Huiguan Spatial Distribution

The structure of urban space is not merely a byproduct of social relations; rather, it is an outcome of the perpetual reproduction of social practices.

H. Lefebvre, translated by L. Li, Space and Politics, Shanghai Education Publishing House, Shanghai (2005) 92-98 [in Chinese].

Figure 3: Temporal-Spatial Evolution and Geographical Distribution Characteristics of Huiguan (From top-left to bottom-right: Ming Dynasty, Mid-Qing Dynasty, Late Qing Dynasty, Republic of China)

Source: The base map is "Detailed Map of Beijing" (jingshi neiwaicheng xiangxi ditu) made by the jingshi jingchating in 1928, with projection registration aligned to the present-day standard. Unless otherwise specified, subsequent figures refer to this note.

The map resource: Hou, Renzhi Historical Atlas of Beijing: Humanities and Social Sciences Volume (Beijing: Wenjin Publishing House, 2013) [in Chinese]; State Administration of Cultural Heritage. Atlas of Chinese Cultural Relics: Beijing Volume (Beijing: Science Press, 2008) [in Chinese]; Hou, Renzhi., and Yue, Shengyang(eds.). Historical Atlas of Xuannan Beijing (Beijing: Xueyuan Publishing House, 2008) [in Chinese].
The "Xunjing Ting" was a modernized public security management institution in Beijing from the late Qing Dynasty to the early Republic of China, and the map materials are derived from the archives of the Xunjing Ting.The "Xunjing Ting" was a modernized public security management institution in Beijing from the late Qing Dynasty to the early Republic of China, and the map materials are derived from the archives of the Xunjing Ting.

The spatial and temporal evolution of huiguan as illustrated in Figure 3, which clearly presents the spatial evolution of huiguan in different periods. The spatial pattern of Ming Dynasty Huiguan was already in its initial development stage, characterized by concentration east of Qianmen Avenue and dispersion north of Luomashi Street. By the mid-Qing Dynasty, a substantial surge in Huiguan numbers had formed a relatively stable spatial pattern. A discernible agglomeration trend emerged, signifying a notable transformation in the urban landscape. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, a substantial number of Huiguan were located west of Xuanwumen Outer Street and both sides of Mishi Hutong. Following the relaxation of the policy of segregation for Bannermen, a modest number of Huiguan began to be constructed in the inner city, particularly in areas such as Xisi South Street and the southeast corner of the inner city. However, as social changes and urbanization progressed, many Huiguan gradually underwent diminution and eventual abandonment.

Kernel density analysis further confirms this institutionally driven spatial clustering（see Figure 4）, in which native-place huiguan in the Outer City formed four high-density core areas: the east side of Qianmen Avenue, both sides of Xuanwumen Outer Street, the south side of Luomashi Street, and the west side of Caishikou Street. Furthermore, commercial Huiguan formed two high-density core areas on the east side of Qianmen Avenue and the south side of Luomashi Street. Though native-place and commercial Huiguan differed in spatial distribution, both were highly clustered; kernel density analysis showed native-place Huiguan were significantly more clustered due to their greater numbers.

Figure 4: Spatial Distribution Density of Huiguan

Native-Place Ties and Spatial Clustering

Kernel density analysis reveals the macro agglomeration characteristics of Huiguan. Further Local Spatial Autocorrelation analysis and empirical observations indicate that the spatial distribution of Huiguan is not a random high-density agglomeration, but is profoundly shaped by native-place ties, presenting a significant pattern of intra-provincial clustering—which further clarifies the specific mode of Huiguan's spatial distribution.

The outer city of Beijing has historically functioned as a primary gathering place for scholars, merchants, and sojourners since the Ming and Qing dynasties. This area has exhibited certain spatial regularities. Belsky argued that it is rare to see ethnic Han regional groups as spatially demarcated, and throughout the Xuannan area, the Huiguan of different provinces were intermingled with no perceivable pattern.

Belsky, Localities at the Center, pp. 92-94.

