Infrastructure nationalism and sovereignty by settlement in Tibet: The case of xiaokang border villages

This article critically examines China’s Xiaokang Border Village Programme (2017–20) in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), situating it within Xi Jinping’s broader strategy of ‘governing the borders to govern the country’. Ostensibly framed as a poverty alleviation and rural revitalization initiative, the programme mobilized billions in state funding to construct or rebuild more than 600 model villages in Tibet’s border counties. Drawing on a range of new sources, the article argues that these villages are less developmental tools than instruments of territorial consolidation, securitization, and ideological transformation. By reconfiguring spatial relations, relocating border populations, and embedding Han-led Chinese Communist Party (CCP) institutions, these xiaokang villages function as micro-sites of infrastructure nationalism and colonial-style governance, inscribing Han norms into Indigenous landscapes and subjectivities to further CCP control over once autonomous communities in the farthest reaches of the People’s Republic of China.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
China Information
Published
2026-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203x261477237
Primary Topic
China's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Infrastructure nationalism and sovereignty by settlement in Tibet: The case of xiaokang border villages

James Leibold
China Information
China's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
article

Infrastructure nationalism and sovereignty by settlement in Tibet: The case of xiaokang border villages

James Leibold
article en

Abstract

This article critically examines China’s Xiaokang Border Village Programme (2017–20) in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), situating it within Xi Jinping’s broader strategy of ‘governing the borders to govern the country’. Ostensibly framed as a poverty alleviation and rural revitalization initiative, the programme mobilized billions in state funding to construct or rebuild more than 600 model villages in Tibet’s border counties. Drawing on a range of new sources, the article argues that these villages are less developmental tools than instruments of territorial consolidation, securitization, and ideological transformation. By reconfiguring spatial relations, relocating border populations, and embedding Han-led Chinese Communist Party (CCP) institutions, these xiaokang villages function as micro-sites of infrastructure nationalism and colonial-style governance, inscribing Han norms into Indigenous landscapes and subjectivities to further CCP control over once autonomous communities in the farthest reaches of the People’s Republic of China.

China Information
La Trobe University (AU)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
China's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Infrastructure nationalism and sovereignty by settlement in Tibet: The case of xiaokang border villages — James Leibold · China Information (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS