|
|
ENQUIRE PROJECT DETAILS BY GENERAL PUBLIC |
| Project Details |
| Funding Scheme : | General Research Fund | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Number : | 17617921 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Title(English) : | The Authoritarian Commons: The Co-Evolution of Law and Social Norms in China's Urban Residential Neighborhoods | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Title(Chinese) : | 城市中国的小区治理：法律与社会的共同演进 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Principal Investigator(English) : | Prof Liu, Zhuang | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Principal Investigator(Chinese) : | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Department : | Faculty of Law | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Institution : | The University of Hong Kong | ||||||||||||||||||||
| E-mail Address : | liuz@hku.hk | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Tel : | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Co - Investigator(s) : |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Panel : | Humanities, Social Sciences | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Subject Area : | Social and Behavioural Sciences | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Exercise Year : | 2021 / 22 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Fund Approved : | 1,255,474 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Status : | Completed | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Completion Date : | 31-12-2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Objectives : |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract as per original application (English/Chinese): |
My overarching research question is how the state and law interact with homeowners' self-governance effort in China's urban residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood governance in urban China has come to a new age featuring a fundamental governance crisis. Compared to what urban neighborhoods were twenty years ago when most private housing projects were newly constructed, they are facing more urgent governance problems arising from both building aging and deterioration and inadequate institutional infrastructure. The last three years have witnessed both national and local legal and policy initiatives to address such an urban governance crisis.
The proposed research project coins the term "authoritarian commons" to capture the dynamic interactions between the authoritarian state and homeowners’ effort to create liberal commons in their neighborhoods. Condominium ownership is the only legal form of urban housing ownership in China’s Property Law and the new Civil Code. Common property rights shared by all homeowners include not only the right to manage common space but also the right to form an autonomous institution, i.e., a homeowners' association ("HoA"), to govern their own neighborhoods. Yet, such urban commons grow in an authoritarian state whose tradition is to exercise monopolistic control by relying on either local government agencies or real estate management companies to manage neighborhoods.
The implementation of homeowner self-governance depends largely on each municipality. According to the data verified in a pilot project, 94% of the condominium neighborhoods in Shanghai have set up homeowners’ associations, compared with 41% in Shenzhen and 12% in Beijing. Different municipal governments adopt different approaches to deal with homeowner self-governance due to their varying capacity to govern, the risk to social stability and local economic conditions. Based on these three variables, I will investigate the law and practice of HoAs in six Chinese cities, including the three megacities above.
I will conduct the first-ever study digging into the two-decade development of homeowners’ associations in urban China to examine the interplay between the authoritarian state and communities. This research project will be a natural extension of my previous well-noted study on Chinese small/informal property that elucidates the co-evolution of law and social norms. Drawing on mixed methods including a comprehensive examination of national and local legislative and judicial data, ethnographic fieldwork and questionnaire surveys, this project endeavors to further my co-evolution theory by examining the interactions between state and communities in China's ongoing urban governance crisis. 本项目计划研究在中国主要城市小区治理面临的挑战及解决办法，特别关注其中国家和社会的互动。拟在多个城市进行深入的田野调查，同时系统分析相关的立法和司法实践。理论上计划对法律与社会共同演进的框架予以拓展。 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Realisation of objectives: | This project has comprehensively achieved the four primary objectives stated in the original grant application. The objectives have been systematically pursued through rigorous methodological triangulation, including ethnographic research, large-scale questionnaire surveys, archival analyses, and a sophisticated survey experiment. We’re still processing the last payment to a survey company and it would be highly appreciated if the account is not closed before the payment is delivered. Below is a detailed evaluation of the achievement status of each objective. Objective 1: To comprehensively examine legislative and judicial data on neighborhood governance at national and local levels, understanding interactions between national and local authorities and variations across different Chinese cities. Achievement Status: Fully achieved with minor methodological adjustment. Explanation: The objective was largely realized through extensive archival research and qualitative analysis of selected key judicial decisions rather than a systematic quantitative analysis of all judicial cases. The team conducted comprehensive analyses of legislative documents at both national and local levels, focusing on interactions between different government tiers and variations across four representative cities: Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Wuhan. While the initial proposal explicitly outlined