I wish they left space to discuss the Japan’s Furusato Nōzei and China's Hukou system and how they impact non-residents.
For example, if your hukou is registered to a rural community, you do not have access to the same level of public healthcare that people with Shanghai hukous have.
edit: replaced 'Jūminhyō' with Japan’s Furusato Nōzei
I don't think the Jūminhyō system is similar to the Chinese one. You basically just need to have a utility bill or something with your name and address on it, and register it with your local ward office or city hall. There is no concept of being refused it unless you aren't a legal Japanese resident as far as I can tell?
Regarding the Japanese system, there are no restrictions on moving residence. Resident registration (Jūminhyō) can be done anywhere. Therefore, if you move to a new place of residence, it is common and recommended to register accordingly. I don't know the details, but I think the system in China is probably completely different.
Delhi's issues are severe due to the coordination problem - you have 6 state governments, 1 municipal government, the central government, and SOEs all with overlapping or competing responsibilities.
Hanoi has the exact same coordination problem as Delhi for the exact same reasons as well - 8 tinhs and 2 TPTTTWs all with overlapping and competing governments.
Beijing had a similar problem both Delhi and Hanoi, but because it was just surrounded by Hebei and Tianjin (a fellow 直辖市) it made coordination easier.
> One model is Shanghai, which is run by the central government as a province rather than a city
> The Tokyo Metropolitan Government (tmg) is responsible for big-ticket public services such as water, sewage and public hospitals. Beneath it sit 23 wards and a host of peripheral cities and towns. Each municipality has its own elected mayor and assembly, responsible for services such as schools, waste management and community planning. The tmg co-ordinates between them. It is a sensible split that clearly delineates authority while also making sure that decision-making is joined up.
The high level description for Tokyo's management could apply to Shanghai. Replace Tokyo's "elected mayor/assembly" with "party member administrators". Each Shanghai district has its own management structure.
The vague description "run by the central government as a province rather than a city" is uninformative.
Lived in Shanghai 10 years. The city is well run for something of its magnitude. Mostly competent leadership and cultural alignment.
Shanghai usually gets the CPC members running it who will lead the country in the future. So...the future president of China is likely to be a party secretary of Shanghai at some point (like Xi in 2007). Any cadre who is favored and wants to be seen making modern impacts will be sent to SH.
Southern Chinese cities are better run than Northern Chinese cities. Not just Shanghai, but Hangzhou, Suzhou, Nanjing, Wenzhou...heck, even Kunming has better drivers and traffic than you'll see in Beijing.
> heck, even Kunming has better drivers and traffic than you'll see in Beijing.
But, conversely, a poor farmer in Yunnan was less likely to choose to become a migrant worker in Kunming instead of a Tier 1 metro.
IMO, Beijing's craziness can be attributed to the fact that it is the economic center for much of Northern China - and a number of migrants from large neighboring laggard states like Hebei, Shanxi, Henan, and others ended up gravitating to Beijing.
> Shanghai usually gets the CPC members running it who will lead the country in the future
Not anymore. That was more of a Jiang- and Hu-era bias.
> a party secretary of Shanghai at some point (like Xi in 2007)
Xi's tenure in Shanghai was transitory (less than a year from what I remember) and imo was due to his previous role in Zhejiang.
> Hangzhou, Suzhou, Nanjing, Wenzhou...
Those are all closely connected with Shanghai economically speaking, and all part of Zhejiang or Jiangsu.
It's a broad statement but the fact that Shanghai is a 直辖市 (and imo Tokyo is in a similar position) is a major difference from other megacities in Asia.
It gives Shanghai (and Tokyo) a munucipal budget and fiscal autonomy that most other megacities in Asia tend to lack.
The article argues they are miserable because their governance is subpar with many factions controlling different aspects as well as lacking coordination with neighboring peripheral governing bodies and all this ends up in poor services for residents.
People more there for opportunity and the opportunity appears better in those miserable places than in the hinterlands... and so they move.
I wish they left space to discuss the Japan’s Furusato Nōzei and China's Hukou system and how they impact non-residents.
For example, if your hukou is registered to a rural community, you do not have access to the same level of public healthcare that people with Shanghai hukous have.
edit: replaced 'Jūminhyō' with Japan’s Furusato Nōzei
I don't think the Jūminhyō system is similar to the Chinese one. You basically just need to have a utility bill or something with your name and address on it, and register it with your local ward office or city hall. There is no concept of being refused it unless you aren't a legal Japanese resident as far as I can tell?
