兩岸歷史街區保存與再生治理研究: 以臺北迪化街和廣州恩寧路為例_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	兩岸歷史街區保存與再生治理研究: 以臺北迪化街和廣州恩寧路為例
作者：	張家睿
作者(外文)：	ZHANG, JIA-RUI
校院名稱：	國立臺北大學
系所名稱：	都市計劃研究所
指導教授：	林文一
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2023
主題關鍵詞：	治理性；裝置；保存與再生；特區；例外狀態；Governmentality；Dispositive；Conservation and Regeneration；Special Conservation Zone；Exception
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:1

1990年代起，治理性研究已經被應用於諸多面向，也形成所謂治理性學派。歐陸治理學派認為，現代國家/城市的治理形塑，往往基於對領土內各種人、事、物的客體化，並從其中建構一種對於都市問題或被治理客體的指認與理解、以及提出朝向更合理的人、事、物安排的「指導理性」或「真實政體」、及將其付諸實踐之「治理技術」，如新的制度或組織。這些治理學派觀點的貢獻被用於解析都市政策中的理性基礎，其所形塑的規訓權力，以及新自由主義的遙控治理。但以上觀點同時也導致，一些治理研究在假設上過度依循從指導理性、治理技術到行動遙控的單一規訓控制路徑等問題，而相對忽略了不同地域、時空條件下，治理性及其治理技術的特殊發展脈絡與動態過程。
本研究從全球南方都市再生或再發展的治理性發展作為切入，藉由梳理台北迪化街保存特區的治理過程以及廣州恩寧路歷史街區的再發展治理經驗，企圖補充或修正過去以歐陸為主導的治理性學派論述之侷限。首先，文章以迪化街保存特區和恩寧路的改造為例，論述此特殊性，並連結到更多元及複雜的文化主體認同與發展典範，例如迪化街的保存論述發展脈絡中，如何「再現」其進步性或正當性、建構在論述或社會溝通上的政治合法性等問題，往往優先於對在地問題或真實狀況的考察。本文認為，在不斷的動態修正、社會或文化的矛盾衝突過程下，逐漸產生的治理性及治理技術，往往才是後進國家中的現實。其次，啟發自東亞政權下的特殊彈性治理場域（以此既和全球接軌也維持社會治理穩定），本文企圖連結特區、例外狀態的討論，檢視這兩個典型案例在治理性形塑過程中的重要概念與特殊性。與此同時，我也試圖用傅柯的「裝置」視角來重新思考和概念化迪化街與恩寧路的保存與治理過程，避免治理性研究可能過度簡化，或由上而下過於單一的詮釋。
從這兩個案例的經驗結果來看，「裝置」和治理性兩個概念，並非對立或衝突，治理性學派的視角可以提供相關規訓、知識、及其運作的控制與權力分析，「裝置」的概念能協助我們去概念化或解析治理轉型中的複雜及主體能動性，建立一個更為宏觀和全面的檢視架構，去檢驗不同治理要角或元素間所構成的去中心化連接及其權力關係、權力生產等。總之，這種治理性與「裝置」結合的研究視角，建構了一個更加貼近治理真實全貌的分析框架，透過這樣的分析與對比，筆者認為對於後進國家而言，那些根植於我們社會的傳統和文化，與那些被視為先進和現代的西方治理所產生的「新舊結合」，才是真正地方社會治理的核心。

以文找文

Since the 1990s, the study of Governmentality has been applied to many aspects, and the so-called Governmentality school has been formed. The traditional Governmentality school believes that the governance of modern countries or cities is often based on the objectification of all kinds of people, things and things within their territory, and from this, it constructs a kind of identification and understanding of urban problems or the governed objects, and proposes " conducting rationality " or " regime of truth " towards more reasonable arrangements of people, things and things, and " technology of governance " to put it into practice, such as new systems or organizations. The contribution of these views of governance school is used to analyze the rational basis of urban policy, the regulatory power formed by it, and the remote control of neoliberalism governance. However, the above viewpoints also lead to the assumption that some governance studies excessively follow the single discipline control path from guiding rationality, governance technology to action remote control, while relatively ignoring the special development pulse and dynamic process of governance rationality and governance technology in different regions, time and space conditions.
This study starts from the governance development of urban regeneration or redevelopment in the Global South. By combing the governance process of Taipei Dihua Street Special Conservation Zone and the redevelopment and governance experience of Guangzhou Enning Road Historical Zone, it attempts to supplement or contribute the limitations of the previous European-focusing governmentality literature. First of all, the article takes the preservation of Dihua street and the reconstruction of Enning road as an example to discuss this particularity, and links it to a more diversified and complex model of cultural subject identification and development. For example, in the context of the preservation and development of Dihua Street, how to "reproduce" its progressiveness or legitimacy, and the political legitimacy of the construction in discourse or social communication are often given priority over the investigation of local issues or real conditions. This paper argues that under the process of continuous dynamic correction and social or cultural conflicts, the governmentality and governance technology gradually produced are often the reality in the backward countries. Secondly, inspired by the special elastic governance field under the East Asian regime (which not only connects with the world but also maintains the stability of local governance), this study attempts to link the discussion of special zones and state of exception, and examine the important concepts and particularity of these two typical cases in the establishing process of governmentality. At the same time, I also try to reconceptualize the preservation and governance process of Dihua street and Enning road from the perspective of “Dispositive”, to avoid the possibility of oversimplification of governance research, or from the top down too single interpretation.
From the empirical results of these two cases, it can be seen that the concepts of "Dispositive" and "Govermentality" are not antagonistic or conflicting. The governmentality school study can provide relevant discipline, knowledge, and control and power analysis of its operation. The concept of " Dispositive" can help us to conceptualize or analyze the complexity and subjective initiative in the govermentality transformation, and establish a more macroscopic and comprehensive inspection framework, to examine the decentralized connections and power relations between different governance factors. In short, the perspective of combining “Govermentality” and "Dispositive" provides an analytical framework closer to the real picture of governance for us. Through my analysis and comparison, I believe that for the developing countries, the combination of “Old and New" rooted in the local society, traditional culture and western govermentality is the real matter of local governance.

以文找文

中文書目：
1.王小章, & 郎友興. (1995). 都市的體驗:關於城市社會生活的三種理論. 浙江社會科學, (4), 85-88.
