
15 See Atkinson, “Discourse of Partnership and Empowerment”; Taylor, “Communities in the Lead”.
16 See, for example, Golobic and Marusic, “Developing an Integrated Approach for Public Participation”.
17 See, for example, Roberts, “Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Participation”.
18 See, for example, Simpson and Bretherton, “Reconciling Expert Advice and Community Opinion”.
19 See, for example, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, Stealth Democracy.
20 See, for example, Font et al., “Participation, Representation and Expertise”.
21 See note 15 above.
22 See Hemant et al., “Policy without Politics”.
23 See Michels and Graaf, “Examining Citizen Participation”.
24 See, for example, Taylor, “Communities in the Lead”.
25 See Rydin, “Re-examining the Role of Knowledge”.
26 See Mazza, “Technical Knowledge and Planning Actions”; Peterman, “Advocacy vs. Collaboration”.
27 See, for example, Brooks, Planning Theory for Practitioners.
28 See Fischer, “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy eExpertise”; Derkzen and. Bock, “The Construction of Professional Identity”.
29 See note 6 above.
30 See Fischer, “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise”.
31 See Mertha, “Fragmented Authoritarianism 2.0”; Daviter, “Policy Analysis in the Face of Complexity”.
32 See Silver et al., “Setting an Agenda for Local Action”; Lowe et al., “Expertise in Rural Development”; Whitmarsh et al., “Participation of Experts and non-experts”.
33 See Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment.
34 See, for example, van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, “A look in the Mirror”.
35 See Cain et al., “Democracy Transformed”; Zolkafli et al., “Bridging the Knowledge Divide”.
36 See, for example, Derkzen and Bock, “The Construction of Professional Identity”.
37 See Derkzen and Bock, “The Construction of Professional Identity”; Zolkafli, “Bridging the Knowledge Divide”; Lowe, et al., “Expertise in Rural Development”.
38 See, for example, Amin and Cohendent, Architectures of Knowledge.
39 See, for example, Whatmore, “Mapping Knowledge Controversies”.
40 Ibid.
41 See Van Assche et al., “Changing Frames”.
42 See Zanon, “Planners’ Technical Expertise”.
43 See note 9 above.
44 See, for example, Peterman, “Advocacy vs. Collaboration”.
45 Campbell and Marshall, “Moral Obligations, Planning, and the Public Interest”; Rydin, “Re-examining the Role of Knowledge”.
46 See Silver et al., “Setting an Agenda for Local Action”.
47 See Silver et al., “Setting an Agenda for Local Action”; Simpson and Bretherton, “Reconciling. Expert Advice and Community Opinion”.
48 See, for example, Pahl-Wostl, “The Importance of Social Learning”.
49 See Wübbeke, “China’s Climate Change Expert Community”.
50 See note 47 above.
51 See Michels and Graaf, “Examining Citizen Participation”.
52 See Margulies and Black, “Perspective on the Implementation of Participative Approaches”.
53 See, for example, Fishkin, “Consulting the Public through Deliberative Polling”.
54 See Glaser and Sauners, “Chinese Civilian Foreign Policy Research Institutes”; Van Assche et al., “Changing Frames”; Ingold and Gschwend, “Science in Policy-Making”.
55 See Dai and Spires, “Advocacy in an Authoritarian State”; Froissart, “From Outsiders to Insiders”.
56 Zhao, “Shequ Guihua de Zhidu Jichu ji Shequ Guihuashi Juese Tansuo”; Xu et al., “Chuangxin. Shequ Zhili Beijingxia de Shequ Weigengxin Shijian yu Sikao”; Liu, “Shequ Guihuashi ‘Zhongjianren’de Jiaose Fenxi”.
57 See Bray, “Building ‘Community’”; Tang and Wang, “Community Identity, Elite Mobilization and Organizational Empowerment”.
58 See, for example, He, “Woguo Chengshi Jiceng Shehui Guanli Jizhi de Bianqian”.
59 Shieh and Friedann, “Restructuring Urban Governance”.
60 Bray, “Building ‘Community’”.
61 See Tang, “Not Rural but Not Urban”; Xiang and Hua, “The Course, Evolution and Prospect of Chinese Community Construction”.