I misunderstood the name. I think I mean: Japan’s Furusato Nōzei.
This system creates weird incentive schemes where rural areas offer 'benefits' to city folk.
Regarding the Japanese system, there are no restrictions on moving residence. Resident registration (Jūminhyō) can be done anywhere. Therefore, if you move to a new place of residence, it is common and recommended to register accordingly. I don't know the details, but I think the system in China is probably completely different.
住民票 (Jūminhyō) is just a certificate of residence - there's no population management aspect to it unlike China's Hukou.
https://archive.is/23Z0H
India's capital Delhi's recent air quality woes spring to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAoJYJR8o3g
Delhi's issues are severe due to the coordination problem - you have 6 state governments, 1 municipal government, the central government, and SOEs all with overlapping or competing responsibilities.
Hanoi has the exact same coordination problem as Delhi for the exact same reasons as well - 8 tinhs and 2 TPTTTWs all with overlapping and competing governments.
Beijing had a similar problem both Delhi and Hanoi, but because it was just surrounded by Hebei and Tianjin (a fellow 直辖市) it made coordination easier.
Why do we group East Asia with South Asia? We don't group the Middle east with Europe
The Middle East is being called West Asia these day.
South Asia is another new invention.
No one goes around saying "I'm a South Asian."
As for terminology, especially when it comes to geography and geopolitics, it depends on who's using the term and what their agenda of the day is.
Gulf of Mexico comes to mind.
"And why Shanghai and Tokyo are not"
> One model is Shanghai, which is run by the central government as a province rather than a city
> The Tokyo Metropolitan Government (tmg) is responsible for big-ticket public services such as water, sewage and public hospitals. Beneath it sit 23 wards and a host of peripheral cities and towns. Each municipality has its own elected mayor and assembly, responsible for services such as schools, waste management and community planning. The tmg co-ordinates between them. It is a sensible split that clearly delineates authority while also making sure that decision-making is joined up.
The high level description for Tokyo's management could apply to Shanghai. Replace Tokyo's "elected mayor/assembly" with "party member administrators". Each Shanghai district has its own management structure.
The vague description "run by the central government as a province rather than a city" is uninformative.
Lived in Shanghai 10 years. The city is well run for something of its magnitude. Mostly competent leadership and cultural alignment.
Shanghai usually gets the CPC members running it who will lead the country in the future. So...the future president of China is likely to be a party secretary of Shanghai at some point (like Xi in 2007). Any cadre who is favored and wants to be seen making modern impacts will be sent to SH.
Southern Chinese cities are better run than Northern Chinese cities. Not just Shanghai, but Hangzhou, Suzhou, Nanjing, Wenzhou...heck, even Kunming has better drivers and traffic than you'll see in Beijing.
> heck, even Kunming has better drivers and traffic than you'll see in Beijing.
But, conversely, a poor farmer in Yunnan was less likely to choose to become a migrant worker in Kunming instead of a Tier 1 metro.
IMO, Beijing's craziness can be attributed to the fact that it is the economic center for much of Northern China - and a number of migrants from large neighboring laggard states like Hebei, Shanxi, Henan, and others ended up gravitating to Beijing.
> Shanghai usually gets the CPC members running it who will lead the country in the future
Not anymore. That was more of a Jiang- and Hu-era bias.
> a party secretary of Shanghai at some point (like Xi in 2007)
Xi's tenure in Shanghai was transitory (less than a year from what I remember) and imo was due to his previous role in Zhejiang.
> Hangzhou, Suzhou, Nanjing, Wenzhou...
Those are all closely connected with Shanghai economically speaking, and all part of Zhejiang or Jiangsu.
It's a broad statement but the fact that Shanghai is a 直辖市 (and imo Tokyo is in a similar position) is a major difference from other megacities in Asia.
It gives Shanghai (and Tokyo) a munucipal budget and fiscal autonomy that most other megacities in Asia tend to lack.
The article argues they are miserable because their governance is subpar with many factions controlling different aspects as well as lacking coordination with neighboring peripheral governing bodies and all this ends up in poor services for residents. People more there for opportunity and the opportunity appears better in those miserable places than in the hinterlands... and so they move.
Former prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, on a related note: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/25DCT8w7JHI
This is such a terrible article.
Comparing India and Indonesia to China and Japan is like comparing Mexico and Brazil to Canada the US.
Just because they’re in the same continent doesn’t mean they’re comparable.
What makes the article even worse is The Economist's policy of hiding the author(s) name(s).
The name is always a giveaway of their agenda.
[dead]
[dead]