2.王文誠. (2011). 反身性的社區營造: 實踐性的地理學想像. 都市與計劃, 38(1), 1-29.
3.王玉民. (1997). 社會科學研究方法原理. 臺北：洪葉文化事業公司。
4.王志弘. (2012). 新文化治理體制與國家-社會關係:剝皮寮的襲產化. 世新人文社會學報, 13, 31-70.
5.王振寰, & 錢永祥. (1995). 邁向新國家? 民粹威權主義的形成與民主問題. 台灣社會研究季刊, (20), 17-55.
6.王晶, & 甄峰. (2016). 城市眾創空間的特徵、機制及其空間規劃應對. 規劃師, 32(9), 5-10.
7.中國城市更新專業委員會. (2017). 廣州恩寧路永慶片區微改造實施評估研究. 廣州: 中國城市更新專業委員會.
8.石計生. (2012). 大稻埕異托邦-百年城市史裡的「福科問題」與文化閒逛. 台灣社會研究季刊, (88), 41-88.
9.石發勇. (2013). 准公民社區: 國家, 關係網絡與城市基層治理. 北京: 社會科學文獻出版社.
10.石發勇. (2013). 關係網絡、「地方形象促進聯盟」與城市基層治理. 學海, 3, 33-45.
11.米歇爾•傅柯. (2010). 安全、領土與人口 (錢翰等, 譯). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
12.江寶釵. (2012). 論臺北城的殖民現代性─以市區改正與新興建築為觀察核心. 文與哲, 20, 409-446.
13.安寧, & 朱竑. (2013). 他者,權力與地方建構:想像地理的研究進展與展望. 人文地理, 28(1), 20-25.
14.阮儀三, & 肖建莉. (2003). 尋求遺產保護和旅遊發展的「雙贏」之路. 城市規劃, 27(6), 86-90.
15.阮儀三, & 林林. (2003). 文化遺產保護的原真性原則. 同濟大學學報: 社會科學版, 14(2), 1-5.
16.杜量. (2012). 社區自主更新與獨立第三方——廣州恩寧路改造的困局與出路. 世界建築導報, (2), 30-33.
17.李志剛, 吳縛龍, & 薛德升. (2006). 「後社會主義城市」社會空間分異研究述評. 人文地理, 21(5), 1-5.
18.李國祁. (1978). 清代台灣社會的轉型. 中華學報, 5(3), 138-138.
19.李龍, & 任穎. (2014). 「治理」一詞的沿革考略. 法制與社會發展,(04), 5-27.
20.肖林. (2011). 「社區」研究與「社區研究」——近年來我國城市社區研究述評. 社會學研究, 4, 185-208.
21.呂斌, & 耿萌萌. (2013). 基於「價值重塑」看歷史街區保護與活化的博弈關係——以臺灣三峽老街為例. 城市發展研究, 20(7).
22.吳祖泉. (2014). 解析第三方在城市規劃公眾參與的作用——以廣州市恩寧路事件為例. 城市規劃, (2), 62-68.
23.吳密察, & 陳順昌等. (1984). 迪化街傳奇. 臺北: 時報文化出版事業有限公司.
24.邱淑宜, & 林文一. (2019). 臺北市西門紅樓創意街區的真實性修補及其治理. 都市與計劃, 46(1), 1-31.
25.邱淑宜. (2014). 臺北市迪化街URS之藝術和創意轉型:誰的文化?誰的城市? 藝術教育研究, (28), 65-98.
26.何海兵. (2006). 「國家-社會」範式框架下的中國城市社區研究. 上海行政學院學報, 7(4), 96-106.
27.何艷玲. (2007). 都市街區中的國家與社會: 樂街調查. 北京: 社會科學文獻出版社.
28.宋光宇. (1993). 霞海城隍祭典與臺北大稻埕商業發展關係. 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊, 62(2), 291-336.
29.宋光宇. (2012). 1920 年代迎神賽會與臺北商業體系的形成. 宗教哲學, (62), 113-147.
30.宋侃. (2013). 論福柯的「治理術」. 經典中的法理, (1), 143-185.
31.林文一, & 邱淑宜. (2014). 後政治的社區動員與共識建構-一個臺北社區文化建構的案例. 地理學報, (72), 85-109.
32.林文一, & 張家睿. (2021). 迪化街保存特區治理性的形塑, 實踐及其特殊性. 都市與計劃, 48(3), 311-346.
33.林文一. (2015). 文化創意導向都市再生,「新」都市治理的實踐及缺憾:以迪化街區為例. 都市與計劃, 42(4), 423-454.
34.林玉茹. (2010). 從屬與分立: 十九世紀中葉臺灣港口城市的雙重貿易機制. 臺灣史研究, 17(2), 1-37.
35.林秀澧, & 高名孝. (2015). 計劃城事: 戰後臺北都市發展歷程. 臺北: 田園城市.
36.林南, 陳志柔, & 傅仰止. (2010). 社會關係的類型和效應: 台灣、美國、中國大陸的三地比較. 臺灣社會學刊, 45, 117-162.
37.林崇傑. (2008). 台灣運用容積移轉於歷史保存之政策與實踐之檢討. 文資學報, (4), 27-92.
38.林會承. (2011). 臺灣文化資產保存史綱. 臺北:遠流出版.
39.林會承. (2014). 戰後臺灣文化資產保存法制與氛圍的形塑. 文資學報, (8), 27-55.
40.林樹森. (2013). 廣州城記. 廣州: 廣東人民出版社.
41.岳成浩. (2011). 「國家理由」的現代意蘊—對“reason of state”的歷史解讀. 西北大學學報(哲學社會科學版), 41(3), 70-75.
42.周志龍. (1997). 資本主義全球化過程中的台灣都市及區域發展之結構變遷. 法商學報,33, 1-45.
43.周志龍. (2004). 臺灣新都市主義與都市規劃的挑戰. 都市與計劃. 31(3), 195-213.
44.姚人多. (2001). 認識台灣: 知識, 權力與日本在台之殖民治理性. 台灣社會研究季刊, (42), 119-182.
45.馬克思. (1985). 1844年經濟學哲學手稿. 北京：人民出版社.
