Content uploaded by Anna L. Ahlers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anna L. Ahlers on Mar 05, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Participation and empowerment at the grassroots : Chinese village elections in perspective
Abstract and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Administration and Authority Structures in Rural China from a Historic Perspective Chapter 3: Direct Village Elections as a New Element of Administrative Control and Legitimation Chapter 4: Previous Studies on Village Elections and Conceptual Framework Chapter 5: Three Case Studies Chapter 6: Conclusions Chapter 7: Outlook Appendix: Survey Questions The 1987, 1998 and 2010 Versions of the Organic Law on Villagers' Committees of the People's Republic of China
Figures - uploaded by Anna L. Ahlers
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Anna L. Ahlers
Content may be subject to copyright.
... | rio de janeiro, v.09.03: 819 -846, sep. -die., 2019 states (Birke, 2015), the authoritarian enclaves identified by political scientists in the 'deep South' of the otherwise democratic United States and in Argentina and Mexico (Mickey, 2015;Giraudy, 2015), the outsourcing of decision making on core policies in many democracies to non-majoritarian institutions such as central banks or courts, 10 the retreat of parliaments in exemplary Scandinavian democracies as they cede to decision making informed by technocratic committees of experts, 11 the global Occupy movement and its claims to act (sometimes violently) on behalf of the majority of the world population, and the many localized or national protest movements in the OECD world (post-Brexit, post-Trump) which act on the basis of the same claims and obviously see no means -and sometimes may have no interest -to push for their demands via formal democratic institutions (see Roberts, 2012), the recent admittance of women to participate in elections and run for office in Saudi Arabia's municipal elections (see Al Jazeera, 2015), or finally the village-level democratic elections in present-day China (see Schubert & Ahlers, 2012), to name just a few paradoxes and discontinuities. All these examples point to the dynamics built into the distinction of democracy and authoritarianism, which seems to inform oscillations between these two poles of political spaces. ...
... It could, therefore, easily be assumed that the more local the perspective, the more opportunities for individual participation would arise -i.e. the more inclusive politics should become, even in autocracies. This has been, for instance, vividly described for the People's Republic of China (see, for example, Ahlers, 2014; He & Thøgersen, 2010;Schubert & Ahlers, 2012) and ...
The paper begins with the observation that today’s world society exhibits a political regime bipolarity and suggests an interpretation, based on the sociological theories of inclusion and functional differentiation. We (1) distinguish democratic and authoritarian political regimes by identifying the different value patterns underlying collectively binding decision making. Democracy is understood as a political regime based on the ‘autopoiesis’ of its constitutive values, while in authoritarian regimes we observe a ‘heterogenesis’ of values. To this we (2) add the idea that modern states are characterized by the imperative of individual political inclusion. At the same time new patterns arise for the inclusion of collectivities. Concluding (3), we postulate that this approach allows the study of ongoing transformations of differentiation in both types of regimes. In this part, we present an overview of the hierarchy of levels of modern polities and the horizontal differentiation of subsystems and organizations.
... It is also often that many different changes or turning-points in the social process, or the life course, are observed and defined according to researchers' own positions or their needs of theorisation (Gong, 1996;Heurlin, 2017;Liu, 2001b;Osburg, 2013;Schubert & Ahlers, 2012;Walder et al., 2000). It is because of such approaches that the liking and disliking, if not desires and demands, of the vast majority of people at a different stage of social change are explained in an incomplete way, characterised by biases towards certain groups, especially activists, oppressed groups and other minorities. ...
In the past four or so decades, a significant amount of research
efforts has been made to analyse the constant and rapid social
change taking place in China and the driving dynamics behind
the process, resulting in a rich literature on a wide range of issues
and aspects related to China’s recent transformations. However,
most of such literature is closely related to the research
attentions to either political or policy changes and processes or
spontaneous and impermanent societal reactions, if not protests
and resistances, to changing socio-economic and -political
conditions. What has not been sufficiently analysed is how the
majority of the population has reacted to the many changes in
society over a longer period of time, the inadequacy of which has
restricted our understanding of Chinese society, its dynamics and
its changing trend to the standpoints of elitists and their
opponents. This analytical article seeks to review the existing
literature on China’s recent social change and its dynamics, with a
focus on the main analytical problems in the literature. To deal
with the latter problems, this review is to suggest looking at
social changes and dynamics from a stance of competitive social
repositionings among the population.