a systematic quantitative analysis of judicial documents, practical constraints necessitated a methodological adjustment. As a result, the project performed preliminary data organization and initial analyses of judicial cases, but a comprehensive quantitative analysis remains to be completed in future research phases. Currently, the team has conducted substantial qualitative examinations of particularly influential or representative judicial cases, supplemented by AI-driven preliminary document analysis, which provides foundational insights for future quantitative research. In-depth ethnographic research and analysis of influential judicial cases provided critical qualitative insights into real-world interactions between local authorities, courts, homeowners, and management companies. Interviews with legal professionals, judges, and government officials validated and deepened our understanding of these judicial contexts. Furthermore, documentary evidence such as HoA meeting minutes, city regulations, and internal archives corroborated these findings, thus fulfilling the goal of achieving a nuanced, multi-dimensional perspective despite the methodological adjustment. Objective 2: To investigate the development of neighborhood governance in different types of Chinese cities over the past two decades, particularly homeowners' varying approaches to self-governance. Achievement Status: Fully achieved. Explanation: The comparative aspect of neighborhood governance was meticulously addressed through in-depth ethnographic research complemented by extensive quantitative data from a large-scale survey of 3341 respondents across the three selected cities. These cities represented varying levels of economic development, governance capacity, and political significance. The ethnographic research involved 224 interviews with diverse stakeholders, including homeowner activists, government officials, real estate managers, and legal experts. Interviews were conducted systematically, using referrals, snowball sampling, and direct engagement with homeowner organizations, thus ensuring the representation of a wide range of perspectives. This robust qualitative and quantitative framework clearly mapped distinct governance models emerging over the past two decades, highlighting differences in how homeowners organize, mobilize, and interact with local authorities. The findings have been successfully disseminated through leading journals, notably the publication in the American Journal of Comparative Law (2023), recognized by the prestigious Hessel Yntema Prize, confirming the scholarly significance and rigor of the project. Objective 3: To distill practical lessons from urban neighborhood governance, generating impacts within and beyond academia, including recommendations for legal reforms and practical advice for Chinese homeowners. Achievement Status: Fully achieved and ongoing dissemination. Explanation: The project has successfully distilled practical insights that benefit both academic circles and broader society. Central to this objective is the newly released book, The Authoritarian Commons: Neighborhood Democratization in Urban China (Cambridge University Press, January 2025). This volume systematically synthesizes lessons drawn from comprehensive empirical research, offering actionable recommendations for legal reforms and practical guidance for homeowner associations and local authorities. The findings were further enriched by a survey experiment titled Democracy Premium in an Unlikely Place?, whose preliminary results have already garnered recognition by the Harvard Urban China Conference (scheduled May 2025), underscoring the real-world relevance of the project’s outcomes. Moreover, extensive outreach activities are planned, including book presentations at internationally esteemed institutions such as Duke, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, Penn, McGill, the American Bar Foundation, Harvard-MIT Urban China Series, and Peking University. These engagements will further amplify the practical impact and ensure broad dissemination of the findings and recommendations. Objective 4: To deepen theoretical understanding of the co-evolution of law and social norms through analysis of interactions between state and community in neighborhood governance. Achievement Status: Fully achieved. Explanation: The theoretical dimension of the research significantly expanded the understanding of the interplay between formal legal institutions and informal social norms within an authoritarian context. Drawing on extensive qualitative insights from ethnographic fieldwork—first conducted in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen, and subsequently in 2023 extending to Wuhan and additional cities during the COVID-19 lockdowns—the research captured nuanced dynamics of cooperation, resistance, and state-community negotiation under evolving legal frameworks. Empirical findings led to notable theoretical contributions, prominently featured in peer-reviewed journals, including the articles published in Urban Studies (2025), American Journal of Comparative Law (2023). These publications received significant academic attention, including winning Hessel Yntema Prize awarded by American Society of Comparative Law (2024), underscoring the project's success in contributing to broader theoretical debates about governance, authoritarianism, democratization, and legal development. