[1] ABU-LUGHOD J. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America's global cities[M]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999: x, 580.
[2] AMABLE B. The diversity of modern capitalism[M]. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003: xiii, 310.
[3] ARTHUR B. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy[M].Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.
[4] BERRISFORD S. Why it is difficult to change urban planning laws in African countries[J]. Urban forum, 2011, 22(3): 209-228.
[5] BOAS T. Conceptualizing continuity and change: the composite-standard model of path dependence[J]. Journal of theoretical politics, 2007, 19(1): 33-54.
[6] BONTJE M, MUSTERD S. The multi-layered city: the value of old urban profiles[J]. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 2007, 99(2): 248-255.
[7] BOOTH P. Culture, planning and path dependence: some reflections on the problems of comparison[J]. Town planning review, 2011, 82(1): 13-28.
[8] BRENNER N, THEODORE N. Neoliberalism and the urban condition[J]. City, 2005, 9(1): 101-107.
[9] CAPOCCIA G, KELEMEN D. The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism[J]. World politics, 2007, 59(3): 341-369.
[10] COE N. Geographies of production 1: an evolutionary revolution?[J]. Progress in human geography, 2010, 35(1): 81-91.
[11] COLLIER R, COLLIER D. Shaping the political arena[M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.
[12] COX K R. Political geography: territory, state, and society[M]. Oxford, the UK; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2002.
[13] DAVID P. Clio and the economics of QWERTY[J]. American economic review, 1985, 75: 332-337.
[14] DILWORTH R. The city in American political development[M]. New York: Routledge, 2009: xvi, 268.
[15] FISCHEL W A. The homevoter hypothesis: how home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.
[16] GONZALEZ S, HEALEY P. A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity[J]. Urban studies, 2005, 42(11): 2055-2069.
[17] HACKER J. Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: the hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States[J]. American political science review, 2004, 98(2): 243-260.
[18] HACKER J, PIERSON P. Winner-take-all politics: how Washington made the rich richer-and turned its back on the middle class[M]. 1st ed. New York: Simon & Schustser, 2010: 357.
[19] HALL P, TAYLOR R. Political science and the three new institutionalisms[J]. Political studies, 1996, 44(5): 936-957.
[20] HALL P, SOSKICE D. Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: xvi, 540.
[21] HASSINK R. Regional resilience: a promising concept to explain differences in regional economic adaptability?[J]. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 2010, 3(1): 45-58.
[22] HEALEY P. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies[M]. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1997: xiv, 338.
[23] HEALEY P. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times[M]. London: Routledge, 2007: xiv, 328.
[24] HOME R. Of planting and planning: the making of British colonial cities[M]. 1st ed. London; New York: Spon, 1997: viii, 249.
[25] HOWLETT M. Process sequencing policy dynamics: beyond homeostasis and path dependency[J]. Journal of public policy, 2009, 29(3): 241-262.
[26] IMMERGUT E. The theoretical core of new institutionalism[J]. Politics & society, 1998, 26(1): 1-46.
[27] IMRAN M, LOW N. Sustainable urban transport in Pakistan: threats and opportunities[J]. Management of environmental quality, 2005, 16(5): 505-529.
[28] KATZNELSON I. Periodization and preferences: reflections on purposive action in comparative historical social science[M] // MAHONEY J, RUESCHEMEYER D, eds. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 270-301.
[29] KINGDON J. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies[M]. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 2003: xx, 253.
[30] KRUGMAN P. History and industry location: the case of the manufacturing belt[J]. Papers and proceedings of the Hundred and Third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 1991, 81(2): 80-83.
[31] LAWSON J. Path dependency and emergent relations: explaining the different role of limited profit housing in the dynamic urban regimes of Vienna and Zurich[J]. Housing, theory and society, 2010, 27(3): 204-220.
[32] LOW N, ASTLE R. Path dependence in urban transport: an institutional analysis of urban passenger transport in Melbourne, Australia, 1956-2006[J]. Transport policy, 2009, 16: 47-58.
[33] LOWNDES V. New institutionalism and urban politics[M] // DAVIES J, IMBROSCIO D, eds. Theories of urban politics. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage, 2009: 91-105.
[34] MAHONEY J. Path dependence in historical sociology[J]. Theory and society, 2000, 29: 507-548.
[35] MAHONEY J. The legacies of liberalism: path dependence and political regimes in Central America[M]. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001: xv, 396.
[36] MAHONEY J, THELEN K. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power[M]. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010: xiii, 236.
[37] MARTIN R. Roepke lecture in economic geography-rethinking regional path depencence: beyond lock-in to evolution[J]. Economic geography, 2010, 86(1): 1-27.
[38] MARTIN R, SUNLEY P. Path dependence and regional economic evolution[J]. Journal of economic geography, 2006, 6(4): 395-437.