62 See Wang, “Shifting Boundaries between the State and Society”; Zhao, “An ‘Unceasing War’ on Land Development”.
63 See Wei, “The Mode of Our Urban Community Administration”; Bian and Lv, “Zhuanxingqi Zhongguo Chengshi Duoyuancanyushi Shequ Zhili Moshi Yanjiu”; Sun, “Governance Value, Growth Coalition, and Models of Community Governance”.
64 The Chinese word is ‘Gongzuofang’, and has been translated as ‘workshop’ in previous research on this experiment. Usually ‘workshop’ means an activity, like a practical meeting or session; however, here it is used to describe an ongoing project.
65 Huang et al., “Gongtong Dizao Gongzuofang: Canyushi Shequguihua de Xin Moshi”; Li et al., “Shequ Canyu de Xin Moshi”.
66 Sohu, “The First Community Planner System”; CRI online, “Qinglong Street, Chenghua District, Chengdu”.
67 Xuhui District Government Office, “Guanyu Yinfa Xuhuiqu Shequ Guihuashi Shidu Shishi Banfa. de Tongzhi”; Liu, “Shequ Guihuashi ‘Zhongjianren’de Jiaose Fenxi”.
68 Wu and Wang, “Shenzhen Shequ Guihuashi Zhidu de Moshi Yanjiu”; Zhao, “Shequ Guihua de Zhidu Jichu ji Shequ Guihuashi Juese Tansuo”.
69 Yangcheng Evening Newspaper, “Guangzhou you jin 200 ming Shequ Guihuashi Zhageng Shequ”.
70 HEMC is a university district in Guangzhou consisting of 12 universities, such as Sun Yat-sen. University, South China University of Technology, and South China University. Construction began in early 2003 and it began operating in September 2014. It is adjacent to the west part of S village.
71 Cox and McCarthy, Conflict, Politics and the Urban Scene; Matthews et al., “Homo Economicus in. a Big Society”.
72 Pretty., “Sense of Place amongst Adolescents and Adults in Two Rural Australian Towns”.
73 Long and Perkins, “Community Social and Place Predictors of Sense of Community”.
74 Quintin, “Neighbourhood Planning and the Impact of Place Identity”.
75 Dallago et al., “Adolescent Pace Attachment, Social Capital, and Perceived Safety”; Quintin, “Neighbourhood Planning and the Impact of Place Identity”; Zhang et al., “Community Identity and User Engagement in a Multi-community Landscape”.
76 Innes and Booher, “Reframing Public Participation Strategies”.
77 Livingston et al., “Active Participation or just More Information?”.
78 Smith and Huntsman, “Reframing the Metaphor of the Citizen-government Relationship”.
79 Margulies and Black, “Perspective on the Implementation of Participative Approaches”.
80 Michels and De Graaf, “Examining Citizen Participation”.
81 Lowe et al., “Expertise in Rural Development”.
82 Ibid.
83 Marzuki et al. “Restaurant Managers’ Perspectives on Halal Certification”.
84 Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”.
85 Wübbeke, “China’s Climate Change Expert Community”.
86 See note 52 above.
87 Simonsen and Robbins, Citizen Participation in Resource Allocation.
88 Almen, “Local Participatory Innovations and Experts as Political Entrepreneurs”.
89 Black and Gregersen, “Participative Decision-making”.
90 Deng, “Shehui Jianshe Shijiaoxia Shehui Zuzhi de Qingjing Hefaxing”.
91 Silver et al., “Setting an Agenda for Local Action”.
92 Gui, “Lingli Zhengzhi”.
93 Durkheim, Professional Ethics and Civic Morals.
94 See note 68 above.
95 Zhu, “Bureau Chiefs and Policy Experts”.
96 Bonnin and Chevrier, “The Intellectual and the State”.
97 Zhu, “Policy Change and Expert Involvement in China”.
98 Faehnle et al., “How can Residents’ Eexperiences Inform Planning of Urban Green Infrastructure”.
99 See note 48 above.
100 CnWest, “Guangshao Yang”.
101 Wu and Wang, “Shenzhen Shequ Guihuashi Zhidu de Moshi Yanjiu”.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Chong Zhang
Chong Zhang, is a lecturer at School of Public Administration, Zhejiang University of Technology, China. She received her PhD degree from University of Glasgow. Her research interests include civic participation, local governance and public policy theories.
Liao Liao
Liao Liao, is an associated research fellow at the School of Politics and Public Administration, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China. She received her PhD degree from SciencesPo Aix. Her research interests include local governance, urban governance and public policy theories.