Specifically, the high-high (H-H) clustered areas are primarily located along both sides of Xuanwumen Outer Street, with Huiguan from Zhejiang and Jiangxi provinces being predominant. This spatial distribution pattern is closely related to economic development and the prominence of imperial examination culture in these provinces. During the Ming and Qing periods, Zhejiang experienced significant economic prosperity, and the province's intellectuals played an active role in the imperial exams. This facilitated the establishment of Huiguan. Of particular note is the west side of Xuanwumen Outer Street, where four Huiguan from Zhejiang converged, including the Zhejiang Huiguan, Wenzhou Huiguan, and Zheshao Huiguan. This concentration formed a distinct provincial cluster. The development of the imperial examination system in Jiangxi was a significant catalyst for the establishment of Huiguan in Beijing, which in turn stimulated the demand among the local population. This led to the formation of two distinct clusters: one located in the eastern region and the other in the western part. On the east side of Qianmen Avenue, between Changxiang Second Alley and Changxiang Fourth Alley, there is a concentration of 13 Huiguan from Jiangxi, including Linjiang Huiguan, Jinxian Huiguan, Nancheng Huiguan, Nanchang Huiguan, Dexing Huiguan, and Le Ping Huiguan. Additionally, in nearby Haojing Hutong, there is a continuous distribution of four Huiguan from Jiangxi, namely Yining Huiguan, Wuning Huiguan, Ningzhou Huiguan, and Jinxian Huiguan. Furthermore, the east side of Xuanwumen Outer Street also shows a dense distribution of seven Huiguan from Jiangxi, including Nanchang Junguan, Yongfeng Huiguan, and Jianchang Huiguan. Furthermore, a substantial presence of Huiguan from Shaanxi Province is observed along Liulichang Street on the east side of Xuanwumen Outer Street, including Han Cheng Huiguan, Yulin Huiguan, Nanzheng Huiguan, Hanzhong Huiguan, and Fengxiang Huiguan. This phenomenon suggests a discernible geographical clustering pattern among native-place Huiguan.

The high-low (H-L) clusters reflect the interspersed distribution of Huiguan from different provinces, particularly evident along the eastern side of Qianmen Street. For example, Huiguan from Anhui Province, including Guichi Huiguan, Xiuning Huiguan, and Jingxian Huiguan, are concentrated along the Changxiang Fourth Alley. Surrounding this central area are Huiguan from other provinces, such as the Nanxiong Huiguan from Guangdong, the Yuan Ning Dong Huiguan from Jiangsu, and the Xizi Huiguan from Jiangxi. The distribution of Huiguan in the region is characterized by a distinct high-low (H-L) clustered pattern, which is both irregular and systematic. The low-low (L-L) clustered areas are defined as Huiguan that are not adjacent to others from the same province. Those Huiguan are predominantly situated along both sides of Qianmen Avenue, which is located within Beijing's commercial core area. It is noteworthy that Huiguan from multiple provinces have selected this area as a strategic location for their operations. However, due to variations in construction periods, Huiguan from the same province may not be adjacent, yet still exhibit a clustering relationship.

Figure 5: Cluster Patterns of Native-place Huiguan

The Consolidation of Space Form

Land tenure and building scale made huiguan markedly immobile in the urban landscape. During the Republican period huiguan were progressively incorporated into urban governance, and under the influence of socio-economic conditions their functions and identities changed. Although redevelopment projects such as the Xiangchang demonstration zone(xiangchang shifan dajie) and Xinhua Street brought some changes, they did not fundamentally alter the Outer City's spatial pattern, huiguan's spaces form changed little, and the Outer City's basic spatial structure remained stable.

To explore the relationship between Huiguan and socioeconomic factors, a series of official statistical data and field survey materials were collected, including socioeconomic data on population and land prices. Historical population data were collected from the "Beiping Municipal Government Statistical Monthly"(Beipingshi zhengfu tongji yuekan), which provides detailed records of the population of Beijing from 1928 to 1932. Data on land prices in various districts of Beijing from 1931 to 1932 are derived from "Beiping's Land Prices, Ground Rent, Housing Rent, and Taxes"(Beipingshi zhi dijia dizu fangzu yu shuishou).