46.耿曙, & 陳奕伶. (2007). 中國大陸的社區治理與轉型前景:發展促轉或政權維穩? 遠景基金會季刊, 8(1), 87-122.
47.莫偉民. (2011). 權力拯救靈魂?——福柯牧領權力思想探析. 復旦學報(社會科學版), (5), 47-54.
48.莊永明. (2009). 台北大橋歷史. 台北大橋扶輪社. 取自於:https://web.archive.org/web/20090828032716/http://www.rctachiao.org.tw/html/aboutus/taipeitachiao.htm。（2021 年 7 月 13 日）
49.夏鑄九, & 黃羅財. (1983). 台灣傳統長形連棟式店鋪住宅之研究. 臺北: 台灣大學土木工程學研究所都市計劃研究室.
50.夏鑄九, 成露茜, 陳幸均, & 戴伯芬. (2002). 朝向市民城市-台北大理街社區運動. 台灣社會研究季刊，(46), 141-172.
51.夏鑄九. (1989). 迪化街特定專用區現況調查及發展可行性研究. 臺北: 財團法人樂山文教基金會.
52.夏鑄九. (1998). 台灣的古蹟保存: 一個批判性回顧. 臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報, (9), 1-9.
53.夏鑄九. (2003). 在網絡社會裡對古蹟保存的新想像. 城市與設計學報, (13/14), 51-83.
54.財團法人樂山文教基金會. (1997). 大稻埕風貌建築再利用實際案例訪查計劃. 臺北:臺北市政府都市發展局.
55.徐裕健建築師事務所. (1999). 大稻埕地區歷史建物示範維護計劃案—歷史性家屋診斷計劃:期末報告書. 臺北:臺北市都市發展局.
56.徐燕興, &丁育群. (2010)，臺北市古蹟容積移轉政策內涵與困境之探討. 文化資產保存學刊, (12) , 5-22.
57.高振宏. (2014). 日治時期大稻埕霞海城隍祭典的組織與審查制度研究. 民俗曲藝, (186), 181-229.
58.海雲志. (2011). 「關係型」強制動員——城市拆遷中私人關係網絡的反向利用機制. 青年研究, (5),75-82.
59.陳文德. (2002). 「社群」研究的回顧: 理論與實踐. In 陳文德、黃應貴 (Ed.), 「社群」研究的省思 (pp. 1-41). 臺北市: 中研院民族所.
60.陳其南. (1987). 臺灣的傳統中國社會. 臺北: 允晨.
61.陳美萍. (2009). 共同體(Community):一個社會學話語的演變. 南通大學學報. 社會科學版, 25(1), 118-123.
62.陳湘琴. (2011). 都市建設與住宅計畫小組(UHDC)和聯合國顧問團研議臺灣「都市計劃法」之歷史研究. 環境與藝術學刊, 9, 47-64.
63.孫可立. (1984). 迪化街特定專用區都市設計之研究：傳統市街風貌之重現計畫. 臺北: 臺北市政府工務局都市計劃處.
64.孫健. (2011). 對廣州市荔灣區「五區一街」規劃的思考. 北京城市學院學報, (4), 36-43.
65.崔月琴. (2010). 新時期中國社會管理組織基礎的變遷. 福建論壇：人文社會科學版, (11), 174-178.
66.許光建, & 李天建. (2012). 中外政治秀反差揭示什麼. 人民論壇, (16), 30-31.
67.張美川. (2016). 福柯的治理理論及其啟示. 社會理論學報(香港), 19(1), 199-229.
68.張景森. (1993). 臺灣的都市計劃(1895-1988). 臺北:業強出版社.
69.項飈. (1998). 社區何為——對北京流動人口聚居區的研究. 社會學研究, (6), 56-64.
70.彭高峰, 陳勇, & 王冠賢. (2005). 面向2010年亞運會的廣州城市發展. 2005廣州城市設計論壇, 8-16.
71.彭高峰, 蔣萬芳, & 陳勇.(2004). 新區建設帶動舊城改造優化城市空間結構. 城市規劃, 28(2), 29-31.
72.黃士娟. (2012). 建築技術官僚與殖民地經營1895-1922. 臺北: 遠流出版.
73.黃武達, 小川英明, & 內藤昌. (1995). 日治時代之臺北市近代都市計畫 (一)—都市計畫之萌芽與展開. 都市與計劃, 22(1), 99-122.
74.黃蘭翔. (1995). 日據初期臺北市的市區改正. 台灣社會研究季刊,(18), 189-213.
75.斐迪南.滕尼斯. (1999). 共同體與社會. 北京: 商務印書館.
76.單菁菁. (2005). 社區情感與社區建設. 北京: 社會科學文獻出版社.
77.喻肇青. (1990). 大稻埕特定專用區初步發展構想及都市設計之研究. 臺北:臺北市政府工務局都市計畫處.
78.程宇. (2014). 個政府行為的組織學分析——以廣州市恩寧路舊城改造為例. 湛江師範學院學報,(1), 133-138.
79.傅高義. (2008). 先行一步:改革中的廣東. 廣州: 廣東人民出版社.
80.湯恩比. (1997). 歷史研究 (曹未風, 譯). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
81.費孝通, & 張之毅. (2006). 雲南三村. 北京: 社會科學文獻出版社.
82.費孝通. (2000). 關於當前城市社區建設的一些思考. 上海改革, 141(9), 9-11.
83.費孝通. (2005). 鄉土中國. 北京: 北京出版社.
84.趙民. (2013). 「社區營造」與城市規劃的「社區指向」研究. 規劃師, 29(9),5-10.
85.趙渺希, 鐘燁, 王世福, & 戴牧風. (2014). 不同利益群體街道空間意象的感知差異——以廣州恩寧路為例. 人文地理, 29(1), 72-79.
86.臺北市政府工務局. (1982). 臺北市主要計畫書. 臺北: 臺北市政府工務局都市計畫處.
87.廣州市人民政府. (2005). 亞運城市——廣州：面向2010亞運會的城市規劃建設綱要. 廣州: 廣州市人民政府.
88.廣州市城市規劃局. (2007). 恩寧路地段舊城改造規劃. 廣州: 廣州市城市規劃局
89.漢寶德. (1979). 臺北市獨特風格之研究. 臺北: 中興大學都市計劃研究所.
