Variegated transnational partnerships: Multi-scalar actor networks in China’s overseas industrial parks

doi:10.1007/s11442-021-1864-6

Abstract

Abstract:

The development of overseas industrial parks is a key component of the Belt and Road Initiative and a practical way of promoting inclusive globalization by introducing new forms of cooperation between China and the host countries. In this paper, the Thai-Chinese Rayong Industrial Zone (TCRIZ), and the China-Indonesia Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone (KITIC) are discussed in the context of the evolving development strategies and trajectories through three interrelated conceptual lenses - policy mobility, actor networks, and partnerships. The actor-network theory provides a lens to analyze how policy mobility and partnerships develop for two industrial zone case studies. The development, which involves a multi-scalar process, is shaped by the interactions among the national states, the regional governments and corporations against a background of globalization. Three types of transnational actor partnership networks have been identified, namely, hierarchical partnership, spontaneous partnership, and hybrid partnership. A highlight of the study is the role that the partnerships play in the process of policy mobility when it comes to the overseas industrial zones. It is argued that the partnerships are the key to achieving technology transfer on a cross-national basis, and the effectiveness of the technology transfer is dependent on partner selection and the roles of the actors in policy mobility.

Key words: overseas industrial park, multi-scalar partnership, transnational policy transfer, Thai-Chinese Rayong Industrial Zone, China-Indonesia Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone, Belt and Road Initiative

SONG Tao, SUN Man, LIANG Yutian, Soavapa NGAMPRAMUAN, WUZHATI Yeerken, ZHOU Keyang. Variegated transnational partnerships: Multi-scalar actor networks in China’s overseas industrial parks[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021, 31(5): 664-680.

