Navigating mega-regionalization

Abstract

Secondary cities are gaining increased attention in regionalism debates, reflecting both a critique of the excessive reliance on dominant core cities and a growing recognition of the multidimensional potential of smaller cities in polycentric regional systems. This concern is particularly evident in Chinese mega-regionalization, which promotes coordinated spatial relations between core cities and surrounding smaller cities as a key strategy to address intra-regional unevenness. However, despite more than two decades of implementation as a national spatial strategy, mega-regionalization has not substantially alleviated the challenges faced by secondary cities. These cities continue to experience polarization, as development factors concentrate in core cities, and peripheralization, as cores retain political centrality. Against this background, this research aims to find out how the coordination of core-secondary spatial relations can help secondary cities navigate mega-regionalization challenges. Two main findings are identified. First, mega-regionalization relies heavily on state-initiated spatial planning orientations to coordinate core-secondary spatial relations, structured around coexistence, connectivity, and cooperation. This framework is intended to integrate secondary cities into a more balanced regional system. In practice, however, this ambition has not been fully realized. Second, the gap between vision and outcome can be explained by governance mismatches across three dimensions: place, referring to insufficient endogenous capacities and willingness across localities; priority, reflecting divergent visions and value hierarchies among stakeholders; and actor, referring to institutional power asymmetries. These mismatches constrain both vertical coordination from top visions to local implementation and horizontal coordination between core and secondary cities. Theoretically, this study extends discussions of secondary cities in regionalism to the megaregional scale and advances governance mismatches as a lens to understand coordination barriers from the perspective of secondary cities. Practically, it underscores the role of spatial planning as a key instrument for regional coordination and offers insights for improving planning policies and implementation pathways.