Decentralizationn as a mode of governing the urban in China: reforms in welfare provisioning and the rise of volunteerism

In: Pacific affairs, Band 86, Heft 4, S. 835-856

Abstract

This paper considers what a Foucauldian-informed analysis of decentralization and urban transformation offers to current debates. It analyzes decentralization as a new regime of governing, in contrast to many studies that treat it as a policy process, objective or outcome aimed at alleviating some problem of centralized authority. Rather than understanding decentralization as 'less' state governance, this paper asks how practices such as 'local autonomy' are in fact technologies of governing the urban. Decentralization is analyzed then not simply as an 'absence' of some central state power, either in the political or fiscal realm, but rather, as new mechanisms of governing the urban, which are linked with the regulation and constitution of subjects. This paper focuses on an aspect of decentralization that typically is under-examined-that is, the decentralization of welfare provisioning in urban China. Under high socialism of the Maoist era, social services for urban residents were distributed by the state, through the work unit (danwei) as part of the planned economy. In recent years, however, major reforms have been put into place to diversify the ways that social services are delivered, under a general rubric of decentralizing the distribution away from the state. Based on anthropological research in Dalian, a major port city in northeast China, this paper examines a new social practice and subject form that has emerged with new ways of caring for those "in need" in the city-volunteerism. By focusing on this resulting social form, the paper argues we may better understand how decentralization is not a singular process with multiple outcomes, but rather, a complex assemblage of elements that includes technical questions about how to govern as well as normative practices of subject formation. An analytical disaggregation of these elements also allows us to avoid the assumption that decentralization necessarily contains certain characteristics, or that it will lead to particular kinds of political and social forms. (Pac Aff/GIGA)