中美区域规划对比分析.docxVIP

Regional planning and equity: a comparative perspectiveRegional issues are the spatial reflection of the social issues existing in a society. In the U.S., perhaps the biggest social issues are income inequality and racial disparities. When income inequality and racial disparities interact with space, they create spatial and racial segregation, of which the most significant outcome is inequality between the inner city and suburbs. The city-suburban inequality is aggravated by a system of local autonomy, in which localities draw political boundaries to isolate themselves. Therefore, it is natural for many to think that, in order to address spatial disparities, a form of regional planning is required to overcome the parochial thoughts and practices embedded in autonomy municipalities. In the field of urban planning, a profession mainly shaped by liberal ideas, the aim of seeking equity is one of the major motives to promote regionalism.Is seeking equity through regionalism a universal theme across the world or is it unique to the American context? I believe that promoting regionalism for redistributive purpose is a universal idea because spatial inequality exists in almost all societies, but the forms of spatial inequality, the role of different levels of government, the means, and the outcomes vary across countries. In this short paper, I will illustrate this idea by comparing the redistributive regionalism practices in the U.S. with those in China.Since China opened its gate in 1978, the rising income inequality has increasingly become a serious social issue. For many years, however, income inequality was not regarded as an issue by the Chinese government. In fact, Chairman Xiaoping Deng used to tell the Chinese people that “we need to let some people to be rich first and they will lead the nation to become richer.” As a consequence, many national polices were designed to promote prosperity in the eastern coastal cities at the expense of the inner lands and the rural