Housing the knowledge Economy in China
Introduction:
Little attention is paid in the extant academic literature to the question of housing knowledge workers despite the potential mismatches between housing supply and demand. This paper provides an initial examination of housing the knowledge economy in China, focusing on three science parks (SPs): Zhongguancun (Z-Park, Beijing), Zhangjiang (Z-SHIP, Shanghai) and Optics Valley of China (OVC, Wuhan). It discusses to what extent, and how these three SPs have factored in the housing dimension in connection with the knowledge economy, paying particular attention to housing affordability, location (inside the SPs or outside in the wider city-region) and the mode of provision (market or state).
Insights were drawn from documentary analysis and in depth interviews in the three chosen case studies. Initial evaluation of policies geared towards housing supply in China suggests that the housing question needs to come to the fore in discussions of structural transformation towards the knowledge economy. Since the 1980s, economic development strategies for nations, regions and cities have emphasized the potential importance of science parks (SPs), science cities, techno poles and the like (Castells and Hall, 1994; Miao et al., 2015). Designated zones such as these are seen to be important in raising creativity, innovation and productivity in many national settings. However, scholars and practitioners have emphasized their economic contributions, without much regard for what wider infrastructure is required to have these knowledge facilities function effectively. Housing provision is just a case in point. Such negligence is problematic as housing is an important ingredient among the collective consumption needs of those employed in SPs and constitutes the quality of place for the wider city region.
Housing the knowledge economy: Neglected questions
Influential accounts point to the structural transformation of national economies from labour to capital to knowledge-intensive industry sectors. Although it is less clear whether such structural transformations are adequately captured in the term ‘creative class’, the related literature is nevertheless important for what it suggests regarding a role of housing in local economic development. Making use of the ‘creative class’ idea, scholars argue that ‘the old mode of people moving to follow jobs is turned on its head’.
The housing market and the knowledge economy in China:
Developmental states have been notable for their altogether more planned approaches to stimulate economic structural change in general and through specific policy vehicles such as SPs in particular. In China, as in other developmental states, SPs have been at the heart of national science and technology policy since the early 1990s. In particular, the Torch Programme, supervised by the Ministry of Science and Technology and executed through the Torch Centre, was launched in 1988 as the overarching programme to support SPs. Since the acknowledgement of the first national SP (Zhongguancun Science Park) in 1988, there were 114 national-level SPs in total by 2013 scattered in almost every province.
Housing awareness in the three SPs:
Benchmarked against the national-level documents, the same content analyses of the local development strategies were conducted. For Z-Park, it is clear in Figure 1 that concerns for housing-related issues were not prominent. Instead industrial development was its exclusive focus and the limited land available in Z-Park was allocated mainly to its priority sectors. In the Ten-Year Plan of ZPark, there was a dedicated section on spatial planning, but what was highlighted there was the industrial specialisation and complementarity of different sub-parks. The only time housing was mentioned was in its 12th Five-year Plan, where the provision of PRH for entrepreneurial human capital was suggested, which basically followed the tone of the national government.
Conclusion:
This paper provides a preliminary examination of housing supply policies in support of knowledge economy development in China around the three SPs. Implications for both practical and theoretical advances could be drawn here.
The empirical findings revealed that, one common feature between the three SPs was the public awareness of housing needs from the knowledge workers, albeit to different degrees. However, the three SPs also presented diverse approaches towards housing provision. Strong government support was found in Z-Park and OVC. Conversely ZSHIPs had been relying on the market mechanism in meeting knowledge workers’ housing needs.
Also Read: Second Utafiti Sera Forum on Affordable Housing in Kigali