從共同體到企業集體：空間實踐視角下的華西與獵德「村集體」之轉型和發展

From Community to Enterprise Collective: The Transformation and Development of“Village Collective”in Huaxi and Liede from the Perspective of Spatial Practice

本文以中國「華西村」與「獵德村」為案例，分析「村集體」轉型是在怎樣不同的政治經濟脈絡下展開？因應不同的政經條件，他們又分別通過怎樣的空間策略維繫了集體實踐並推動了鄉村發展？以及又醞釀了怎樣的危機？本文認為，「村集體」是以「企業集體」的形式展開實踐，而「空間」是檢視其實踐邏輯的一個綜合性視角。首先，「村集體」企業在國家引導的城鄉發展中謀得自主性，與其特定地理條件下的土地政策有關。華西和獵德村的集體實踐需要置入蘇南和廣州城中村的空間脈絡中理解。其次，「村集體」仰賴集體經濟績效作為其治理正當性的彰顯，空間的經濟效益進而成為其實踐的重要考量。華西和獵德「村集體」因此分別周旋於「周邊村」、市政府和開發商之間，展開了基於利潤的空間爭奪。最後，空間的文化建構作為集體象徵資本，也參與到「村集體」的企業實踐中。其不僅有助於兌換政治資本、鞏固集體實踐的自主性，也直接支持了集體經濟的績效增長。本文結論將提醒，正因「村集體」企業化後轉向排他性的利益共同體，其不可避免地再生產了空間分化和社會排除，也面臨著資本累積危機和正當性危機。若要探尋鄉村共同體的可持續發展之路，需重思「村集體」實踐的空間正義議題。

Looking into the cases of “Huaxi Village” and “Liede Village” in China, this article tries to analyze how the transformation of the “village collectives” emerges under different political economic contexts, what spatial strategies they adopt to sustain the collective practice and promote the development of the villages in response to different political economic conditions, and what crises exist. This article argues that “village collectives” practice in the form of “enterprise collectives”, and that “space” is a comprehensive perspective to examine the logic of their practice. First, the autonomy of the “village collective” enterprises in the state-led urban-rural development is related to their geographical conditions. The collective practices of Huaxi and Liede need to be understood within the spatial context of industrialization in southern Jiangsu and “urban villages” in Guangzhou. Second, the “village collectives” rely on collective economic performance as a manifestation of their governance legitimacy, and the economic efficiency of space becomes an important consideration in their practice. Thus, the “village collectives” of Huaxi and Liede have been competing for space on the basis of profitability, negotiating with “neighboring villages”, municipalities, and developers. Finally, the cultural construction of space, as collective symbolic capital, is also involved in the corporate practices of the “village collectives”. It not only contributes to the accumulation of political capital and consolidates the autonomy of collective practices, but also directly supports the performance growth of the collective economy. This article concludes that the entrepreneur-ialization of “village collectives” and its shift to an exclusive interest community inevitably leads to spatial differentiation and social exclusion, as well as facing crises of capital accumulation and legitimacy. In order to move towards the sustainable development of the village community, we need to rethink the issue of spatial justice in the practice of “village collectives”.