Relationships between functional and institutional spaces: two governance mechanisms

Relationships between functional and institutional spaces: two governance mechanisms Existing literature suggests that the institution-building processes in various city-regions attempt to shape the context-sensitive regional governance (on certain scale or based on specific projects) (Bache, 1999; Li & Wu, 2018; Pike & Tomaney, 2009; Zhang & Sun, 2019). These region-wide governances are strategically orchestrated by multiple states, wherein the two distinct governance mechanisms: (1) top-down upper state-imposed governance, and (2) bottom-up spontaneous city-to-city coalition, have emerged to ensure cross-border socioeconomic linkages (Jonas & Moisio, 2018; Olberding, 2002; Warner, 2006). 6 X. ZHANG ET AL. The top-down upper state-imposed governance has been widely recognized in the theses for the regional governance of UK (Jonas & Moisio, 2018; Pike & Tomaney, 2009). The territorial structure of city-regions echoes with the national question of UK, that is the worsening regional disparity and negative effects of political devolution (Jonas & Moisio, 2018; Li & Wu, 2018). The political devolution in UK that is entangled with local democratic institutions is also embedded into the highly centralized state hierarchy (Morgan, 2007). Resultantly, the top-down upper state-imposed governance remains fundamental to reshuffling territorial structure. Substantial cases have uncovered this mechanism. In the case of economic development within England, the de facto results of this governance building have been “complexity, experimentation, fragmentation and incoherence with largely negative implications for territorial equity and justice” (Pike & Tomaney, 2009, p.14). Bache (1999) systemically examined the role of national government in UK in implementing regional policy under the multi-level governance framework. This case suggests that in order to ensure the regional integration, central government has functioned as extended gatekeeper that continues to play the dominant role across all stages of policy processes. Overall, the top-down upper state-imposed governance has been widely examined to ascertain the central-local struggles of UK. The bottom-up spontaneous city-to-city coalition that generally happened in the US is the other governance mechanism to ensure the interactions between functional and institutional spaces (Hamilton, 2002; Vogel & Nezelkewicz, 2002). The regional governance in the US is characterized by fragmented political system and deeply remolded by the New-regionalism that advocates the spontaneous city network in a bottom-up fashion (Olberding, 2002; Warner, 2006). Substantial cases signal that this locally initiated governance is formed on the strength of the potential socioeconomic linkages, also, these bottom-up institution-building processes strengthen the functional interactions among jurisdictions due to the spontaneous problem-solving negotiation among actors (Hamilton, 2002). In the case of Chicago Metropolitan Area, Hamilton (2002) asserted that the established voluntary inter-jurisdictional governance is insufficient to address regional issues related to socioeconomic development and it is necessary to further expand the involvements of other actors that come from regional community. Correspondingly, the expanding of spontaneous governance network has been established in the US. In the territorial development of some regions in the US, such as California region and Louisville region, the governments are deeply associated with market players and social organizations to ensure inter-jurisdictional socioeconomic linkages (Jonas & Pincetl, 2006; Vogel & Nezelkewicz, 2002). Related to this, the territorial praxis of the US suggests that city-to-city governance with bottom-up spontaneous fashion is conducive to facilitating functional integration of city-regions.