... For instance, whereas the national political leadership is unchallenged and inaccessible and governmental outputs are determinate in the first place, modern variants of outcome-oriented "adaptive authoritarianism" often rely heavily on local (sometimes experimental) adjustments or even alterations of policies -processes that include different forms of participation by the "affected" parts of the population. This scenario has been described for the case of Russia (see, e.g., forthcoming) and the People's Republic of China (see, e.g., Florini et al., 2012;Schubert and Ahlers, 2012). Finally, it is possible that traditional traits of authority or even types of independent sub-polities, in the form of, for example, clans, dynasties, castes, clientelism, or mob/gang structures, survive at individual levels; or that there are different value bases or preferences (Catholicism; xenophobia) that impact decision making at one level or in one unit, which may completely differ from that observable at others levels in the same polity. ...
This book is about the radical novelty of modern polities in a functionally differentiated world society. Premodern states were at the apex of a stratified, hierarchical society. They dominated society and all its groups and strata. Modern polities have to be understood through the ecology of relations among different function systems. They have to find and incessantly redefine their place in society. They produce decisions that are collectively binding, but in preparing these decisions experience constraints and knowledge deficiencies that are related to the complexity of a functionally differentiated society. The book concentrates on six analytical perspectives that reflect how modern polities are embedded into 21st century society. These perspectives are: the concept of inclusion and the inclusion revolution constitutive of modern polities; the internal differentiation of polities that endows them with an unprecedented complexity; the fact that polities do not know anything about society and the ways in which they compensate for this; representation and responsiveness as strategies to reconnect with society; the self-restriction of some polities that brings about ever new autonomous expert organizations; the symmetrical rise of autocracies and democracies as the two modern variants of political regimes.
... For instance, whereas the national political leadership is unchallenged and inaccessible and governmental outputs are determinate in the first place, modern variants of outcome-oriented "adaptive authoritarianism" often rely heavily on local (sometimes experimental) adjustments or even alterations of policies -processes that include different forms of participation by the "affected" parts of the population. This scenario has been described for the case of Russia (see, e.g., Moser, 2015;forthcoming) and the People's Republic of China (see, e.g., Florini et al., 2012;Schubert and Ahlers, 2012). Finally, it is possible that traditional traits of authority or even types of independent sub-polities, in the form of, for example, clans, dynasties, castes, clientelism, or mob/gang structures, survive at individual levels; or that there are different value bases or preferences (Catholicism; xenophobia) that impact decision making at one level or in one unit, which may completely differ from that observable at others levels in the same polity. ...
This book is about the radical novelty of modern polities in a functionally differentiated world society. Premodern states were at the apex of a stratified, hierarchical society. They dominated society and all its groups and strata. Modern polities have to be understood through the ecology of relations among different function systems. They have to find and incessantly redefine their place in society. They produce decisions that are collectively binding, but in preparing these decisions experience constraints and knowledge deficiencies that are related to the complexity of a functionally differentiated society. The book concentrates on six analytical perspectives that reflect how modern polities are embedded into 21st century society. These perspectives are: the concept of inclusion and the inclusion revolution constitutive of modern polities; the internal differentiation of polities that endows them with an unprecedented complexity; the fact that polities do not know anything about society and the ways in which they compensate for this; representation and responsiveness as strategies to reconnect with society; the self-restriction of some polities that brings about ever new autonomous expert organizations; the symmetrical rise of autocracies and democracies as the two modern variants of political regimes.
