城乡一体化视角下中澳规划政策的制度差异及其启示

Lianfeng Qiu
{"title":"城乡一体化视角下中澳规划政策的制度差异及其启示","authors":"Lianfeng Qiu","doi":"10.22217/upi.2018.487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Responding to current impetus for urban-rural integration in China, planning has been regarded as an effective approach to achieve this goal, and advanced experiences from abroad are favoured among scholars. This paper establishes a conceptual model underpinned by institutional theory. By comparing China with Australia in terms of planning policies, the paper explores the main similitudes and distinctive divergences with respect to definitions of urban and rural areas, developments, local authority operation, planning system and financial support for infrastructure construction. The contribution of this paper is, first of all, to make up for vacancies in relevant domestic literature to a certain extent; secondly, to clarify the institutional differences in planning administration between China and Australia and even the Commonwealth countries, which can help us to avoid cognitive mistakes and deepen understanding of foreign construction achievements. Finally and more importantly, urban-rural equivalence doctrine demonstrated by this paper implies an optional path for China’s integrational urbanization. 关键词: 城乡融合;规划管理;制度性差异;认知误区;","PeriodicalId":67440,"journal":{"name":"国际城市规划","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Institutional Difference Between Chinese and Australian Planning Policies from the Perspective of Urban-Rural Integration, and What Can It Tell Us?\",\"authors\":\"Lianfeng Qiu\",\"doi\":\"10.22217/upi.2018.487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Responding to current impetus for urban-rural integration in China, planning has been regarded as an effective approach to achieve this goal, and advanced experiences from abroad are favoured among scholars. This paper establishes a conceptual model underpinned by institutional theory. By comparing China with Australia in terms of planning policies, the paper explores the main similitudes and distinctive divergences with respect to definitions of urban and rural areas, developments, local authority operation, planning system and financial support for infrastructure construction. The contribution of this paper is, first of all, to make up for vacancies in relevant domestic literature to a certain extent; secondly, to clarify the institutional differences in planning administration between China and Australia and even the Commonwealth countries, which can help us to avoid cognitive mistakes and deepen understanding of foreign construction achievements. Finally and more importantly, urban-rural equivalence doctrine demonstrated by this paper implies an optional path for China’s integrational urbanization. 关键词: 城乡融合;规划管理;制度性差异;认知误区;\",\"PeriodicalId\":67440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"国际城市规划\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"国际城市规划\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1089\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22217/upi.2018.487\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"国际城市规划","FirstCategoryId":"1089","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22217/upi.2018.487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

针对当前中国推进城乡一体化的趋势,规划被视为实现这一目标的有效途径,国外的先进经验受到学者们的青睐。本文建立了一个以制度理论为基础的概念模型。本文通过对比中国与澳大利亚的规划政策,探讨了两国在城乡定义、发展、地方政府运作、规划制度、基础设施建设财政支持等方面的主要相似点和显著差异。本文的贡献,首先是在一定程度上弥补了国内相关文献的空白;其次,厘清中国与澳大利亚乃至英联邦国家在规划管理方面的制度差异,有助于我们避免认知错误,加深对国外建设成果的理解。最后也是更重要的是,本文论证的城乡等价理论为中国一体化城镇化提供了一条可选择的路径。关键词: 城乡融合;规划管理;制度性差异;认知误区;
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Institutional Difference Between Chinese and Australian Planning Policies from the Perspective of Urban-Rural Integration, and What Can It Tell Us?
Responding to current impetus for urban-rural integration in China, planning has been regarded as an effective approach to achieve this goal, and advanced experiences from abroad are favoured among scholars. This paper establishes a conceptual model underpinned by institutional theory. By comparing China with Australia in terms of planning policies, the paper explores the main similitudes and distinctive divergences with respect to definitions of urban and rural areas, developments, local authority operation, planning system and financial support for infrastructure construction. The contribution of this paper is, first of all, to make up for vacancies in relevant domestic literature to a certain extent; secondly, to clarify the institutional differences in planning administration between China and Australia and even the Commonwealth countries, which can help us to avoid cognitive mistakes and deepen understanding of foreign construction achievements. Finally and more importantly, urban-rural equivalence doctrine demonstrated by this paper implies an optional path for China’s integrational urbanization. 关键词: 城乡融合;规划管理;制度性差异;认知误区;
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3659
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Development of Everyday Urbanism and Its Challenges to Contemporary Chinese Urban Design Multi-objective Cooperative Planning Governance of Street Market: A Case Study of Street Market Construction in Portland, the US A Review of UK’s Campaigns led by Council for the Protection of Rural England From the Ground Up: Mapping at the Human Scale Urban Revolution: The Evolution of a Concept
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1