一個新自由城市、兩種都市政權？1997後香港都市治理的空間爭議

One Neoliberal City, Two Urban Regimes: Why the Urban Governance is Spatially Contested in the Post-1997 Hong Kong?

對於1997年7月1日解殖後香港都市治理的缺乏效能，目前相關學術社群已有諸多討論。然而，這些文獻卻少有針對當前香港新自由城市形構的觀點進行深入分析。基於地理學領域近年對新自由城市發展模式所作的反思性討論，本文主張，有效的都市治理取決於國家機器（政府）、資本及市民社會間的協作關係。健全體制乃是奠定在都市政權結構中國家－－資本集團及國家－－社會集團間平衡的協調基礎上。不同集團間對都市空間關注不同利益，若無法在空間生產上取得平衡時，即會深化都市治理的危機動向。雖然1997年後香港是一個典型的新自由城市，但是也展現出若干反映都市危機的治理亂象－－起因在於過度強調跨國資本積累的利益，導致空間生產的爭議因此爆發。藉由探索地產主導成長聯盟如何塑造並壟斷戰後都市紋理，本文指出，香港當前都市政權在邁向新自由化過程中具有圖利國家──資本利益之傾向。進而，本文探索解殖後都市轉型，發現香港當前反對親商政權的新興市民社會空間價值已經逐漸浮現。透過觀察1997後具爭議性的城市規劃項目，比較其中國家──資本集團與國家──社會集團間關注的空間價值差異，本文對於為何當前都市政權為「地產霸權」宰制提出分析，並解釋此一政權結構如何影響當前都市治理亂象。本文發現，當國家──社會集團逐漸展現出有別於殖民時期的影響力時，而地產主導的國家──資本集團仍享有設定治理議程的決定性優勢。只要協調空間生產的機制仍無法保持平衡時，治理亂象的僵局短期內仍將持續下去。

There have been many works explaining the ineffective urban governance in postcolonial Hong Kong. However, few of them further the issue from its nature of neoliberal city formation. The paper argues that the effective urban governance relies on the synergetic relationships among state, capital, and civic society. The institutional health premises on the balanced coordination between state-capital and state-society regimes, each of which stresses different spatial forms, values, and scales for the landscapes they pursue. Although the post-1997 Hong Kong is a competitive neoliberal city, it also exhibits several governance chaos of urban crisis resulting from the production of contested space, overvaluing transnational capital accumulation. Through exploring how the property-led growth machine was formed in the postwar urban experience, the paper indicates Hong Kong’s urban regime favoring state-capital interests toward neoliberalization. The postcolonial urban transformation is explored to detail the emerging civic society with socio-spatial values opposing to the pro-business regime. Through comparing the different spatial values between state-capital and state-society blocs from the post-1997 controversial planning projects, the paper illustrates why the coalition has been dominated by “property hegemony” and how it has exacerbated the tendency toward governance chaos. The property-led regime enjoys the dominant advantages to set up policy agenda while the influence of emerging citizen-led regime is stronger than the previous colonial counterpart. The impasse of governance chaos will continue in the near future as long as the coordinative mechanism to producing space remains uneven.