... For instance, whereas the national political leadership is unchallenged and inaccessible and governmental outputs are determinate in the first place, modern variants of outcome-oriented "adaptive authoritarianism" often rely heavily on local (sometimes experimental) adjustments or even alterations of policies -processes that include different forms of participation by the "affected" parts of the population. This scenario has been described for the case of Russia (see, e.g., forthcoming) and the People's Republic of China (see, e.g., Florini et al., 2012;Schubert and Ahlers, 2012). Finally, it is possible that traditional traits of authority or even types of independent sub-polities, in the form of, for example, clans, dynasties, castes, clientelism, or mob/gang structures, survive at individual levels; or that there are different value bases or preferences (Catholicism; xenophobia) that impact decision making at one level or in one unit, which may completely differ from that observable at others levels in the same polity. ...
... For instance, whereas the national political leadership is unchallenged and inaccessible and governmental outputs are determinate in the first place, modern variants of outcome-oriented "adaptive authoritarianism" often rely heavily on local (sometimes experimental) adjustments or even alterations of policies -processes that include different forms of participation by the "affected" parts of the population. This scenario has been described for the case of Russia (see, e.g., Moser, 2015;forthcoming) and the People's Republic of China (see, e.g., Florini et al., 2012;Schubert and Ahlers, 2012). Finally, it is possible that traditional traits of authority or even types of independent sub-polities, in the form of, for example, clans, dynasties, castes, clientelism, or mob/gang structures, survive at individual levels; or that there are different value bases or preferences (Catholicism; xenophobia) that impact decision making at one level or in one unit, which may completely differ from that observable at others levels in the same polity. ...
This book is about the radical novelty of modern polities in a functionally differentiated world society. Premodern states were at the apex of a stratified, hierarchical society. They dominated society and all its groups and strata. Modern polities have to be understood through the ecology of relations among different function systems. They have to find and incessantly redefine their place in society. They produce decisions that are collectively binding, but in preparing these decisions experience constraints and knowledge deficiencies that are related to the complexity of a functionally differentiated society. The book concentrates on six analytical perspectives that reflect how modern polities are embedded into 21st century society. These perspectives are: the concept of inclusion and the inclusion revolution constitutive of modern polities; the internal differentiation of polities that endows them with an unprecedented complexity; the fact that polities do not know anything about society and the ways in which they compensate for this; representation and responsiveness as strategies to reconnect with society; the self-restriction of some polities that brings about ever new autonomous expert organizations; the symmetrical rise of autocracies and democracies as the two modern variants of political regimes.
... For instance, whereas the national political leadership is unchallenged and inaccessible and governmental outputs are determinate in the first place, modern variants of outcome-oriented "adaptive authoritarianism" often rely heavily on local (sometimes experimental) adjustments or even alterations of policies -processes that include different forms of participation by the "affected" parts of the population. This scenario has been described for the case of Russia (see, e.g., forthcoming) and the People's Republic of China (see, e.g., Florini et al., 2012;Schubert and Ahlers, 2012). Finally, it is possible that traditional traits of authority or even types of independent sub-polities, in the form of, for example, clans, dynasties, castes, clientelism, or mob/gang structures, survive at individual levels; or that there are different value bases or preferences (Catholicism; xenophobia) that impact decision making at one level or in one unit, which may completely differ from that observable at others levels in the same polity. ...
This book is about the radical novelty of modern polities in a functionally differentiated world society. Premodern states were at the apex of a stratified, hierarchical society. They dominated society and all its groups and strata. Modern polities have to be understood through the ecology of relations among different function systems. They have to find and incessantly redefine their place in society. They produce decisions that are collectively binding, but in preparing these decisions experience constraints and knowledge deficiencies that are related to the complexity of a functionally differentiated society. The book concentrates on six analytical perspectives that reflect how modern polities are embedded into 21st century society. These perspectives are: the concept of inclusion and the inclusion revolution constitutive of modern polities; the internal differentiation of polities that endows them with an unprecedented complexity; the fact that polities do not know anything about society and the ways in which they compensate for this; representation and responsiveness as strategies to reconnect with society; the self-restriction of some polities that brings about ever new autonomous expert organizations; the symmetrical rise of autocracies and democracies as the two modern variants of political regimes.