Figures/Tables 5

Table 1

Figure 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

References 45

[1]	Adams D, Hastings EM, 2001. Urban renewal in Hong Kong: Transition from development corporation to renewal authority. Land Use Policy, 18(3):245-258. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00019-9
[2]	Adams D, Hastings E M, 2001. Assessing institutional relations in development partnerships: The Land Development Corporation and the Hong Kong Government prior to 1997. Urban Studies, 38(9):1473-1492. doi: 10.1080/00420980120076759
[3]	Aka KG, 2019. Actor-network theory to understand, track and succeed in a sustainable innovation development process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225:524-540. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.351
[4]	Alkon M, 2018. Do special economic zones induce developmental spillovers? Evidence from India’s States. World Development, (107):396-409.
[5]	Bok R, 2020. The relational co-production of “success” and “failure,” or the politics of anxiety of exporting urban “models” elsewhere. Urban Geography, 41(9):1218-1239, doi: 10.1080/02723638.2020.1802932. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2020.1802932
[6]	Caroline Y, Victor S, Wilfred H, 2007. Transborder industrialization in the framework of Singapore’s regionalization strategy: The case of Singapore’s Gambit in Vietnam. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 8(3):63-90. doi: 10.1300/J098v08n03_05
[7]	Cheng H, Liu Y, He S et al., 2017. From development zones to edge urban areas in China: A case study of Nansha, Guangzhou City. Cities, 71(11):110-122. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.015
[8]	Chou T L, Lin Y C, 2007. Industrial park development across the Taiwan Strait. Urban Studies, 44(8):1405-1426. doi: 10.1080/00420980701373529
[9]	Dabrowski M, 2014. EU cohesion policy, horizontal partnership, and the patterns of sub-national governance: Insights from Central and Eastern Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(4):364-383. doi: 10.1177/0969776413481983
[10]	Derkzen P, 2010. Rural partnerships in Europe, a differentiated view from a country perspective: The Netherlands and Wales. European Urban & Regional Studies, 17(1):17-30.
[11]	Doucette J, Lee S O, 2015. Experimental territoriality: Assembling the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea. Political Geography, 47:53-63. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2015.04.001
[12]	Farole T, Akinci G, 2011. Special economic zones: Progress, emerging challenges, and future directions. The World Bank.
[13]	Giannecchini P, Taylor I, 2018. The eastern industrial zone in Ethiopia: Catalyst for development? Geoforum, 88:28-35. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.003
[14]	Holden, Chris, 2017. Graduated sovereignty and global governance gaps: Special economic zones and the illicit trade in tobacco products. Political Geography, 59:72-81. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.03.002 pmid: 28674465
[15]	Huang Z, He C, Wei Y H D, 2016. A comparative study of land efficiency of electronics firms located within and outside development zones in Shanghai. Habitat International, 56:63-73. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.04.007
[16]	Kitajima S, 1998. Industrial and regional restructuring and changing form of state intervention: The development of partnerships in postwar Japan. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 22(1):26-41.
[17]	Liang Zhuang, Chao Ye, Senlin Hu, 2019. Spatial production and spatial dialectic: Evidence from the new urban districts in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29(12):1981-1998. doi: 10.1007/s11442-019-1700-4
[18]	Liu Weidong, Dunford M, 2016. Inclusive globalization: Unpacking China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Area Development and Policy, 1(3):323-340. doi: 10.1080/23792949.2016.1232598
[19]	Liu Yungang, Ye Qinglu, 2015. Territorialization and territorial politics in the urban grassroots of China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(2):283-296. (in Chinese)
[20]	Liu Zhigao, Wang Tao, 2020. The multi-scale coupling construction mechanism of China’s overseas intergovernmental cooperation parks: A case study of China-Belarus Industrial Park. Acta Geographica Sinica, 75(6):1185-1198. (in Chinese)
[21]	Luo X, Shen J, 2009. A study on inter-city cooperation in the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Habitat International, 33(1):52-62. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.04.002
[22]	Marsh D, Sharman J C, 2009. Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3):269-288. doi: 10.1080/01442870902863851
[23]	Mccann E J, 2011. Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Urban Insight, 101(1):107-130.
[24]	McCann E, Ward K, 2012. Policy assemblages, mobilities and mutations: Toward a multidisciplinary conversation. Political Studies Review, 10(3):325-332. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00276.x
[25]	Meng Guangwen, Wang Hongling, Yang Shuang, 2015. Study on evolution and dynamic mechanism of Tianjin Pilot Free Trade Zone. Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(10):1552-1565. (in Chinese)
[26]	Miao J T, 2018. Parallelism and evolution in transnational policy transfer networks: The case of Sino-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP). Regional Studies, 52(9):1191-1200. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1418979
[27]	Moberg L, 2017. The Political Economy of Special Economic Zones: Concentrating Economic Development. Routledge.
[28]	Ong A, 2004. The Chinese axis: Zoning technologies and variegated sovereignty. Journal of East Asian Studies, 4(1):69-96. doi: 10.1017/S1598240800004392
[29]	Ortegel M, 2017. Creative city policy mobilities as transformations of dispositives-arrangements of ‘networking’ in the European Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg. Geographica Helvetica, 72(2):157-169. doi: 10.5194/gh-72-157-2017
[30]	Ortmann S, Thompson M R, 2014. China’s obsession with Singapore: Learning authoritarian modernity. The Pacific Review, 27(3):433-455. doi: 10.1080/09512748.2014.909522
[31]	Pereira A A, 2004. State entrepreneurship and regional development: Singapore’s industrial parks in Batam and Suzhou. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(2):129-144.
[32]	Pereira A A, 2007. Transnational state entrepreneurship? Assessing Singapore’s Suzhou Industrial Park project (1994-2004). Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 48(3):287-298. doi: 10.1111/apv.2007.48.issue-3
[33]	Phelps N A, 2007. Gaining from Globalization? State extraterritoriality and domestic economic impacts: The case of Singapore. Economic Geography, 83(4):371-393. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2007.tb00379.x
[34]	Rithmire M, 2013. Land politics and local state capacities: The political economy of urban change in China. The China Quarterly, (216):872-895.
[35]	Robinson J et al., 2020. Financing urban development, three business models: Johannesburg, Shanghai and London. Progress in Planning, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2020.100513.
[36]	Shaw M P, Yeoh C, 2000. Singapore’s overseas industrial parks. Regional Studies, 34(2):199-206. doi: 10.1080/00343400050006113
[37]	Song Tao, Liu Weidong, Liu Zhigao et al., 2018. Chinese overseas industrial parks in Southeast Asia: An examination of policy mobility from the perspective of embeddedness. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 28(9):1288-1306. doi: 10.1007/s11442-018-1526-5
[38]	Song Tao, Liu Weidong, Gao Boyang et al., 2020. Policy mobility of China’s overseas industrial zones in the lens of partnership: A case study of Thai-Chinese Rayong Industrial Zone. Acta Geographica Sinica, 75(6):1199-1209. (in Chinese)
[39]	Stephen S, 2016. The Politics of Partnership. European Urban and Regional Studies. Strategic on AEC.
[40]	Taira A, 2020. Beyond the cluster: A case study of pipelines and buzz in the local relational space of the glove-related industry of Shikoku, Japan. The Geographical Journal, 186(1):45-58. doi: 10.1111/geoj.v186.1
[41]	Temenos C, McCann E, 2012. The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environment and Planning A, 44(6):1389-1406. doi: 10.1068/a44314
[42]	Ward K, 2018. Policy mobilities, politics and place: The making of financial urban futures. European Urban and Regional Studies, 25(3):266-283. doi: 10.1177/0969776417731405
[43]	Westman L K, Castán Broto, Vanesa Huang P, 2019. Revisiting multi-level governance theory: Politics and innovation in the urban climate transition in Rizhao, China. Political Geography, 70:14-23. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2019.01.002
[44]	Ye Chao, LI Simeng, Zhuang Liang et al., 2020. A comparison and case analysis between domestic and overseas industrial parks of China since the Belt and Road Initiative. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 30(8):1266-1282. doi: 10.1007/s11442-020-1781-0
[45]	Yeung W C, 2005. The firm as social networks: An organisational perspective. Growth and Change, 36(3):307-328. doi: 10.1111/grow.2005.36.issue-3

