There is an increasing tension between the land development regime and grassroots antigrowth coalitions in Hong Kong, where public spaces have played a critical role. This article aims to examine (1) whether the transitional process of urban political orders is punctuated or gradual; (2) whether transitional change is driven by exogenous factors, endogenous factors, or both; (3) the extent to which the social production model of power is still applicable in the postindustrial era; and (4) how political sociospatial dialectic works in the changing urban political order. This study first reviews the development of Public Open Spaces in Private Development (POSPD) with the changing urban political order, and then explains why POSPD policy has become the concern of both the regime and the emerging antigrowth coalition. Two representative spatial protests are explored to illustrate how awakening civil power challenges the regime and how the regime resists and defends its realm.
AdamsDavidHastingsE. M.2001. “Urban Renewal in Hong Kong: Transition from Development Corporation to Renewal Authority.” Land Use Policy18 (3): 245–58.
BrennerNeil. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
4.
BrennerNeilTheodoreNik. 2002. “Cities and Geographies of Actually Existing Neoliberalism.” Antipode34 (3): 349–79.
5.
BrownStephenLohChristine. 2002. Hong Kong: The Political Economy of Land. Hong Kong: Civic Exchange.
6.
ChengEdmund. 2016. “Street Politics in a Hybrid Regime: The Diffusion of Political Activism in Post-colonial Hong Kong.” The China Quarterly226 (6): 383–406.
7.
ChoiAlex. 1999. “State-Business Relations and Industrial Restructuring.” In Hong Kong’s History: State and Society Under Colonial Rule, edited by NgoTak-Wing, 141-61. London: Routledge.
8.
CuthbertAlexander. 1995. “The Right to the City: Surveillance, Private Interest and the Public Domain in Hong Kong.” Cities12 (5): 293–310.
9.
CuthbertAlexanderMcKinnellKeith. 1997. “Ambiguous Space, Ambiguous Rights: Corporate Power and Social Control in Hong Kong.” Cities14 (5): 295–311.
10.
DiGaetanoAlanKlemanskiJohn S.1993. “Urban Regimes in Comparative Perspective: The Politics of Urban Development in Britain.” Urban Affairs Quarterly29 (1): 54–83.
11.
DowdingKeithDunleavyPatrickKingDesmondMargettsHelenRydinYvonne. 1999. “Regime Politics in London Local Government.” Urban Affairs Review34 (4): 515–45.
12.
ElkinStephen. 1985. “Twentieth Century Urban Regimes.” Journal of Urban Affairs7 (2): 11–28.
13.
EndacottGeorge Beer. 1964. Government and People in Hong Kong, 1841-1962: A Constitutional History. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Univ. Press.
14.
FainsteinNormanFainsteinSusan. 1983. “Regime Strategies, Communal Resistance, and Economic Forces.” In Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment, edited by FainsteinSusanFainsteinN.HillR.JuddD.SmithM., 245-82. New York: Longman.
15.
FainsteinSusan. 1990. “The Changing World Economy and World Restructuring.” In Leadership and Urban Regeneration: Cities in North America and Europe, edited by JuddDennisParkinsonMichael, 31-47. Newbury Park: SAGE.
16.
GoodstadtLeo. 2000. “China and the Selection of Hong Kong’s Post-colonial Political Elite.” The China Quarterly163 (September): 721–41.
17.
GoodstadtLeo. 2005. Uneasy Partners: The Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Univ. Press.
18.
GottdienerMarkFeaginJoe. 1988. “The Paradigm Shift in Urban Sociology.” Urban Affairs Review24 (2): 163–87.
HardingAlan. 1995. “Elite Theory and Growth Machines.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by JudgeDavidStokerGerryWolmanH., 35-53. London: SAGE.
21.
HardingAlan. 1997. “Urban Regimes in a Europe of the Cities?” European Urban and Regional Studies4 (4): 291–314.
22.
ImbroscioDavid. 1998. “Reformulating Urban Regime Theory: The Division of Labor Between State and Market Reconsidered.” Journal of Urban Affairs20 (3): 233–48.