Xiao, Zheng, and Wei, Shudong. Zhongguo Dalu Tudi Wenti Ziliao: Beiping Shi Zhi Dijiadi Zu, Fangzu yu Shuishou 77 (Taipei: Chengwen Publishing Co., Ltd.; Chinese Materials Center, USA, 1977), pp. 40405-40479 [in Chinese].

This section takes huiguan land area as the core quantitative indicator of economic capital, integrating multi-source data analysis with GWR to explore how average land price, population density, poverty rate, and building density maintain the consolidation of spaces form. Specifically, land price reflects construction costs, population density denotes population concentration, poverty rate measures economic disparities across districts, and building density reflects the intensity of housing and land use.

The dimensions of a Huiguan are influenced by its geographical location and economic strength. A comprehensive analysis of 411 Huiguan, inclusive of their documented area and the number of rooms (excluding auxiliary facilities), are conducted to derive the fundamental statistics. The number of Huiguan rooms typically spans from 10 to 50, though considerable variations are observed among different Huiguan. For example, the largest number of rooms, namely Denglai Jiaoguan, Anhui Huiguan, and Quanzhe Huiguan, have 402, 356, and 298 rooms, respectively, while Huiguan with the smallest number of rooms, namely Zhangzhou Huiguan, Liangzhou Huiguan, and Guizhou Huiguan, have only 1, 7, and 8 rooms, respectively. In addition to the number of rooms, the area of Huiguan also showed significant difference. For instance, the Old Huai'an Huiguan exhibited the minimum area, measuring a mere 193.34 square meters. In contrast, the majority of Huiguan specimens have an area of approximately 200 square meters. For example, Jiangsu Huiguan, Gaolan Huiguan and Sanyuan Huiguan have areas of 200, 213 and 220 square metres respectively, which are considered small Huiguan. Considering the impact of multicollinearity, based on the variance inflation factor (VIF) test, the area of Huiguan is used as an indicator to measure the scale of Huiguan.

Using the 1928 census data, the Geographically Weighted Regression method (GWR) was employed to assess the influence of population density on Huiguan area across various districts of Beijing. The population varies from a minimum of 46,154 in the Inner Sixth District to a maximum of 101,243 in the Inner Third District. The inner city exhibits a higher population density, primarily concentrated between the Inner First and Inner Second Districts, whereas the outer city shows a lower population density. The results reveal that the regression coefficients for population density are predominantly positive (Figure 6a), suggesting a direct influence on Huiguan size. The spatial distribution of the regression coefficients indicates that the effect is more pronounced in the outer city, where the coefficients for the Outer First and Outer Second districts are positive. The region east of Qianmen Avenue, characterized by the highest population density, exerts the strongest influence on Huiguan size, followed by the Xuanwumen and Liulichang areas. The coefficient near Caishikou is near zero, indicating that, despite a relatively dense distribution of Huiguan in this area, the lower population density has not significantly influenced Huiguan size. This implies a positive correlation between population density and demand for Huiguan.

Due to the relatively small fluctuations in land prices in different districts over a given period, average land price data for Beijing's districts from 1931 to 1932 were calculated to estimate the extent to which land price affected the scale of Huiguan. The raw data show that the average land prices in Outer First and Outer Second Districts are the highest, at 1,194 and 1,114 liang per mu respectively, followed by Inner Second and Inner First Districts. The average land price in the Outer Fourth District is the lowest, at only 346 liang per mu. Huiguan are mainly concentrated in the higher-priced areas of the Outer First and Outer Second Districts and the lower-priced Outer Fourth District, there are significant differences in land prices. The lowest land price in the Outer First and Outer Second Districts is 750 liang per mu, while in the Outer Fourth District, the land price peaks at 1,000 liang per mu and dips to 250 liang per mu. Huiguan size and land price exhibit a negative correlation, with smaller huiguan tending to cluster in areas of higher land values (Figure 6b). The spatial variation in regression coefficients weakens from Caishikou Street toward Xuanwumen, Luomashi Street, Liulichang, and Qianmen, indicating that the association between land price and Huiguan size appears more pronounced in the Outer First and Outer Second Districts compared to the Outer Fourth District. This pattern may reflect economic factors influencing Huiguan distribution. For example, the provincial-level Quanzhe Huiguan located at Changxiang First Alley in the Outer First District and the county-level Wuyuan Laoguan in the Outer Second District, although they are at different administrative levels, both have relatively small areas, covering 280 and 334 square meters respectively.