[39] MCFARLANE C. The comparative city: knowledge, learning, urbanism[J]. International journal of urban and regional research, 2010, 34(4): 725-742.
[40] MOORE B. Social origins of dictatorship and democracy; lord and peasant in the making of the modern world[M]. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966: xix, 559.
[41] NIELSEN B. Is breaking up still hard to do? – policy retrenchment and housing policy change in a path dependent context[J]. Housing, theory and society, 2010, 27(3): 241-257.
[42] NORTH D. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance[M]. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990: viii, 152.
[43] NUNN N. The importance of history for economic development[J]. Annual review of economics, 2009(1): 65-92.
[44] PFLIEGER G, KAUFMANN V, PATTARONI L. How does urban public transport change cities? correlations between past and present transport and urban planning policies[J]. Urban studies, 2009, 46(7): 1421-1437.
[45] PIERSON P. Dismantling the welfare state?: Reagan, Thatcher, and the politics of retrenchment[M]. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994: viii, 213.
[46] PIERSON P. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics[J]. American political science review, 2000, 94(2): 251-267.
[47] PIERSON P. Politics in time: history, institutions, and social analysis[M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004: xii, 196.
[48] RAST J. Annexation Policy in Milwaukee: an historical institutionalist approach[J]. Polity, 2007, 39(1): 55-78.
[49] RAST J. Critical junctures, long-term processes urban redevelopment in Chicago and Milwaukee, 1945-1980[J]. Social science history, 2009, 33(4): 393-426.
[50] ROBERTSON D, MCINTOSH I, SMYTH J. Neighbourhood identity: the path dependency of class and place[J]. Housing, theory and society, 2010, 27(3): 258-273.
[51] ROBINSON J. Ordinary cities: between modernity and development[M]. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2006: xiv, 204.
[52] ROBINSON J. Cities in a world of cities: the comparative gesture[J]. International journal of urban and regional research, 2011, 35(1): 1-23.
[53] RODGERS D. Atlantic crossings: social politics in a progressive age[M].Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998.
[54] SANYAL B. Comparative planning cultures[M]. New York: Routledge, 2005: xxiv, 415.
[55] SHEINGATE A. Rethinking rules: creativity and constraint in the U.S.house of representatives[M] // MAHONEY J, THELEN K, eds. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010: 168-203.
[56] SKOCPOL T. Protecting soldiers and mothers: the political origins of social policy in the United States[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992: xxi, 714.
[57] SORENSEN A. Land, property rights and planning in Japan: institutional design and institutional change in land management[J]. Planning perspectives, 2010, 25(3): 279-302.
[58] SORENSEN A. Conclusions: megacities, urban form and sustainability[M] // SORENSEN A, OKATA J, eds. Megacities: urban form, governance, and sustainability. Tokyo: Springer Verlag, 2011a.
[59] SORENSEN A. Uneven processes of institutional change: path dependence, scale, and the contested regulation of urban development in Japan[J]. International journal of urban and regional research, 2011b, 35(4): 712-734.
[60] SORENSEN A. Evolving property rights in Japan: patterns and logics of change[J]. Urban studies, 2011c, 48(3): 471-491.
[61] STREECK W, THELEN K. Introduction: institutional change in advanced political economies[M] // STREECK W, THELEN K, eds. Beyond continuity: institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005: 1-39.
[62] SUTCLIFFE A. Towards the planned city: Germany, Britain, the United States and France, 1780-1914[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981.
[63] THELEN K. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics[J]. Annual review of political science, 1999(2): 369-404.
[64] THELEN K. How institutions evolve: insights from comparative historical analysis[M] // MAHONEY J, RUESCHEMEYER D, eds. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 208-240.
[65] THELEN K, STEINMO S. Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis[M] // STEINMO S, THELEN K, LONGSTRETH F, eds.
Structuring politics: historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992: 1-32.
[66] URRY J. The‘ System’ of automobility[J]. Theory, culture and society, 2004: 21(4/5): 25-39.
[67] VERMA N. Institutions and planning[M]. 1st ed. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier, 2006.
[68] WARD K. Editorial-toward a comparative (re)turn in urban studies? some reflections[J]. Urban geography, 2008, 29(5): 405-410.
[69] WARD S, FREESTONE, R, SILVER C. The 'new' planning history: reflections, issues and directions[J]. Town planning review, 2011, 82(3): 231-261.
[70] WEIR M. Poverty, social rights, and the politics of place in the United States[M] // LEIBFRIED S, PIERSON P, eds. European social policy: between fragmentation and integration. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1995.
[71] WILSON D. Toward a contingent urban neoliberalism[J]. Urban geography, 2004, 25(8): 771-783.
[72] WOODLIEF A. The path-dependent city[J]. Urban affairs review, 1998, 33(3): 405-437.