23.
JuddDennisParkinsonMichael. 1990. Leadership and Urban Regeneration: Cities in North America and Europe. Newbury Park: SAGE.
24.
KantorPaulSavitchHank V.HaddockSerena Vicari. 1997. “The Political Economy of Urban Regimes: A Comparative Perspective.” Urban Affairs Review32 (3): 348–77.
25.
KeatingMichael. 1991. Comparative Urban Politics: Power and the City in the United States, Canada, Britain, and France. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
26.
KingAmbrose Yeo-Chi. 1975. “Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the Grass Roots Level.” Asian Survey15 (5): 422–39.
27.
LucasJack. 2015. “Urban Governance and the American Political Development Approach.” Urban Affairs Review53 (2): 338–61.
28.
MinersNorman. 1987. Hong Kong Under Imperial Rule 1912-1941. Hong Kong: Oxford Univ. Press.
29.
MorganKimberly. 2014. “Comparative Politics and American Political Development.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Development, edited by ValellyRichardLiebermanRobertMettlerSuzanne, 1-14. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
30.
MossbergerKarenStokerGerry. 2001. “The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualization.” Urban Affairs Review36 (6): 810–35.
31.
OngAihwa. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.
32.
OrrenKarenSkowronekStephen. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
33.
PierreJon. 2014. “Can Urban Regimes Travel in Time and Space? Urban Regime Theory, Urban Governance Theory, and Comparative Urban Politics.” Urban Affairs Review50 (6): 864–89.
34.
PoonAlice. 2010. Land and the Ruling Class in Hong Kong. Richmond: Enrich Professional Publishing.
35.
RastJoel. 2015. “Urban Regime Theory and the Problem of Change.” Urban Affairs Review51 (1): 138–49.
36.
SalisburyRobert. 1964. “Urban Politics: The New Convergence of Power.” Journal of Politics26 (4): 775–97.
37.
SapotichneJoshuaJonesBryanWolfeMichelle. 2007. “Is Urban Politics a Black Hole? Analyzing the Boundary Between Political Science and Urban Politics.” Urban Affairs Review43 (1): 76–106.
38.
ScottIan. 2005. Public Administration in Hong Kong: Regime Change and Its Impact on the Public Sector. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
39.
SojaEdward. 1980. “The Socio-spatial Dialectic.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers70 (2): 207–25.
40.
StokerGerryMossbergerKaren. 1994. “Urban Regime Theory in Comparative Perspective.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy12 (2): 195–212.
41.
StoneClarence. 1987. “The Study of the Politics of Urban Development.” In The Politics of Urban Development, edited by StoneClarenceSandersHeywood, 3-22. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
42.
StoneClarence. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
43.
StoneClarence. 1993. “Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Urban Affairs15 (1): 1–28.
44.
StoneClarence. 2005. “Looking Back to Look Forward: Reflections on Urban Regime Analysis.” Urban Affairs Review40 (3): 309–41.
45.
StoneClarence. 2015. “Reflections on Regime Politics from Governing Coalition to Urban Political Order.” Urban Affairs Review51 (1): 101–37.
46.
StoneClarenceWhelanRobert. 2009. “Through a Glass Darkly: The Once and Future Study of Urban Politics.” In The City in American Political Development, edited by DilworthRichardson, 98-118. New York: Routledge.
47.
TangWing-Shing. 2008. “Hong Kong Under Chinese Sovereignty: Social Development and a Land (Re)development Regime.” Eurasian Geography and Economics49 (3): 341–61.
48.
TooWing-tak Ken.2007. “A Study of Private/Public Space in Hong Kong.” PhD dissertation, The Univ. of Hong Kong.
49.
TseRaymond. 2001. “Impact of Comprehensive Development Zoning on Real Estate Development in Hong Kong.” Land Use Policy18 (4): 321–28.
50.
YehGar-On. 1990. “Public and Private Partnership in Urban Redevelopment in Hong Kong.” Third World Planning Review12 (4): 361–83.