Model	Example	Features	Functions of multi-scalar actors
Hierarchical partnership	China-Belarus Great Stone Industrial Park, etc.	Government-to-government joint SEZs	Led bilaterally by national state governments; implementation of national partnership policies
Spontaneous partnership	Integrated development zone of Saiseta, Vientiane, Laos, etc.	Led by spontaneous cooperative efforts of private or public actors	Searching for preferred outcomes; attract FDI; revenue generation
Hybrid partnership	Thai-Chinese Rayong Industrial Zone;China-Indonesia Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone, etc.	Spontaneous efforts plus support arrangements by national and regional governments	Led by private sector actors; national and local efforts on bilateral basis

	Thailand	China
State level	The Board of Investment	China's Ministry of Commerce
Provincial level	Rayong	Zhejiang Province
Company level	Amata Company	Holley Group
Co-partnership company (Thai-Chinese Rayong Industrial Zone Development Company Limited)	30% of the shares	70% of the shares
Division of work	The Thai side is mainly responsible for infrastructure construction including water supply, power supply, roads, and workshops; supply of land and permanent ownership; recruitment of Thai staff.	Enterprise selection and format control; provision of one-stop services for Chinese enterprises, including company registration, tax, account opening and application for BOI qualification certificate; consulting services on target markets, industrial policies, laws and regulations, preferential policies, tax finance, labor recruitment.

Case studies	TCRIZ	KITIC
Land covering	12 km²	4.9 km²
Economic and employment performances	Investment amounts: more than 3.9 billion USD; employment: 34 thousand in 2020	Investment amounts: more than 1.2 billion USD; employment: 4 thousand in 2020
Approved enterprises with foreign investment in this zone (by 2020)	More than 150 Chinese enterprises	55 enterprises, of which 50% Chinese enterprises
Leading industries	Building materials, motorcycle assembly, auto parts manufacturing, automobile assembly, warehousing and logistics, etc.	Agricultural products processing, food processing, machinery manufacturing, transformer, automobile assembly, warehousing and logistics, etc.