尺度政治视角下粤港澳大湾区空间治理机制研究

中国快速区域经济发展与城市增长对国家空间治理水平提升提出理论与实践的新要求。然而，现有科层制、条块政治、法团主义等政治学理论虽然扎根本土语境，但空间性讨论不足；基于行政区经济、产业功能区等地理学理论主要围绕西方新区域主义展开，但缺乏本土性建构。因此，借助尺度政治视角，结合新马克思主义地理学理论及“国家空间性”相关理论，通过阐释空间治理中的表现性与话语性特征，引申至各主体之间关系是尺度政治的三重抽象，构建空间治理机制的解释理论。通过建立“现象-话语-关系”研究框架，文章旨在回答空间治理表象、举措与内在原因间的关联机制，并结合框架开展落马洲河套地区及香港科学园、珠三角城际铁路、深汕特别合作区、广德园等4个项目的实证分析。研究表明：1）粤港澳大湾区空间治理中既有基于区域统筹的中心化趋势，也有基于城市发展的本地化趋势，两者高度结合并动态转化。2）区域一体化或碎片化空间策略分别是权力中心化、本地化的空间表征，体现多层级政府贴合当下社会经济效益做出的战略性选择。3）区域不平等发展地位与竞争合作关系决定尺度政治的演化方向。最后，文章强调中国空间治理与西方“竞争性城市-区域主义”谋求发展利益最大化的本质不同，是秉承公平与效率的兼顾，这一价值理念体现在国家及省级政府的监管和斡旋中。

Rapid regional economic development and urban growth in China pose new theoretical and practical demands for enhanced national spatial governance. However, existing political science theories, such as scientific hierarchy, block politics, and corporatism, though rooted in the local context, lack a spatial dimension. Conversely, geographical theories focusing on administrative regional economies and industrial functional zones are predominantly grounded in Western new regionalism and lack a locally-based perception. To address this gap, this study employs a scale political perspective, integrating theories from new Marxist geography and relevant theories of "state spatiality." By elucidating the performative and discursive characteristics of spatial governance, this study extends the discussion to the threefold abstraction of scale politics in the relationships among various actors, constructing an explanatory theory for spatial governance mechanisms. Through a conceptual framework of "material, discursive, and relational" scales, this article explores the mechanisms linking spatial governance representations, measures, and underlying reasons. It examines four projects: Lok Ma Chau, Hong Kong Science Park, Pearl River Delta Intercity Railway, and Shenzhen Shanwei Special Cooperation Zone. These projects demonstrate how competition-oriented inter-city relationships have significantly enhanced the efficiency of capital circulation and development. However, the lack of robust national supervision and regional mediation poses challenges in providing a in providing a safety net during economic downturns. In contrast, China's socialist market economic system has both free flow at the market level and internal regulation of the bureaucratic system. The administrative structure of state, province, and city has established an interactive channel between the state and the locals. On the one hand, the governance decisions made by the state and provincial governments have formal authority and use administrative power to ensure fair regional development opportunities; on the other hand, projects with institutional bottlenecks are promoted through the rulings and mediation of high-level governments. In contrast to the essence of competitive city-regionalism, which seeks to maximize development benefits, China's spatial governance adheres to a balance between fairness and efficiency. This development value is reflected in the supervision and mediation of national and provincial governments. At the core of spatial governance is the rational allocation of regional development factors. How to define "rationality" is the key to establishing local governance theory. The research indicates the following: (1) In the spatial governance of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, there is a centralizing trend driven by regional coordination and a localizing trend driven by urban development. These two trends interact dynamically with one another. (2) Regional integration or fragmented spatial strategies represent centralized and localized power, reflecting strategic choices made by multilevel governments in alignment with current socioeconomic benefits. (3) The evolution of scale politics is determined by the unequal regional development status and competitive-cooperative relationships. In conclusion, this article emphasizes the fundamental differences between Chinese spatial governance and Western "competitive city-regionalism" in seeking to maximize development interests. It asserts a commitment to fairness and efficiency, a value system evident in the regulatory and mediating roles of national- and provincial-level governments.