To assess the economic conditions across Beiping's districts, poverty rates from a 1929 survey by the Beiping Municipal Public Security Bureau were used as key indicators. The data show significant variation in different Beiping's districts. Specifically, poverty rates in peripheral districts are generally lower than those in central areas. The Outer First District has the lowest poverty rate (0.50%), while the Inner Fourth District has the highest (26.34%). In the outer city, the poverty rate in the Outer Third District is relatively high at 20.94%, whereas the rates in the Outer Second and Outer Fifth Districts are lower, at 1.05% and 0.78%, respectively. The findings suggest that areas with higher poverty rates tend to have larger Huiguan size, though this effect varies across districts (Figure 6c). The spatial distribution of the regression coefficients reveals that this effect is more pronounced along Caishikou Street, suggesting that the relationship between poverty rates and Huiguan size may be more noticeable in this area. This positive effect diminishes progressively from south to north, reaching the outskirts of Xuanwumen Street.

Finally, building density, derived from the 1912 map, shows a negative correlation with Huiguan area (Figure 6d). The spatial distribution of regression coefficients suggests that areas with higher building density tend to have smaller Huiguan. The absolute value of the coefficients decreases from west to east, with the highest value observed west of Caishikou Street. As the analysis progresses eastward towards Xuanwumen and Qianmen Avenues, the coefficients decline, suggesting a diminishing effect on Huiguan size.

Historically, socio-economic differences were not entirely erased over time; rather, they persisted to some degree. In particular, the rigid spatial pattern of the outer city was associated with the interplay of physical stability and economic continuity. The areas with higher land prices and denser building patterns were associated with smaller huiguan，along Qianmen Avenue and Liulichang. In contrast, the Huiguan in the Xuanwumen area are of a moderate size. While high population density encouraged the construction of Huiguan, land prices and building density imposed significant constraints. The poverty rate, however, had a minimal impact on Huiguan development. In contrast, Huiguan in Caishikou were larger and more numerous, mainly due to lower land prices and building density, which offered more favourable conditions for their construction.

Figure 6 The Relationship between Socioeconomic Factors and the Scale of Huiguan(In sequence: (a)population density, (b)land price, (c)poverty rate, (d)building density)

Strengthening of Governmental Management

After the abolition of the imperial examinations the central-local-huiguan nexus weakened, and successive municipal administrations in Beijing progressively incorporated huiguan into the urban management apparatus. The relationship between huiguan and government was not merely one of subordination but rather a government-led collaborative mode in which the vertical centre-local linkage was replaced by a new configuration of local government-local associations-huiguan. The authorities clarified the identity and function of huiguan and stipulated their obligations by regulating internal constitutions and imposing requirements such as property registration. Concurrently, huiguan proactively responded to state demands by revising their bylaws and governance arrangements and submitting these changes for official approval, thereby securing legal recognition and operational continuity.

Successive governments regulated huiguan through property registration and management frameworks, which not only institutionally defined their identity and functions but also reshaped their social roles within the urban context. By requiring the submission and approval of organizational bylaws, which necessitated the explicit articulation of service objectives and governance models, the government strengthened its oversight and promoted the modernization of huiguan.

