9 ms·

> The central government has delineated around a hundred million people to each of these megaregions and charged them to drive future growth. Can someone expla

> The central government has delineated around a hundred million people to each of these megaregions and charged them to drive future growth. Can someone explain what this means? What does this governmental "charge" look like? Is it just a zoning thing, or is it more personal?

Stevvo 5y ago
It's partially a propaganda thing with slogans printed on buildings everywhere saying things like "Charge towards the Chinese dream with vigor, for the betterment of the region and the party!"
baybal2 5y ago
Nobody really did. China does not have any kind of coherent regional policy, or, well, any kind of real economic policy. The infamed communist 5 years plans barely mean anything for the real economy. South China got ahead in manufacturing due to market economy reaching it first. Shanghai got banks because Jiang Zemin lived there, and he wanted money like every proper communist. Chongqing seen its development as the only inland China big city, and lack of any other alternative. Beijing is now late to the party, and bureaucrats there basically ordered it to become another "center" through administrative fiat.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  > China does not have any kind of coherent regional policy I am not sure your basis for this. The presence of the policy itself is effective in guiding the human mind and interests, also broadcast certain information national wide. The policy is comboed with fiscal policy, i.e., easier loan for the designated sectors. And more effective use of nationally-owned enterprises, research facilities, etc. Of course, policy needs to be realistic by matching the regional characteristics. As you said, one cannot industrilize the inner cities first, because the global economy is centered on marine transportation, so naturally it starts from Shanghai and guangdong, which are close to sea ports. But that does not make the policy less coherent. It just means that the policy is sensible and meaningful.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
It’s more image than an official distinction, and it is hardly accurate. For example, both Tianjin and Beijing are autonomous cities not part of provinces, while neither Shenzhen or Guangzhou in the Bay Area are autonomous. The cities and provinces around Shanghai are incredibly wealthy and each hold their orbits. But like San Jose becomes an adjunct of San Francisco, so does Hangzhou of Shanghai for some reason.

Stevvo 5y ago

It's partially a propaganda thing with slogans printed on buildings everywhere saying things like "Charge towards the Chinese dream with vigor, for the betterment of the region and the party!"

baybal2 5y ago

Nobody really did. China does not have any kind of coherent regional policy, or, well, any kind of real economic policy. The infamed communist 5 years plans barely mean anything for the real economy. South China got ahead in manufacturing due to market economy reaching it first. Shanghai got banks because Jiang Zemin lived there, and he wanted money like every proper communist. Chongqing seen its development as the only inland China big city, and lack of any other alternative. Beijing is now late to the party, and bureaucrats there basically ordered it to become another "center" through administrative fiat.

justicezyx 5y ago
> China does not have any kind of coherent regional policy I am not sure your basis for this. The presence of the policy itself is effective in guiding the human mind and interests, also broadcast certain information national wide. The policy is comboed with fiscal policy, i.e., easier loan for the designated sectors. And more effective use of nationally-owned enterprises, research facilities, etc. Of course, policy needs to be realistic by matching the regional characteristics. As you said, one cannot industrilize the inner cities first, because the global economy is centered on marine transportation, so naturally it starts from Shanghai and guangdong, which are close to sea ports. But that does not make the policy less coherent. It just means that the policy is sensible and meaningful.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

It’s more image than an official distinction, and it is hardly accurate. For example, both Tianjin and Beijing are autonomous cities not part of provinces, while neither Shenzhen or Guangzhou in the Bay Area are autonomous. The cities and provinces around Shanghai are incredibly wealthy and each hold their orbits. But like San Jose becomes an adjunct of San Francisco, so does Hangzhou of Shanghai for some reason.