90.劉垚, 田銀生, & 周可斌. (2015). 從一元決策到多元參與——廣州恩寧路舊城更新案例研究. 城市規劃, 39(8), 101-111.
91.劉潔, & 王世福. (2019). 政府主導下廣州南華西片區更新的思考.活力城鄉美好人居——2019中國城市規劃年會論文集(02城市更新), 中國重慶.
92.潘安, 易曉峰, & 陳翀. (2006). 城市發展中的舊城更新:廣州的回顧和展望.規劃50年——2006中國城市規劃年會論文集(中冊), 中國廣州.
93.鍾秀梅. (2011). 發展主義批判. 臺北: 春暉出版社.
94.謝滌湘, & 朱雪梅. (2014). 社會衝突, 利益博弈與歷史街區更新改造——以廣州市恩寧路為例. 城市發展研究, 21(3), 86-92.
95.顏亮一. (2006). 市民認同, 地區發展與都市保存: 迪化街個案分析. 都市與計劃, 33(2), 93-109.

外文書目：
96.Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
97.Agamben, G. (2009). What is an Apparatus? and Other Essays (D. Kishik & S. Pedatella, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
98.Altrock, U. (2012). Conceptualising Informality: Some Thoughts on the Way Towards Generalisation. In: C. McFarlane and M. Waibel (Eds) Urban Informalities. Reflections on the Formal and the Informal. Farnham: Ashgate, pp.171-193.
99.Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
100.Ankersmit, F. (2005). Sublime Historical Experience. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
101.Baeten, G. (2002). Hypochondriac Geographies of the City and the New Urban Dystopia. City, 6(1), 103-115.
102.Bailey, P. L. J. (2013). The Policy Dispositif: Historical Formation and Method. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6), 807-827.
103.Bauman, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking Safety in An Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
104.Bhan, G., Srinivas, S., & Watson, V. (2018). The Routledge Companion to Planning in the Global South. Abingdon: Routledge.
105.Biebricher, T. (2007). Habermas and Foucault: Deliberative Democracy and Strategic State Analysis. Contemporary Political Theory, 6(2), 218-245.
106.Bourdieu, P. (2014). On the State：Lectures at the Collège de France, 1989-1992 (D. Fernbach, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
107.Braun, B. P. (2014). A New Urban Dispositif? Governing Life in an Age of Climate Change. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), 49-64.
108.Bray, D. (2005). Social Space and Governance in Urban China: The Danwei System from Origins to Reform. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
109.Bray, D. (2009). Building ‘Community’: New Strategies of Governance in Urban China. In E. Jeffreys (Ed.), China's Governmentalities: Governing Change, Changing Government (pp. 88-106). New York: Routledge.
110.Brenner, N. (1994). Foucault's New Functionalism. Theory and Society, 23(5), 679-709.
111.Brenner, N. (2013). Theses on urbanization. Public Culture, 25(1), 85-114.
112.Breslin, S. (2006). Serving the Market or Serving the Party: Neo-liberalism in China. In R. Robison (Ed.), The Neo-liberal Revolution (pp. 114-131). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
113.Bussolini, J. (2010). What is a Dispositive? Foucault Studies, (10), 85-107.
114.Carmon, N. (1999). Three Generations of Urban Renewal Policies: Analysis and Policy Implications. Geoforum, 30(2), 145-158.
115.Chaudhuri, K. N. (1990). Asia before Europe: Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge.
116.Chen, H, Wang, L and Waley, P (2020). The Right to Envision the City? The Emerging Vision Conflicts in Redeveloping Historic Nanjing, China. Urban Affairs Review, 56(6), 1746-1778.
117.Chen, H., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Dancing with the Devil? Gentrification and Urban Struggles in, Through and Against the State in Nanjing, China. Geoforum, 121, 74-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.02.014
118.Chen, Y., & Qu, L. (2020). Emerging Participative Approaches for Urban Regeneration in Chinese Megacities. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 146(1), 04019029. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000550
119.Cheng, S., Yu, Y., & Li, K. (2017). Historic Conservation in Rapid Urbanization: A Case Study of the Hankow Historic Concession Area. Journal of urban Design, 22(4), 433-454.
120.Colebatch, H. K. (2002). Government and Governmentality: Using Multiple Approaches to the Analysis of Government. Australian Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 417-435.
121.Colebatch, H. K. (2014). Making Sense of Governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 307-316.
122.Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American journal of sociology, S95-S120.
123.Crang, M. (1998). Cultural Geography. London: Routledge.
124.Crow, G. P., & Allan, G. (1995). Community Types, Community Typologies and Community Time. Time & society, 4(2), 147-166.
125.Datta, R. P. (2008). Politics and Existence: Totems, Dispositifs and Some Striking Parallels between Durkheim and Foucault. Journal of Classical Sociology, 8(2), 283-305.
126.Dean, M. (1994). Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault's Methods and Historical Sociology. London: Routledge.
127.Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.
128.Delanty, G. (2010). Community (Second edition ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
129.Deleuze, G. (1992). What is a Dispositif. In T. J. Armstrong (Ed.), Michel Foucault Philosopher (pp. 159-169). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
130.Elden, S. (2007). Rethinking Governmentality. Political Geography, 26(1), 29-33.
131.Evans, G. (2009). Creative Cities, Creative Spaces and Urban Policy. Urban Studies, 46(5-6), 1003-1040. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0042098009103853
132.Fainstein, S. S. (2001). The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London, 1980-2000. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
133.Fan, Y. (2002). Questioning Guanxi: Definition, Classification and Implications. International Business Review, 11, 543-561.
134.Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
135.Foucault, M. (1980). The Confession of the Flesh. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Foucault: Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 194-228). New York: Pantheon Books.
136.Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
137.Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
138.Foucault, M. (1991a). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
139.Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78. (G. Burchell, Trans. M. Senellart Ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan
140.Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977-78 (G. Burchell, Trans. M. Senellart, F. Ewald, & A. Fontana Eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan
141.Fukuyama, F. (2004). The Imperative of State-Building. Journal of Democracy, 15, 17-31. doi:10.1353/jod.2004.0026
142.Gailing, L. (2016). Transforming Energy Systems by Transforming Power Relations. Insights from Dispositive Thinking and Governmentality Studies. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 29(3), 243-261.
