First, do administrative regions have to manage different areas with very different economic production modes?

This is the first big proposition. First, in most countries, the gap between urban and rural areas is obvious. Although the urbanization rate of developed countries has reached more than 90%. However, in most developing countries, and in China shortly after the founding of the People's Republic of China, the difference between urban and rural areas is extremely obvious. Life style has changed a lot except in urban areas.

So there is such a big difference between urban and rural areas, how to manage it?

At first, people's thinking was relatively simple. Since economic activities are so different, let's divide them into different administrative regions to manage them.

From the Beiyang government to the period of Jiang Guangtou's rule, the traditional administrative regions "Fu" and "Dao" were abolished one after another. The second-level administrative regions are vague, and the provinces directly govern the vast counties, and a provincial capital governs hundreds of counties. Among them, small cities with better urbanization will receive special care and be established as "cities", called "cities under the jurisdiction of hospitals" and "municipalities directly under the Central Government".

While other rural areas are called counties. Due to the low degree of urbanization, municipalities are often riddled with bullet holes, that is, a county is surrounded by a municipality and several counties.

Some populous counties have also been divided, and places with high urbanization rate have been separated to set up separate "cities", while the original counties around them have not been abolished and exist at the same time. This has led to the problem of "counties and cities with the same name". The remnants of today's society are similar to the situation that "Changsha City and Changsha County coexist".

But this model has a huge problem. That is to say, the city itself needs rural land, resources and population, so after the city develops, it will inevitably have economic relations with surrounding counties. Then belonging to different administrative regions will only increase administrative barriers. Maybe City A and County B were originally split from County C, just because City A has a high degree of urbanization. Although city A is dominated by mining, county B, which is less than 10 km, has the resources it needs. If it is not an administrative region, then cross-administrative economic cooperation may have to be submitted for approval at different levels, which is troublesome and troublesome. And it is more convenient if it is in an administrative district.

Therefore, a careful look at the changes in the map shows that the city has been eating away at the "mother county" where it was born until the actual built-up area of City A exceeds the scope of the mother county.

Second, do you want a narrow city, a suitable city or a wide city?

Narrow-area city means that the boundary of the established city is smaller than the scope of the city itself, that is, the city is divided by multiple administrative regions. There are many narrow cities in countries with highly developed economies such as the United States, and many cities have developed into built-up areas of multiple established cities.

A suitable city refers to the boundary of a built city that is roughly equal or equivalent to the scope of the city itself. The urban scope consists of urban built-up areas and a small number of suburbs (not more than or slightly larger than the built-up areas). A few suburbs not only provide a certain supply of agricultural products for the city, but also provide expanded land for the development of built-up areas.

In my opinion, a wide-area city means that the boundary of an established city is far greater than the scope of the city itself. The scope of a city consists of urban built-up areas and a considerable number of suburbs.

These three ways of setting up urban administrative districts can answer the landlord's doubts. China is taking the third road-wide-area urbanization. That is, let a city not only manage its own urban area, but also manage a large number of suburbs, villages and counties. This model was established in the reform of "land to city" in the 1980s. In the past, the "regional administrative offices" that governed counties, cities divided into districts and larger cities were transformed into cities and became "prefecture-level cities". This is the origin of prefecture-level cities.

Third, the market system model should adapt to its own social situation.

With the rapid development of economy and urbanization in China, the urban boundaries are constantly extending. In this case, the narrow city will inevitably not adapt to the situation in China. If a city is divided by several administrative "cities", it will inevitably seriously affect people's lives. For example, the urban areas of City A and City B have long been connected. Mr. Zhang, who lives in City A, wants his children to go to a school in City B, just across the road. Such administrative division may cause great trouble. For another example, the two cities are obviously adjacent, but because they are too close, there may be unfavorable factors in network services and express delivery services. Moreover, according to the narrow urban area, China may need to add tens of thousands of municipal governments, and such administrative expenses are totally unnecessary.

With the rapid economic development in China, rural areas are also facing the needs of local urbanization, so it is unrealistic to adapt to the city. A few years ago, many places were still planned in the way of rural areas, and high-end real estate projects may be built this year.

So wide-area cities are more suitable for China.

Therefore, the urban area of China is often very large.

-

A little supplement: China's market system is not completely without problems, and the main problems are reflected in three aspects:

First, the names and grades are cumbersome and repetitive.

Municipalities directly under the central government, sub-provincial cities, cities with separate plans, prefecture-level cities, quasi-prefecture-level cities, county-level cities and sub-prefecture-level cities emerge in an endless stream, some of which are allowed by superiors and some are informal administrative regions allowed by localities. More and more administrative districts have been transformed into cities, resulting in too many types of cities, too many levels and repeated names. The place name "XX City, XX Province" has long appeared in some areas. In the future, if a town-level city is introduced and a municipality directly under the Central Government is allowed to administer a prefecture-level administrative region, such wonderful place names as "XX City, XX City, XX City" may appear. And its chief executive is called "mayor", which does not reflect the difference.

My idea is to keep only the names of prefecture-level cities. On the premise of the same rights and responsibilities, the municipality directly under the Central Government was renamed as the "capital" and the Chief Executive was called the "governor"; Sub-provincial cities and cities under separate state planning were renamed as "governments" and the chief executive was called "county heads"; County-level cities were renamed as "counties" and the Chief Executive called them "county guards".

Second, it is suspected of breaking the law to authorize not to give names.

One of the characteristics of administrative divisions in China is that "XX-level treatment is often given to XX county", but the level is not changed and the administrative divisions are not adjusted. This has to be considered as the result of bureaucratic struggle. If you don't want your administrative area to be transferred, there will be problems of people staying in the same place and changing treatment. Then this situation has violated the responsibility entrusted to the administrative region by law from the beginning. It's illegal. It should stop.

Third, there are too many counties under the jurisdiction of prefecture-level cities.

This is easy to cause the phenomenon of small horse-drawn carts. So it is necessary to increase prefecture-level cities and merge some provinces. It is best to keep the number of provinces within 30. Each province can have an average of 40-30 prefecture-level cities. For places with special circumstances. Counties and counties directly under the jurisdiction of the province can be established separately. The jurisdiction of the provincial capital should also be optimized and then reorganized into a "government", and all its administrative districts should be established as "districts".