During the late Qing and Beiyang periods, Beijing began to regulate the operations, management practices, and other activities of Huiguan. In 1906, the Ministry of Civil Affairs (Minzhengsi) mandated the xunjing youting to undertake an investigation into Huiguan, seeking to ascertain public sentiment. In 1915, the Beijing Police Bureau(jingshi jingchating) promulgated the "Regulations for the Management of Huiguan(Huiguan guanli guize)," which defined the identity, operation, and management rules of Huiguan. This regulation imposed behavioral restrictions on their administration, and gradually reinforced government oversight, integrating them into urban management frameworks. In 1918, the Beijing Police Bureau(jingshi jingchating) promulgated a notice to amend the "Regulations for the Management of Huiguan(guanyu xiuding guanli huiguan guize de bugao)," instructing lodges to adopt regulations establishing an elected board of directors and to designate a director who would assume legal responsibility for the lodge. The provisions were revised to align with the evolving requirements of governance. This revision included updates to the terms of office, election procedures, and the management of specific issues. In 1925, the Beijing Court Registry Office(jingshi difang shenpanting dengjichu) issued a notice on the registration of real estate, encouraging registration as a means to legally confirm property rights and avoid disputes.

During the period of the Nationalist Government in Nanjing, the government's administration of Huiguan underwent a marked shift towards greater refinement. This refinement was characterized by the introduction of a more detailed set of regulations, which encompassed not only the usage of buildings but also operational systems. In 1930, the Public Security Bureau(gonganju)

The year 1930 marked a key institutional transition from the late Qing-early Republican Xunjing Ting system to the modern Public Security Bureau (Gongan Ju), reflecting both administrative standardization and local adaptation.

Following the Japanese occupation of Beijing in 1937, the authorities implemented stringent measures to control both the permanent urban residents and the transient mobile population. The Huiguan, a facility catering to the needs of transient individuals, became a focal point of these regulatory measures. In the context of social unrest in Beijing, the operations of numerous Huiguan boards were disrupted, with some even facing incidents of property being looted or liquidated. In 1940, the Puppet Provisional Beijing Special Municipal Government Government (wei Beijing tebieshi gongshu) promulgated a decree entitled "Notice on the Strict Prohibition of the Theft and Sale of Huiguan Public Property (guanyu yanjin daomai huiguan gongchan de bugao)", which formally stipulated the strengthening of property management: "All properties belonging to Huiguan may not be bought, sold, or mortgaged privately. In the event that the disposition of these properties is deemed to be in accordance with the collective will, it is imperative that the disposition be reported for approval. In the absence of such approval, transfers are prohibited.

In 1942, Jiang Chaozong initiated the organization of the "Beijing Huiguan Adjustment Bureau(Beijing gesheng huiguan diaozhengchu)," aimed at enhancing the management of sojourners in Beijing. In 1943, the Bureau issued two key documents: the "Regulations on the Organization of Huiguan in Beijing (Beijing gesheng huiguan zhenglihui zhangcheng)" and the "Guidelines for the Management of Huiguan in Beijing (Beijing gesheng huiguan guanli jigou zhengli banfa)". Subsequently, the Provisional Municipal Police Bureau (weishi jingchaju) promulgated the "Outline for the Reorganization of Huiguan in Beijing (Beijing gesheng huiguan zhengli yaogang)", This regulation which strictly stipulated that each Huiguan must first organize a native-place association and prohibited people from other provinces or counties from residing in or renting Huiguan rooms. The residents were subject to limitations regarding their origins, specifically that they were "limited to the appointment of civil servants or impoverished students from Beijing." In addition, a proposal was made for each lodge to establish a property management committee. The purpose of this committee would be to oversee and protect the real estate, land, and charitable cemeteries.

Beijing Municipal Archives (BMA), "Notice No. 35 from the Beijing Special City Government Police Bureau on the Issuance of Guidelines for the Organization of Provincial Guilds in Beijing, October 8, 1943" (Articles 6-8), No. J19-233.

On March 25, 1949, the Communist Party assumed control of Beijing and delegated the administration of the Huiguan to the Ministry of Civil Affairs, categorizing it as a social organization. On November 15, following an extensive investigation, the Ministry of Civil Affairs wrote the report "1949 diaocha baogao", a document of considerable significance as it chronicles the ultimate fate of the Huiguan. In 1950, the Beijing Municipal People's Government enacted the Interim Measures for the Management of Huiguan Property(Huiguan caichan guanli zanxing banfa). The regulation stipulated that Huiguan property would henceforth be managed by a committee organized by native-place associations in Beijing and prohibited the sale, transfer, pawn, or mortgaging of these assets.