143.Gaudin, J. P. (1998). Modern Governance, Yesterday and Today: Some Clarifications to be Gained from French Government Policies. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 47-56.
144.Ghertner, D. A. (2010). Calculating without Numbers: Aesthetic Governmentality in Delhi's Slums. Economy and Society, 39(2), 185-217.
145.Ghertner, D. A. (2011). Rule by Aesthetics: World-class City Making in Delhi. In A. Roy & A. Ong (Eds.), Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of being Global (pp. 279-306). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
146.Ghertner, D. A. (2017). When is the State? Topology, Temporality, and the Navigation of Everyday State Space in Delhi. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(3), 731-750. doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1261680
147.Gold, T. (1985). After Comradeship: Personal Relations in China since the Cultural Revolution. China Quarterly, 104, 657-675.
148.Gordin, M. D., Tilley, H., and Prakash, G. (2011). Utopia/dystopia: Conditions of Historical Possibility, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
149.Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental Rationality: An Introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 1-52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
150.Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2007). Planning as Urban Therapeutic. Environment and Planning A, 39(2), 467-486.
151.Guo, Y., Zhang, C., Wang, Y. P., & Li, X. (2018). (De-) Activating the Growth Machine for Redevelopment: The case of Liede Urban Village in Guangzhou. Urban Studies, 55(7), 1420-1438.
152.Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (2007). Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference. In A. C. G. M. Robben & J. A. Sluka (Eds.), Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological reader (pp. 374-386). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
153.Guthrie, D. (1998). The Declining Significance of Guanxi in China's Economic Transition. The China Quarterly, 154, 254-282.
154.Hall, S. (1996). Cultural Identity and Cinematic Representation. In H. A. Baker Jr., M. Diawara, & R. H. Lindeborg (Eds.), Black British Cultural Studies: A Reader (pp. 210-222). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
155.Hao, P., Sliuzas, R., & Geertman, S. (2011). The Development and Redevelopment of Urban Villages in Shenzhen. Habitat International, 35(2), 214-224.
156.Hardy, N. (2015). Alea Capta Est: Foucault’s Dispositif and Capturing Chance. Foucault Studies, (19), 191-216.
157.Harrison, R. (2008). The Politics of the Past: Conflict in the use of Heritage in the Modern World. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. H. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.), The Heritage Reader (pp. 177-190). New York: Routledge.
158.Harvey, D. (2001). Globalization and the Spatial Fix. Geographische Revue, 2(3), 23-31.
159.Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
160.Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism. London: Verso.
161.Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610(1), 21-44.
162.Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., & Oosterlynck, S. (2013). Spaces of Neoliberal Experimentation: Soft Spaces, Postpolitics, and Neoliberal Governmentality. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), 217-234.
163.He, S. (2007). State-sponsored Gentrification Under Market Transition the ase of Shanghai. Urban Affairs Review, 43(2), 171-198.
164.He, S. (2012). Two Waves of Gentrification and Emerging Rights Issues in Guangzhou, China. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(12), 2817-2833. doi:10.1068/a44254
165.He, S., & Lin, G. C. (2015). Producing and Consuming China’s New Urban Space: State, Market and Society. Urban Studies, 52(15), 2757-2773.
166.He, S., & Wu, F. (2005). Property-led Redevelopment in Post-reform China: A Case Study of Xintiandi Redevelopment Project in Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1), 1-23.
167.He, S., & Wu, F. (2009). China's Emerging Neoliberal Urbanism: Perspectives from Urban Redevelopment. Antipode, 41(2), 282-304.
168.Healey, P. (1996). The Communicative turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formations. Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design, 23(2), 217-234.
169.Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.
170.Healey, P. (2006). Transforming Governance: Challenges of Institutional Adaptation and a New Politics of Space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299-320.
171.Herzfeld, M. (2005). Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-state. London: Routledge.
172.Hin, L. L., & Xin, L. (2011). Redevelopment of Urban Villages in Shenzhen, China - An Analysis of Power Relations and Urban Coalitions. Habitat International, 35(3), 426-434. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.12.001
173.Hindess, B. (2001). The Liberal Government of Unfreedom. Alternatives, 26(2), 93-111.
174.Ho, P. (2020). The Credibility of (in) Formality: Or, the Irrelevance of Institutional form in Judging Performance. Cities, 99, 102609.
175.Hsing, Y.-T. (2010). The Great Urban Transformation: Land Development and Territorial Politics in China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
176.Huang, D. (2017). How do People get Engaged in Civic Participation? A Case Study of Citizen Activism in Rebuilding Enning Road, Guangzhou. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 3(2), 237-267. doi:10.1177/2057150x17702089
177.Hughes, O. (2010). Does Governance Exist? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The New Public Governance? (pp. 87-104). London: Routledge.
178.Huxley, M. (2006). Spatial Rationalities: Order, Environment, Evolution and Government. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(5), 771-787.
179.Imrie, R. (2004). Governing the Cities and the Urban Renaissance. In C. Johnstone & M. Whitehead (Eds.), New Horizons in British Urban Policy: Perspectives on New Labours (pp. 129-142). Hants: Ashgate Publishing Limits.
180.Imrie, R., & Raco, M. (2003). Community and the changing nature of urban policy. In R. Imrie & M. Raco (Eds.), Urban Renaissance? New labour, Community and Urban Policy (pp. 3-36). Bristol: The Policy Press.
181.Jacobs, J. B. (1979). A Preliminary Model of Particularistic Ties in Chinese Political Alliances: Kan-Ch'ing and Kuan-Hsi in a Rural Taiwanese Township. China Quarterly, 78, 237-273.
182.Jacobs, J. M., & Cairns, S. (2008). The Modern Touch: Interior Design and Modernisation in Post-independence Singapore. Environment and Planning A, 40(3), 572-595.
183.Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso.
184.Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
185.Jessop, B. (1995). The Regulation Approach, Governance and post-Fordism: Alternative Perspectives on Economic and Political Change? Economy and Society, 24(3), 307-333.
186.Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and Its Future: Remarks on Regulation, Government and Governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), 561-581.
187.Jessop, B. (1998). The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: The Case of Economic Development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29-45.
188.Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press.