... Al Jazeera 2015) and finally the village-level democratic elections in present-day China (see e.g. Schubert and Ahlers 2012), to name just a few? All this points to the dynamics built into the distinction of democracy and authoritarianism which seems to instruct oscillations between these two poles of a political space, oscillations which may be read as an indicator of the force of the democracy/autocracy distinction as the major political distinction of our time. ...
Making sense of the Chinese policy process has been one of the most challenging endeavors for China scholars since the beginning of ‘reform and opening up’. Although a great deal of empirical knowledge has been gathered over the years on policy-making and implementation in many different fields, theorizing on the Chinese policy process has mostly been concerned with individual policy instruments or various modes of policy-making so far instead of looking at how these are interconnected. In this article, we propose ‘political steering theory’ as an integrative theoretical framework to fill in this gap. Originating from policy research conducted by German social scientists starting in the 1970s, we consider ‘political steering theory’ to be the most appropriate approach to the Chinese case, particularly in the current era of ‘top-level design’ led by Xi Jinping. We demonstrate how China recently recalibrated its political steering approach and propose new directions for research into the Chinese policy process under the current administration.
The premise that increasing the number of women in government improves the representation of women's views and needs continues to motivate efforts in developing countries to raise the proportion of women in political office by means of gender-differentiating ideologies and gender-affirmative actions. This article raises the concern that a focus on boosting women's descriptive representation distracts attention from other interventions that potentially might be more effective in improving women's substantive representation. The article theoretically compares factors that have the potential to affect the two dimensions of representation, and empirically investigates which of these are conducive to women's substantive representation in community government. Based on case studies of villages in one rich and one poor province of China, the authors conclude that higher democratic quality, combined with stronger financial resources and institutions, produce greater improvements in women's substantive representation than gender ideologies and affirmative actions. This finding challenges the strategies used by development agencies, and identifies factors with the potential to improve women's representation in government, even in one-party states.
China, like many authoritarian regimes, struggles with the tension between the need to foster economic development by empowering local officials and the regime's imperative to control them politically. Landry explores how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) manages local officials in order to meet these goals and perpetuate an unusually decentralized authoritarian regime. Using unique data collected at the municipal, county, and village level, Landry examines in detail how the promotion mechanisms for local cadres have allowed the CCP to reward officials for the development of their localities without weakening political control. His research shows that the CCP's personnel management system is a key factor in explaining China's enduring authoritarianism and proves convincingly that decentralization and authoritarianism can work hand in hand.
P> Since the twentieth century, with the transformation of Chinese society from traditional to modern, trends in traditional culture, modernization, social change, the clash of Eastern and Western cultures, and especially rural power structures, have been a point of focus for sociologists, anthropologists, and political scientists, among others.
This article seeks to continue the exploration of Chinese rural power structures in the period of transformation by utilizing the traditional anthropological method of village case studies. By taking Guizhou province's Wangjiashan village (Anshun city) as the target of the investigation, I hope to explain the process of change in an ethnic minority village's (Qingmiao) power structures during a period of urbanization. "Urbanization" and "ethnic minorities" are the two specific variables that will be considered in this article's research on Chinese rural power structures. The goal is to observe social transformation as it occurs in the here and now, over a relatively short period of time. By using this technique, I will demonstrate the changes that occur in the power structures of an ethnic minority village that has various self-consciousnesses and ethnic cultures, as well as levels and methods of economic development.</P
In the final two decades of the twentieth century, the economy, politics, and society of the Chinese countryside began several new transformations. Behind the macroscopic view of taking economic construction as the focus, this transformation in rural society has had changes in economic life, social structure, and political culture as its primary features. The substance of these transformations can be seen in the changes in, and the restructuring of, the relationship between the nation and the countryside and the nation and the peasantry. In 2001 and 2002, we researched these topics in twelve provinces and fifteen villages, doing both investigations and comparisons. Rural power structures were taken as the entry point, with respect to traditional culture, town and village enterprises, and rural governance as aspects to be considered and observed. Finally, a description of the process of transformation of rural society will follow, in order to recreate the period of reconstruction and adjustment of power structures.