Beijing Municipal Archives (BMA), "Provisional Regulations on the Management of Guild Property in Beijing, September 12, 1950" , No. J19-207.

Social Networks Analysis

The transformation of Huiguan from Keju Huiguan to native-place associations was not only driven by institutional changes such as the abolition of the imperial examination system, but also relied on the mature social networks and social space structures formed among Huiguan. These networks, rooted in native-place ties, provided the organizational foundation for Huiguan to shift their functions and reconstruct their identities.

Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis reveals the clustering phenomenon of native-place Huiguan. To further illuminate the social and geographical characteristics, a social network analysis is employed, drawing on data from the 1906 Diaochabiao, which records the information of 235 lodge administrators, including directors (guanliren) and watchmen (kanguanren). The survey indicates that the majority of directors were either metropolitan officials or members of the elite class. While the majority of directors merely hold nominal positions, the data nevertheless reveal robust interconnections between Huiguan.

A “nominal” or “honorary” position denotes a symbolic title without substantive managerial or operational r"esponsibilities.

A lot of these individuals were invited to assume the role of director of lodges in the capital. A number of these individuals concurrently served as directors of different Huiguan. For example, Huang Huaiying, who served as director of Sichuan Zongguan, also holds a nominal position in Sichuan Dongguan, Sichuan Zongguan and six other Huiguan in the same province. Similarly, Yang Jiesan, an Academician of the Hanlin Academy, held the director position at several Huiguan, including the Zhongzhou Nanguan, Zhongzhou Xiangci, Songyang Huiguan, and Zhongzhou Huiguan. This dual or multiple roles enabled directors to establish connections between these Huiguans.

Using Gephi and the MultiMode Networks Projection plugin, unique codes were assigned to each Huiguan and director. A "Huiguan-Huiguan" one-mode network was constructed based on the "Huiguan-Director" relationship. In this network, "nodes" are equivalent to individual Huiguan, and "edges" represent the connections between them. The thickness of the lines represents the number of directors, with thicker lines reflecting closer relationships. The size of each node is indicative of its weighted degree centrality.

As indicated by Table 1, the majority of Huiguan in Yunnan Province exhibit a high weighted centrality. Notably, the Yunnan Beiguan and Yunnan Xiguan stand out with a weighted centrality of 24, which is considerably higher than that of other Huiguan. This finding suggests that it is a prevalent phenomenon for a single director to hold positions in different Huiguan in Yunnan. This further facilitated connections between different lodges within the province, thereby establishing a complex and extensive social network.

Table 1 Social Network Analysis of Huiguan

Furthermore, notable discrepancies exist among Huiguan from disparate provinces. Those lodges from Guangdong, Yunnan, Jiangsu, and Hunan exhibit a heightened betweenness centrality, thereby assuming a pivotal role as a connecting bridge within the entire network. Panyu Huiguan in Guangdong and Yunnan Xiguan have the highest levels of betweeness centrality, with values of 169 and 160, respectively. These findings suggest that these two huiguan play a very crucial intermediary role in the entire network. In addition, the Yunnan Xiguan, also known as the Zhaogong Ci, is the largest huiguan in Yunnan Province. Covering an area of 60 mu(40,000 square meters), it contained 45 rooms and a theater, with an additional 50 mu(33,334 square meters) of charitable cemeteries. It is also the largest huiguan in terms of recorded land area. Significant investments have been made in the purchase and maintenance of its property, and its financial strength surpasses that of other local huiguan. Consequently, it has augmented capabilities in the acquisition and dissemination of information. Other huiguan with higher betweenness centrality include Jiangning Junguan (Jiangsu Province) with a score of 144, Fengxiang Huiguan (Shaanxi Province) with a score of 75, and Quanzhe Huiguan (Zhejiang Province) with a score of 72. These lodges play an essential role in connecting and mediating networks both within their respective regions and across broader regional connections.