189.Jessop, B. (2007). From Micro-powers to Governmentality: Foucault's Work on Statehood, State Formation, Statecraft and State Power. Political Geography, 26(1), 33-40.
190.Jiang, Y., Waley, P., & Gonzalez, S. (2018). ‘Nice Apartments, No Jobs’: How Former Villagers Experienced Displacement and Resettlement in the Western Suburbs of Shanghai. Urban Studies, 55(14), 3202-3217.
191.Jones, M. (2018). The March of Governance and the Actualities of Failure: The Case of Economic Development Twenty years on. International Social Science Journal, 68(227-228), 25-41.
192.Jones, P., & Evans, J. (2006). Urban Regeneration, Governance and the State: Exploring Notions of Distance and Proximity. Urban Studies, 43(9), 1491-1509. doi:10.1080/00420980600749951
193.King, A. Y. (1991). Kuan-hsi and Network Building: A Sociological Interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63-84.
194.Kipnis, A. (2007). Neoliberalism Reified: Suzhi Discourse and Tropes of Neoliberalism in the People's Republic of China. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13(2), 383-400.
195.Kombe, W. J., & Kreibich, V. (2000). Reconciling Informal and Formal Land Management: An Agenda for Improving Tenure Security and Urban Governance in Poor Countries. Habitat International, 24(2), 231-240.
196.Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and Diversity. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern Governance: New Government-society Interactions (pp. 35-48). London: Sage.
197.Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. London: Sage.
198.Kooiman, J., & Van Vliet, M. (1993). Governance and Public Management. In K. A. Eliassen & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Managing Public Organizations (Second ed.). London: Sage.
199.Krätke, S. (2011). The Creative Capital of Cities: Interactive Knowledge Creation and the Urbanization Economies of Innovation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
200.Ku, A. S. (2010). Making Heritage in Hong Kong: A Case Study of the Central Police Station Compound. The China Quarterly, 202, 381-399.
201.Ku, A. S. (2012). Remaking Places and Fashioning an Opposition Discourse: Struggle over the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen's Pier in Hong Kong. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 30(1), 5-22.
202.Lai, Y., & Tang, B. (2016). Institutional Barriers to Redevelopment of Urban Villages in China: A Transaction Cost Perspective. Land Use Policy, 58, 482-490. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.009
203.Lanz, S. (2013). Be Berlin! Governing the City through Freedom. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1305-1324.
204.Larner, W., Molloy, M., & Goodrum, A. (2007). Globalization, Cultural Economy, and Not-so-global Cities: The New Zealand Designer Fashion Industry. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(3), 381-400.
205.Lee, A. K. (2016). Heritage Conservation and Advocacy Coalitions: the State-society Conflict in the Case of the Enning Road Redevelopment Project in Guangzhou. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(9), 729-747.
206.Lee, H. (2006). Governmentality and the Aesthetic State: A Chinese Fantasia. Positions: Asia Critique, 14(1), 99-130. doi:10.1215/10679847-14-1-99
207.Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
208.Lemke, T. (2001). 'The Birth of Bio-politics': Michel Foucault's Lecture at the Collège de France on Neo-liberal Governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190-207.
209.Lemke, T. (2015). Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. London: Routledge.
210.Leung, T. T. F., Yip, N. M., Huang, R., & Wu, Y. (2012). Governmentality and the Politicisation of Social Work in China. British Journal of Social Work, 42(6), 1039-1059.
211.Li, B., & Liu, C. (2018). Emerging Selective Regimes in a Fragmented Authoritarian Environment: The ‘Three Old Redevelopment’ Policy in Guangzhou, China from 2009 to 2014. Urban Studies, 55(7), 1400-1419.
212.Li, T. M. (2007). Governmentality. Anthropologica, 49(2), 275-294.
213.Lin, G. C. (2015). The Redevelopment of China's Construction Land: Practising Land Property Rights in Cities through Renewals. The China Quarterly, 224, 865-887.
214.Lin, G. C., & Zhang, A. Y. (2015). Emerging Spaces of Neoliberal Urbanism in China: Land Commodification, Municipal Finance and Local Economic Growth in Prefecture-level Cities. Urban Studies, 52(15), 2774–2798.
215.Lin, W. I., & Chiu, S. Y. (2019). The Mobilisation of Creative City Building as a New Mode of Governmentality in Dihua Street Neighbourhood, Taipei City. Geoforum, 106, 320-329.
Lin, W.I., & Kuo, C. (2013). Community governance and pastorship in Shanghai: A case study of Luwan district. Urban Studies, 50(6), 1260-1276.
216.Lin, Y., Hao, P., & Geertman, S. (2015). A Conceptual Framework on Modes of Governance for the Regeneration of Chinese ‘Villages in the City’. Urban Studies, 52(10), 1774-1790.
217.Ma, L. J., & Wu, F. (2004). Restructuring the Chinese City: Changing Society, Economy and Space. London: Routledge.
218.Ma, S.Y., & Chan, W.Y. (2003). The Provision of Public Goods by a Local Entrepreneurial State: The Case of Perservation of the Nanyue Relics in China. Journal of Development Studies, 40(1), 119-141.
219.McFarlane, C. (2006). Crossing Borders: Development, Learning and the North-South Divide. Third World Quarterly, 27(8), 1413-1437.
220.McFarlane, C. (2010). The comparative city: Knowledge, learning, urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34 (4), 725-742.
221.McFarlane, C. (2011). On Context: Assemblage, Political Economy and Structure, City, 15(3-4),375-388.
222.McFarlane, C., & Robinson, J. (2012). Introduction experiments in comparative urbanism. Urban Geography, 33(6), 765-773.
223.McGuirk, P. M., Mee, K. J. & Ruming, K. J. (2016). Assembling Urban Regeneration? Resourcing Critical Generative Accounts of Urban Regeneration through Assemblage. Geography Compass, 10 (3), 128-141.
224.McNay, L. (2013). Foucault: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
225.Miller, P. (2004). Governing by Numbers: Why Calculative Practices Matter. In A. Amin & N. Thrift (Eds.), The Blackwell Cultural Economy Reader (pp.179-190). Malden: Blackwell.
226.Miller, P. (2008). Governing by Numbers: Why Calculative Practices Matter. In A. Amin & N. Thrift (Eds.), The Blackwell Cultural Economy Reader (pp.179-190). Malden: Blackwell.
