Talk:New areas

Only Pudong, Binhai and Liangjiang are state-level new areas plus national new areas, the others are only national new areas. See the Chinese edition of this article. --HNAKXR (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Pudong, Binhai, and Liangjiang are neither at the level of (US) states (i.e., separate provinces) nor (UK) states (i.e., separate nations). Are you trying to say that they're at the level of separate districts of their cities, rather than areas within districts? — LlywelynII 02:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are other "new areas" of equivalent importance, there's no problem dabbing the term to New Area(s), New areas of the People's Republic of China; or (perhaps best) New Areas of the People's Republic of China (as this is a technical term); but we shouldn't start out dabbing as the needlessly un-TERSE State-level new areas of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, in the variety of English spoken by the vast majority of Wikipedia's users, "state-level" means something entirely different from 国家-level. Even if "state-level" turns out to be the (infelicitous) translation preferred by Beijing, we would need to somehow dab or explain that usage rather than keeping the page there. — LlywelynII 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"New areas are divided into two varieties: administrative or management"

The article is written to show us the levels of each new area, but there is nothing beyond this part of a sentence to tell us what the difference is between administrative new areas and management news areas. Looking around, I found a paper titled "Diversification and Local Embeddedness: The Rescaling of National New Area Governance in Post‐Reform China" that kind of explains it, but someone who knows the area better would be better fit to make edits to incorporate the explanation of these concepts into the article. It'd appear the first type are New Areas created simultaneously to the creation of a new city district (new district government), or where the planning idea of an existing city district lines up exactly wht the idea for the New Area and is managed by a committee of the city government. The "management" type of New Areas confuses me much more.

Also, it is made explicit that state or national-level is designated by the national government, but it's not made explicit if the provincial governments designated all the new areas down to the township level, or if it's the governments above that each level that do this (prefecture designates county ones, counties designate township ones). Finally, in the national-level table, we see "parts" listed of administrative units, but most of the maps on these articles show the units designated in their entirety (e.g. Xiong'an).

We need a lot more detail about all of this, and it'd help to include the official laws that allow for these designations.--Criticalthinker (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyone? What's the practical difference between administrative and management new areas in how they are administered/governed? Criticalthinker (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Found this research article that kind of explains it, but it's still not very clear. You can check it out on page 11. I guess just generally the difference is that an "administrative" new area is one that has formally been elevated to the level of an administrative district. Where things become more fuzzy is "management" new areas, which can range from a "management committee" (who creates this/dispatches this? The national government or the city?) who remit covers the same area as an administrative district, but it separate from it, to "leadership group" type of management, which appears to be created/dispatched by the province. I want to add this info, but can't think of a simple way to do that. If anyone else can, please do. It'd probably be good to differentiate these in a separate "overview" section. Criticalthinker (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)