Collaborative Planning in China: Institutional Design and Authoritarian Deliberation in Urban Regeneration and Water Management

The rapid economic growth and urbanization have led to severe environmental pollution and escalating social conflicts in China. In the domains of urban regeneration and water management, these complex issues, characterized by diverse and often conflicting interests, have challenged China’s traditional top-down mode of governance. In response, collaborative approaches have been increasingly adopted by governments, which engage a wider range of actors in governing public affairs. These practices are often characterized by authoritarian deliberation, where deliberation occurs within pre-defined boundaries and focuses on a restricted set of topics. While collaborative approaches are emerging in China, it remains underexplored why they are adopted, with what processes and outcomes, and why they are sustained by different institutional arrangements across governance domains. This thesis addresses these gaps by examining two key collaborative initiatives – co-creation in urban regeneration and the River Chief System (RCS) in water management in China. It analyzes why and how collaborative approaches are adopted to address complex issues in the two domains, to understand their institutional designs, collaborative processes, and actual effectiveness within an authoritarian context. This study advances literature on collaborative planning and collaborative governance by providing a critical analysis of their application outside of European and North American contexts. First, this thesis finds that collaborative approaches reflect the political pragmatism of authoritarian deliberation, where governments strategically employ deliberative and participatory mechanisms to enhance governance capacity, manage conflicts, and maintain social stability, all while retaining ultimate authority. Additionally, the institutional designs of collaborative approaches are tailored to address specific problems in different fields of governance. While the inclusive and deliberative co-creation approaches are suited to the localized, multi-stakeholder conflicts in urban regeneration, the hierarchical structure of the RCS with limited participation of non-state actors is used to overcome the systemic, transboundary governance challenges in water management. Second, the study on the co-creation in urban regeneration offers a realist critique to collaborative planning theory. It reveals how preconditions fundamentally shape the institutional design of collaborative planning, which together shape the collaborative processes and attainable outcomes. The instrumental motives of local governments lead to constrained agendas for public deliberation, where public influence is confined to practical, marginal issues, while core decisions remain non-negotiable and predetermined by governments and/or developers. Third, the analysis of the RCS in water management contributes to collaborative governance literature by revealing the paradox of top-down, mandated collaboration. While the RCS effectively compels collaboration among government agencies through top-down commands and strong vertical accountability, this hierarchical approach stifles the development of horizontal accountability among public agencies and between government and non-government actors. It results in blame-shifting and superficial compliance among public agencies and relegates citizens to marginal, supportive roles, which prevents the genuine collaborative efforts needed to achieve consistent and equitable environmental outcomes. Ultimately, this research provides a realistic and context-sensitive perspective on the possibilities and pitfalls of collaborative approaches under an authoritarian context.