227.Mitchell, C. J. (1998). Entrepreneurialism, Commodification and Creative Destruction: A Model of Post-modern Community Development. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(3), 273-286.
228.Murdoch, J., & Ward, N. (1997). Governmentality and Territoriality: The Statistical Manufacture of Britain's ‘National Farm’. Political Geography, 16(4), 307-324.
229.Nadesan, M. H. (2008). Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.
230.Nancy, E. (2011). Governmentality as Epistemology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(3), 537-560.
231.Newman, J. (2005). Participative Governance and the Remaking of the Public Sphere. In J. Newman (Ed.), Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere (pp. 119-138). Bristol: Policy Press.
232.Nonini, D. M. (2008). Is China Becoming Neoliberal? Critique of Anthropology, 28(2), 145-176.
233.O'Brien, K. J., & Deng, Y. (2017). Preventing Protest One Person at A Time: Psychological Coercion and Relational Repression in China. China Review, 17(2), 179-201.
234.Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. London: Duke University Press.
235.Ong, A. (2011). Hyperbuilding: Spectacle, Speculation, and the Hyperspace of Sovereignty. In A. Roy & A. Ong (Eds.), Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global (pp. 205-226). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
236.Osborne, T., & Rose, N. (1999). Governing Cities: Notes on the Spatialisation of Virtue. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17(6), 737-760.
237.Park, B.G., Hill, R. C., & Saito, A. (2012). Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing Spaces in Developmental States. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
238.Peck, J. & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast Policy: Experimental Statecraft at the Thresholds of Neoliberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
239.Peck, J. (2002). Political Economies of Scale: Fast policy, interscalar rela- tions, and neoliberal workfare. Economic Geography, 78 (3), 331-360.S
240.Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode, 34(3), 380-404.
241.Peet, R. (2007). Geography of Power: Making Global Economic Policy. London: Zed Books.
242.Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223-243.
243.Pierre, D. S. (1998). Governance and the Crisis in the International Mechanisms of Regulation. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 91-104.
244.Pierre, J. (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
245.Power, M. (2013). The Apparatus of Fraud Risk. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(6), 525-543. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.07.004
246.Powers, J. L. (2011). Reimaging the Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1362-1378.
247.Putnam, R. D. (1993). The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. The American Prospect, 13(4).
248.Qi, X. (2013). Guanxi, Social Capital Theory and Beyond: Toward a Globalized Social Science. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 308-324.
249.Rabinow, P. & Rose, N. (2003). Thoughts on the Concept of Biopower Today. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228606732_Thoughts_on_a_Concept_of_Biopower_Today [Accessed 22 June, 2022].
250.Rabinow, P. (1995). French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
251.Raco, M. & Imrie, R. (2000). Governmentality and Rights and Responsibilities in Urban Policy. Environment and Planning A, 32(12), 2187-2204.
252.Raco, M. (2003). Governmentality, Subject Building, and the Ddiscourses and Practices of Devolution in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28(1), 75-95.
253.Raco, M. (2007). Securing Sustainable Communities Citizenship, Safety and Sustainability in the New Urban Planning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(4), 305-320.
254.Raco, M. (2014). The Post-politics of SustainabilityPlanning: Privatization and the Demise of Democratic Government. In J. Wilson & E. Swyngedouw (Eds.), The Post-Political and Its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticization, Spectres of Radical Politics (pp. 25-47). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
255.Raco, M., & Imrie, R. (2003). Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy. Bristol: The Policy Press.
256.Raco, M., Imrie, R., & Lin, W. I. (2011). Community Governance, Critical Cosmopolitanism and Urban Change: Observations from Taipei, Taiwan. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 274-294.
257.Raffnsøe, S., Gudmand-Høyer, M., & Thaning, M. S. (2016). Foucault's Dispositive: The Perspicacity of Dispositive Analytics in Organizational Research. Organization, 23(2), 272-298. doi:10.1177/1350508414549885
258.Rankin, K. N. (2011). Assemblage and the politics of thick description. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 15(5), 563-569.
259.Ren, H. (2010). Neoliberalism and Culture in China and Hong Kong: The Countdown of Time. London: Routledge.
260.Ren, X. (2008). Forward to the Past: Historical Preservation in Globalizing Shanghai. City & Community, 7(1), 23-43.
261.Ren, X. (2014). The Political Economy of Urban Ruins: Redeveloping Shanghai. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(3), 1081-1091.
262.Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652-667.
263.Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open university press.
264.Roberts, I. (2000). Leicester Environment City: Learning How to Make Local Agenda 21, Partnerships and Participation Deliver. Environment and Urbanization, 12(2), 9-26.
265.Robinson, J. (2002). Global and world cities: A view from off the map. In- ternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), 531.
266.Robinson, J. (2006). Ordinary City: Between Modernity and Development. London: Routledge.
267.Robinson, J. (2011). Cities in a world of cities: The comparative gesture. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(1), 1-23.
268.Rose, N. (1996). The Death of the Social? Re-figuring the Territory of Government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(3), 327-356.
269.Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
270.Rose, N. (2006). Governing "Advanced" Liberal Democracies. In A. Sharma & A. Gupta (Eds.), The Anthropology of the State: A Reader (pp. 144-162). Oxford: Blackwell.
271.Rose, N. and Miller, P. (1992). Political Power Beyond the State: Problemetics of Government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2),173-205.
272.Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics. In J. N. Rosenau & E.O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (pp. 1-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
273.Rose-Redwood, R. S. (2006). Governmentality, Geography, and the Geo-coded World. Progress in Human Geography, 30(4), 469-486.
274.Rowe, P. G. (2005). East Asia Modern: Shaping the Contemporary City. London: Reaktion.
275.Roy, A., & Ong, A. (2011). Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
276.Ruan, J. (2017). Guanxi, Social Capital and School Choice in China: The Rise of Ritual Capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
277.Said, E. (2003). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.
Said, E. W. (2003). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.
278.Schinkel, W., & Van den Berg, M. (2011). City of Exception: The Dutch Revanchist City and the Urban Homo Sacer. Antipode, 43(5), 1911-1938.