功能空间与制度空间之间的关系：两种治理机制现有文献表明，各个城市地区的制度建设过程都试图（在一定规模或基于特定项目的基础上）塑造情境敏感的地区治理（Bache，1999； Li＆ Wu，2018; Pike＆Tomaney，2009; Zhang＆Sun，2019）。这些区域性治理是由多个州进行战略性协调的，其中出现了两种不同的治理机制：（1）自上而下的上级国家施加的治理，以及（2）自下而上的自发性城市间联盟，以确保跨境社会经济联系（Jonas＆Moisio，2018; Olberding，2002; Warner，2006）。 6 X.张ET AL。自上而下的国家施加的上层治理在英国的区域治理中已得到广泛认可（Jonas＆Moisio，2018； Pike＆Tomaney，2009）。城市地区的地域结构与英国的国家问题相呼应，那就是日益加剧的地区差距和政治权力下放的负面影响（Jonas＆Moisio，2018; Li＆Wu，2018）。与地方民主制度纠缠在一起的英国政治权力下放也被嵌入到高度集权的国家等级制中（Morgan，2007）。结果，自上而下的上级国家施加的治理仍然是改组领土结构的基础。大量案例揭示了这种机制。就英格兰内部的经济发展而言，这种治理结构的实际结果是“复杂性，试验性，分散性和不连贯性，对领土公平和正义具有消极影响”（Pike＆Tomaney，2009，第14页）。 Bache（1999）系统地研究了英国国家政府在多层次治理框架下实施区域政策中的作用。这个案例表明，为了确保区域一体化，中央政府已经充当了扩展的守门人，在整个政策过程的各个阶段继续发挥主导作用。总体而言，自上而下的国家施加的上层治理已得到广泛研究，以确定英国的中央与地方之间的斗争。在美国通常发生的自下而上的自发性城市间联盟是确保功能空间与机构空间之间相互作用的另一种治理机制（Hamilton，2002； Vogel＆Nezelkewicz，2002）。美国的区域治理的特点是政治体制分散，新区域主义以自下而上的方式倡导自发的城市网络，深刻地改造了这一区域（Olberding，2002； Warner，2006）。大量案例表明，这种由当地发起的治理是建立在潜在的社会经济联系的基础上的，而且，由于参与者之间自发地解决问题的谈判，这些自下而上的制度建设过程加强了辖区之间的职能互动（Hamilton，2002）。 。汉密尔顿（Hamilton，2002）以芝加哥都市圈为例，认为建立的自愿性跨辖区治理不足以解决与社会经济发展有关的区域问题，因此有必要进一步扩大来自区域社区的其他参与者的参与。相应地，美国已经建立了自发治理网络的扩展。在美国某些地区的领土发展中，例如加利福尼亚州地区和路易斯维尔地区，政府与市场参与者和社会组织有着密切的联系，以确保跨辖区的社会经济联系（Jonas＆Pincetl，2006； Vogel＆Nezelkewicz，2002）。 。与此相关的是，美国的地区实践表明，自下而上的自发方式的城市间治理有助于促进城市区域的功能整合。

The relationships between functional and institutional spaces in China’s city-regions

Against the backdrop of China, the institutional spaces are always dynamically shaped by both top-down upper state-imposed governance and bottom-up spontaneous governance (Li & Wu, 2018; Luo & Shen, 2007a). These two reciprocal processes contribute an effective perspective to probing the relationships between functional and institutional URBAN GEOGRAPHY 7 spaces under which the socioeconomic linkages mutually affect the initiatives and commitments of multiple-level governments (Luo & Shen, 2007a). In the case of Jiangyin industrial park, the industrial linkage driven by private enterprises is the premise of the rise of inter-state cooperation between Jiangyin and Jingjiang. Such voluntary cooperation also ensures the sustainability of industrial linkages and divisions between jurisdictions (Chan & Xian, 2012; Luo & Shen, 2007b). Moreover, the top-down process is essential to the formation of institutional space. Some studies indicate that aside from ensuring the subsistent socioeconomic linkages among cities, top-down upper state-imposed governance in China is generally prone to regional coordinated development, wherein the new territorial relations between advanced cities and backward cities are artificially created (Luo & Shen, 2008). In the case of PRD, Zhaoqing is strategically incorporated into the city-regional entity without real strong functional linkage with other cities (Zhang, Guo, Cheung, & Zhang, 2018a). These initiatives from upper level governments have been normally expressed in the regional spatial planning (Li & Wu, 2013; Luo & Shen, 2008). Existing cases also suggest that the top-down government-initiated governance is intertwined with bottom-up spontaneous governance to co-shape the China’s dynamic city-regionalization.

在中国的背景下，制度空间总是由自上而下，由国家施加的自上而下的治理和自下而上的自发治理动态形成的（Li＆Wu，2018; Luo＆Shen，2007a）。这两个对等过程为探讨功能性和制度性城市地理7空间之间的关系提供了有效的视角，在这些空间中，社会经济联系相互影响着多级政府的倡议和承诺（Luo＆Shen，2007a）。以江阴工业园区为例，民营企业带动的产业联系是江阴与靖江国家间合作兴起的前提。这种自愿合作还确保了司法管辖区之间产业联系和部门的可持续性（Chan＆Xian，2012； Luo＆Shen，2007b）。此外，自上而下的过程对于制度空间的形成至关重要。一些研究表明，除了确保城市之间存在持久的社会经济联系外，中国自上而下的国家施加的上层治理通常倾向于区域协调发展，其中先进城市和落后城市之间的新领土关系是人为创造的（Luo＆Shen ，2008）。就珠三角而言，肇庆已战略性地纳入了城市区域实体，而与其他城市之间却没有真正的强大功能联系（Zhang，Guo，Cheung和Zhang，2018a）。高层政府的这些举措通常体现在区域空间规划中（Li＆Wu，2013； Luo＆Shen，2008）。现有案例还表明，自上而下的政府发起的治理与自下而上的自发治理相互交织在一起，共同塑造了中国充满活力的城市区域化。