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Summary of objectives addressed: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Research Outcome | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Major findings and research outcome: | This research explores how urban homeowners' associations (HoAs) in China assert property-based autonomy (dominium) that potentially challenges the authoritarian state's broader authority (imperium). The major outcomes and findings include: • Divergent Paths of Neighborhood Democratization Comparative research across Shanghai (94% HoA establishment), Shenzhen (41%), and Beijing (12%) revealed distinct local strategies for managing neighborhood democratization, reflecting differing perceptions of risk and local governmental capacities. These findings have been extensively detailed in the award-winning article, The Authoritarian Commons: Divergent Paths of Neighborhood Democratization in Three Chinese Megacities (American Journal of Comparative Law, 2023, recipient of the Hessel Yntema Prize, 2024). • Democracy Premium and Conditional Legitimacy Using an innovative survey experiment involving 3,341 residents across three major Chinese cities (conducted in 2024 and accepted for the Harvard Urban China Conference, May 2025), the study examines the “democracy premium”—the notion that democratic processes enhance citizen compliance even in authoritarian contexts. The findings show that democratic decision-making within neighborhoods significantly increases compliance when supported by local judicial authority, nearly matching compliance levels observed with state-issued directives. However, absent clear legal support—even with majority homeowner backing—compliance markedly decreases. This reveals that democratic decision-making alone is insufficient in authoritarian settings without accompanying legal recognition. • Political Trust and Governance Outcomes Neighborhoods with effective homeowner associations (HoAs) experience superior governance outcomes—including increased democratic participation, stronger community identity, and notably greater trust in local authorities. These findings challenge traditional assumptions that authoritarian states uniformly suppress or co-opt civic engagement. Instead, political trust emerges from positive experiences with local democratic governance. (Communities Built on Political Trust, Urban Studies, 2025). Together, these studies highlight a nuanced reality: authoritarian states can derive significant legitimacy benefits from permitting localized democratic governance; Further, empowered civic communities can evolve into influential actors capable of both cooperating with and resisting state authority, redefining state-society relationships under authoritarian conditions. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Potential for further development of the research and the proposed course of action: |
Future research can build on these outcomes through: • Long-term Effects of Democratic Experiments Conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate whether democratization experiences—such as those observed during China’s COVID-19 lockdowns—result in sustained civic engagement and enhanced political trust beyond immediate crises. The key question is how will the downturn of China's real estate sector influence HoA development. With declining local government resources, authorities will likely shift more responsibilities onto homeowners, potentially heightening neighborhood conflicts. Consequently, I predict intensified neighborhood disputes, increased state attention to HoAs, and an enhanced but cautious governmental effort to simultaneously support and control neighborhood self-governance. While central coordination may standardize certain governance practices, regional variations will likely persist. • Future Effect inherent in homeowner self-governance While homeowner mobilization has introduced valuable democratic checks against government and corporate dominance in urban China, the movement may disadvantage property-less residents, mirroring debates around NIMBYism ("Not in My Backyard") in other contexts. Balancing inclusive governance while avoiding exclusionary tendencies remains an essential challenge for further inquiry. Proposed Action: The next phase of research will include follow-up survey experiments, comparative fieldwork, and scholarly engagement through planned presentations at prestigious institutions. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Layman's Summary of Completion Report: | This research investigates how homeowners in China’s megacities democratically manage neighborhood issues through homeowners' associations (HoAs), despite the country's authoritarian political system. Typically, authoritarian governments are thought to suppress civic organizations, seeing them as threats to central authority. However, Chinese HoAs have thrived, becoming vibrant examples of local democracy. The study reveals that neighborhoods with effective democratic self-governance not only manage communal issues better but also develop stronger community bonds and higher trust in local authorities—a phenomenon termed the "democracy premium." Crucially, the research finds that residents follow democratic neighborhood decisions as strongly as government commands—but only when these decisions have clear legal backing. Without explicit legal support, democratic decisions lose effectiveness, highlighting that the rule of law is critical even in authoritarian settings. Comparing major cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen, the study illustrates how local government capacities and judicial institutions shape these grassroots democratic practices. Ultimately, this work shows the complex balancing act China faces between promoting effective local democracy and maintaining authoritarian control, reshaping how we understand democracy and civic engagement under authoritarian regimes. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Research Output | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Peer-reviewed journal publication(s) arising directly from this research project : (* denotes the corresponding author) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Recognized international conference(s) in which paper(s) related to this research project was/were delivered : |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Other impact (e.g. award of patents or prizes, collaboration with other research institutions, technology transfer, etc.): |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| SCREEN ID: SCRRM00542 |