{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01536983669548511, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.236111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rethinking collaborative planning in China: Does the communicative or agonistic planning theory matter?

There has been considerable debate about Habermasian-inspired communicative planning theory and Mouffe’s-inspired agonistic planning theory. This study investigates the possibility of the communicative and agonistic approaches for collaborative planning in the Chinese context. It examines three common theoretical dimensions, regarding the political concept, the public sphere and the power relation. The recent political development in China is related to authoritarian deliberation, in which governments allow some space for deliberation and participation but with limited empowerment. The multiple tensions between governments and society lead to the fragmentation of public spheres and various forms of power relations in collaborative practices. This study concludes that a dichotomous perspective is not helpful to understand China’s collaborative planning, which reflects features of both communicative and agonistic approaches.