Figure 7. Huiguan network based on directors

The node color is adjusted based on different cohesive subgroups, and the node size is adjusted according to the weighted degree centrality.

The network's modularity, as determined by the Modularity community detection algorithm, is 0.944. A value of 0.5 or greater is generally considered indicative of an optimal community structure, suggesting the presence of distinct social clusters within the network. Consequently, the 235 Huiguan are categorized into 49 cohesive subgroups, each distinguished by color, as shown in Figure 7. Huiguan often share directors and exhibit regional concentration within the network, suggesting that those from the same province are tightly connected, forming dense community networks that reflect the influence of geographical ties on the structure of the network. In particular, the majority of subgroups are situated within the same province, with comparatively limited interconnectivity between disparate communities. For instance, in Yunnan, they exhibit a high degree of interconnectedness, comprising the Yunnan Xinguan, Yunnan Zongguan, Zhaotong Huiguan, Lihua Huiguan, and Yunnan Nanguan. In Sichuan, the subgroups include the Sichuan Laoguan, Sichuan Zhongguan, Quanshu Huiguan, and Sichuan Zongguan, which are also closely interlinked. A similar phenomenon is observed in Huiguan from other provinces, including Guangdong, Henan, and Jiangsu, which also exhibit regional clustering. Furthermore, the network displays a considerable number of cliques (ring structures), which reveals an interesting phenomenon: most directors hold leadership positions at least two Huiguan, thereby forming small triangular sub-networks. This finding provides additional evidence that supports the idea that Huiguan in the same province or region are interconnected through shared same directors.

Functional Transformation

In the Qing period huiguan primarily provided accommodation and financial assistance to provincial officials and examination candidates in the capital and were defined as keju huiguan (imperial-examination huiguan). As Xu Ke noted in Qingbai Lechao: "People from each province who reside in the capital establish halls as places to maintain native-place ties; provinces, prefectures or counties may each establish a hall, usually according to the number and wealth of their officials in the capital, numbering in total some four hundred or more."

Xu, K. Qingbai Lechao, Volume 1: Gongyuan Lei Huiguan. Zhonghua Book Company (1984) [in Chinese].

After the abolition of the examinations, Beijing as the capital still attracted substantial numbers of lower-level officials, merchants and students. For instance, the 1910 agreement of the Jinxi Huiguan still mentioned privileges for "compatriots and examination candidates journeying to the capital,"

Beijing Municipal Archives. (1910). New Agreement of Jinxi Huiguan. No. J19-355

According to the 1947 Notice of the Beiping Municipal Social Affairs Bureau on the Registration of Huiguan, the government required huiguan to submit detailed registration forms and to undergo approval and registration pursuant to the Bureau's Guidelines for Huiguan Organization. Many huiguan recorded their functional changes in the "history and development" section of these forms. Table A1, which systematizes the 1947 Provincial Huiguan Registration Forms,

The registration forms were uniformly formulated in accordance with Notice No. Chong San (36) 1715 issued by the Social Affairs Bureau of the Beiping Municipal Government, which detailedly recorded the information of Huiguan from all provinces.

Evolution of Management Models

As a distinct form of social organization, Huiguan experienced an evolutionary transformation in its management practices in response to societal shifts and the evolving nature of its roles and responsibilities. Initiatives such as revising charters, restructuring leadership, and formalizing compliance underscored their active adaptation to institutional norms.

Similarly, adjustments to management methods and restructuring of governance bodies, such as the Zhengding Huiguan's reorganization of its council in 1947, also necessitated official review and registration. (See: Beijing Municipal Archives, Petition from the Zhengding Huiguan Council Submitting Its Organizational Bylaws to the Social Bureau, December 17, 1947, Archive No. J2-2-264.)

However, intensified state control gradually shifted huiguan from clan-based autonomy toward modern bureaucratic governance. The Huiguan Management Regulations, promulgated by Jingshi Jingchating in 1915, necessitated meticulous organizational directives, including the establishment of a directorial body.