279.Shih, M. (2010). The Evolving Law of Disputed Relocation: Constructing Inner‐city Renewal Practices in Shanghai, 1990-2005. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(2), 350-364.
280.Shin, H. B. (2009). Residential Redevelopment and the Entrepreneurial Local State: The Implications of Beijing’s Shifting Emphasis on Urban Redevelopment Policies. Urban Studies, 46(13), 2815-2839.
281.Shin, H. B. (2014). Elite Vision Before People: State Entrepreneurialism and the Limits of Participation. In U. Altrock & S. Schoon (Eds.), Maturing Megacities: The Pearl River Delta in Progressive Transformation (pp. 267-285). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
282.Smith, N. (2002). New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450.
283.Smouts, M. C. (1998). The Proper Use of Governance in International Relations. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 81-89.
284.Söderström, O. (2014). Cities in Relations: Trajectories of Urban Development in Hanoi and Ouagadougou. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
285.Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso.
286.Stewart, M. (2001). The Development of Communist Policy Towards Gypsies and Roma 1945-1989: A Case Study. In W. Guy (Ed.), Between Past and Future: Roma in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 71-92). Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
287.Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17-28.
288.Stoker, G., Wolman, H., & Judge, D. (1995). Theories of Urban Politics. London: Sage.
289.Su, X. (2011). Heritage Production and Urban Locational Policy in Lijiang, China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(6), 1118-1132.
290.Sum, N. L. & Jessop, B. (2013). Towards a Cultural Political Economy: Putting Culture in its Place in Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
291.Sun, Y., Lin, J., & Chan, R. C. K. (2017). Pseudo use Value and Output Legitimacy of Local Growth Coalitions in China: A Case Study of the Liede Redevelopment Project in Guangzhou. Cities, 61, 9-16.
292.Tallon, A. (2010). Urban Regeneration in the UK. New York: Routledge.
293.Tan, X., & Altrock, U. (2016). Struggling for an Adaptive Strategy? Discourse Analysis of Urban Regeneration Processes-A Case Study of Enning Road in Guangzhou City. Habitat International, 56, 245-257.
294.Taylor, C. (2001). Two theories of modernity. In D. P. Gaonkar (Ed.), Alternative Modernities (pp. 172-196). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
295.Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
296.Tulumello, S. (2016). Reconsidering Neoliberal Urban Planning in Times of Crisis: Urban Regeneration Policy in A “Dense” Space in Lisbon. Urban Geography, 37(1), 117-140.
297.Van der Duim, R. (2007). Tourismscapes An Actor-network Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 961-976.
298.Van Kersbergen, K., & Van Waarden, F. (2004). ‘Governance’as A Bridge Between Disciplines: Cross‐disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems of Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 143-171.
299.Wang, M., Zhang, F., & Wu, F. (2021). Governing Urban Redevelopment: A case study of Yongqingfang in Guangzhou, China. Cities, 120, 103420.
300.Wang, X., & Aoki, N. (2019). Paradox between Neoliberal Urban Redevelopment, Heritage Conservation, and Community Needs: Case Study of a Historic Neighbourhood in Tianjin, China. Cities, 85, 156-169.
301.Weir, L. (2008). The Concept of Truth Regime. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 33(2), 367-389.
302.Weiss, L. (2003). States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
303.Wu, F. (2002). China's Changing Urban Governance in the Transition Towards a More Market-oriented Economy. Urban Studies, 39(7), 1071-1093.
304.Wu, F. (2008). China's Great Transformation: Neoliberalization as Establishing a Market Society. Geoforum, 39(3), 1093-1096.
305.Wu, F. (2015). Planning for Growth: Urban and Regional Planning in China. London: Routledge.
306.Xu, Z., & Lin, G. C. (2019). Participatory Urban Redevelopment in Chinese Cities Amid Accelerated Urbanization: Symbolic Urban Governance in Globalizing Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(6), 756-775. DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2018.1536420
307.Yang, M. M.H. (1994). Gifts, Favors, and Banquets: The Art of Social Relationships in China. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
308.Yang, M. M.H. (2002). The Resilience of Guanxi and Its New Deployments: A Critique of Some New Guanxi Scholarship. The China Quarterly, 170, 459-476.
309.Yang, Y.R., & Chang, C.H. (2007). An Urban Regeneration Regime in China: A Case Study of Urban Redevelopment in Shanghai's Taipingqiao Area. Urban Studies, 44(9), 1809-1826. doi:10.1080/00420980701507787
310.Yao, Z., Li, B., Li, G., & Zeng, C. (2021). Resilient Governance Under Asymmetric Power Structure: The case of Enning Road Regeneration Project in Guangzhou, China. Cities, 111, 102971. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102971
311.Ye, L. (2011). Urban Regeneration in China: Policy, Development, and Issues. Local Economy, 26(5), 337-347. doi:10.1177/0269094211409117
312.Zancheti, S. M. (2005). Development versus Urban Conservation in Recife a Problem of Governance and Public Management. City & Time 1(3): 2. Available at: http://www.ct.ceci-br.org [Accessed 23 June, 2022].
313.Zhang, C., & Li, X. (2016). Urban Redevelopment as Multi-scalar Planning and Contestation: The Case of Enning Road Project in Guangzhou, China. Habitat International, 56, 157-165.
314.Zhang, L., Chen, J., & Tochen, R. M. (2016). Shifts in Governance Modes in Urban Redevelopment: A Case Study of Beijing's Jiuxianqiao Area. Cities, 53, 61-69.
315.Zhang, T. (2002). Urban Development and a Socialist Pro-Growth Coalition in Shanghai. Urban Affairs Review, 37(4), 475-499. doi:10.1177/10780870222185432
316.Zhang, Y., & Fang, K. (2004). Is History Repeating Itself? From Urban Renewal in the United States to inner-city Redevelopment in China. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(3), 286-298.
317.Zhao, Y. Z., & Sun, W. S. (2007). Public Opinion Supervision: Possibilities and Limits of the Media in Constraining Local Officials. In E. J. Perry & M. Goldman (Eds.), Grassroots Political Reform in Contemporary China (pp. 300-324). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
318.Zuo, F. (2004). Conservation and Rehabilitation on Urban Core Historic Site. Urban Studies, 11(5), 13-17.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	迪化街保存特區治理性的形塑、實踐及其特殊性

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