Rule 3: "Huiguan directors can be elected by voting or public nomination, following group customs or via public discussion among townsmen."See：Beijing Archives, Jingshi Jingchating Banbu Guanli Huiguan Guize (April 15, 1915), archive no. J2-2-281.

An analysis of the occupations and class background of Huiguan administrators reveals the class transformations within the administrative group. This, in turn, provides insight into Huiguan adaptation to a changing social and historical context. The 1906 and 1948 surveys meticulously document the status of Huiguan directors and watchmen, offering a comprehensive historical perspective. The former illuminates the state of the Huiguan in the aftermath of the abolition of the imperial examination system, while the latter reflects the circumstances on the eve of the Huiguan's dissolution.

Initially, the 1906 diaochabiao documented the information of 184 directors, who collectively administered 213 Huiguan. Among these individuals, one individual was a physician, while five were merchants operating commercial Huiguan, including silver shops, cloth appraisal, medicine shops, and so on. The remaining 178 directors held government officials. In terms of the positions types, the report not only list traditional official titles but also include positions instituted during the 1901 reforms and those established in the 1906 "Bingwu Reform of the Administrative System (Bingwu gunzhi gaige)." Of these, 39% of the directors held traditional official positions, most of whom occupied important state positions such as the Grand Secretariat (neige), Hanlin Academy (hanlinyuan), and the Imperial Academy (guozijian). Among them, 11 had served in the Grand Secretariat. For example, Li Lianfang, the director of the Xing'an Huiguan, had been a neigexueshi and Assistant Minister in the Board of Rites (libushilang). The Fengyang and Anhui Huiguan had been managed by Sun Jianai, a Grand Secretary (daxueshi).

Yang Tingji was the director of Quanjun Huiguan（simultaneously served as the director of the Tong'an, and Jinjiang Huiguan）, having successively held various positions in his career, including Cabinet Attendant Reader (neige shidu), Cabinet Secretaries (neigezhongshu), and local official in charge of provincial administration (fenshengdao difangzhangguan). In addition, 13 managers had held positions in the Hanlin Academy.

There are 6 Compilations, 4 reader assistants, 1 reviewer, 1 person who served successively as both an compilation and a reader assistant, and 1 person without a specific position.

The 1949 diaocha baogao reflected the circumstances of the final generation of Huiguan administrators, thereby indicating a discernible trend toward professionalization. More than 60 individuals were former government officials and unemployed personnel, including both those who were unemployed prior to the Civil War and those who subsequently lost their positions. In addition, the management of Huiguan involved 48 businessmen and 44 government officials. The remaining leaders came from various professions, including educational staff, workers, housewives, democratic personages, doctors, and so on.

In the late Qing, Huiguan directors were predominantly public officials occupying high-ranking positions. These individuals were entrusted with the preservation of the Qing dynasty's traditional bureaucratic system. However, with the central administrative reforms and revolution, they underwent a gradual integration into the emerging social management system. Concurrent with societal transformations, the political functions of Huiguan underwent a gradual decline, ultimately leading to their evolution from politically oriented organizations into social groups. Simultaneously, the occupational structure of Huiguan directors underwent diversification, reflecting the fusion and transformation between established traditions and emerging identities.

This section explores the transformation and continuity of Huiguan in the process of historical evolution, and its identity in urban society. Following the abolition of the imperial examination system, the government institutionalized huiguan as a part of urban governance through property registration and organizational reforms. In the context of Chinese traditional society, Huiguan played a pivotal role in preserving established traditions. These institutions maintained established geographical relations while undergoing a gradual transition to new identities. The function of the Huiguan underwent a transition, shifting from its primary role of serving students and officials to an increasingly prominent position in supporting local compatriot communities. It functioned as an important platform for fostering social ties and providing social support, thereby Huiguan contributed to promoting social stability objectively. This dynamic process reflects both state-imposed regulation and traditional organizations' agency in navigating modernization pressures, illustrating the interplay of continuity and adaptation in China's socio-political landscape.