Instability Flashcards
Central thesis of Lee and Zhang (Bargained Authoritarianism)
Argue for a system of ‘bargained authoritarianism’ (which has been surprisingly ‘resilient’ (Nathan)) in China and analyses its three microfoundations: protest bargaining (non-zero sum bargaining), legal-bureaucratic absorption, and patron-clientelism.
Mechanisms for Lee and Zhang
1) Protest (non-zero sum) bargaining adopts logic of market exchange. Trying to form an alliance by a) throwing money at the problem (huaqianmai pingan), b) fragmentation and co-optation by making them elect representatives to begin process of orderly negotiations, c) using emotion control through empathy and ‘making friends’, d) using threat of force. This brings short-term stability but does nothing to tackle the root cause.
2) Legal-bureaucratic absorption is a rule-bound game where they deploy mediation and arbitration arbitrarily, with officials deploying ‘joint action’ across government institutions and arbitrarily invoking rules across different bureaus. The law is important, as officials get time and order without public disharmony; citizens get institutional protection and leverage. Can also substitute mediation for litigation, which ‘blurs citizens’ rights’ and law is ignored to achieve stability.
3) Patron-clientelism, utilising interpersonal bonds eg. elderly patronage for votes. They can mobilise and influence voters, and form a mass of volunteers, but this is porous.
Lee and Zhang: What is the existing literature explaining the success of general authoritarianism? (four names)
1) Bellin - the state’s coercive capacity;
2) Nathan - elite cohesion;
3) Mann - ‘infrastructural power’, the capacity of the state to penetrate civil society and implement logistically political decisions throughout the country;
4) Slater and Fenner - coercing rivals, extracting revenues, cultivating dependence.
Lee and Zhang: What is the existing literature explaining the success of specifically China’s authoritarianism?
1) Patron-clientelism - Walder argues the party-state organised the populace’s material, political and social dependence, with a stable network of party activists who exchanged political loyalty for material rewards and careers. Such power relations are based on ‘dependence, deference and particularism’.
2) Hidden bargaining - Burawoy and Lukacs uses ‘shop floor games’ to describe the power relation between the party-state and the working class. Such bargaining is fragile and subject to ‘perpetual threat’ (Sabel and Stark).
3) Bureaucratic absorption - using laws to diffuse conflicts, using depoliticisation to steer contestations away from political values and turning them into manageable, non-zero sum quid pro quo, legal-bureaucratic games.
4) Stability maintenance - codifying the responsibility to maintain social stability for local officials in eg. 2008 CCP decision on strengthening the implementation of integrated public security management.
Lee and Zhang: What are the problems with existing ways of dealing with instability in China?
1) market economy reduced popular dependence on authoritarian state,
2) use of force politically undersirable,
3) ideological indoctrination ineffective
Central thesis of Lee and Selden (on inequality, short)
Charts the changes in 1) patterns of inequality and 2) features of popular resistance in contemporary China.
Lee and Selden: What are the features of this new inequality?
1) Durable hierarchies producing inequality in Chinese society are class, citizenship and locality. Class origin chengfen was fixed by birth, creating frozen categories so now-poor landlords are scapegoated as class enemies. Hukou system established rural-urban divide, with the practice of sending individuals from urban to rural areas, xiaxiang.
2) Party bradished class categories to attack and scapegoat the old bourgeoisie and landlords and mass mobilising protests against this, all while deliberately hiding new forms of inequality and corruption.
3) Changing rhetoric surrounding inequality, with class rhetoric being muted and replaced by discussions of legal rights and citizenship
Lee and Selden: What have been the economic changes leading to new protest dynamics? (globalisation and reform)
Global market integration has the paradoxical effect of localizing and fragmenting class conflicts and protests. Provides evidence for the success during the change and reform period eg. by promoting rural collective industry, grain output increased by one third, oil crops more than doubled and cotton nearly tripled in just six years from 1978-84. Inequality increased
Lee and Selden: Why have protests not increased despite increased inequality?
protests became much more cellular with less overall solidarity due to uneven outcomes
Lee and Selden (2009) - What are new forms of income and property-based inequality based on? (economic reasons)
a) dismantling of collectives,
b) privatisation of state enterprises,
c) triumph of market mechanisms (eg. 10 out of 12 mil TVEs in mid-1980s was private),
d) end of lifetime employment in cities, and
e) growth of corruption between government and business
Whyte: Why the Chinese are accepting of inequality and are unlikely to launch social revolt? (compared to Mao)
1) Where the equality of the Mao period (largely within rather than across work units) was frequently unjust, now people see inequality as largely resulting from individual efforts and thus largely just;
2) Where farmers under Mao were virtually bound to the land through the household registration system in a nearly feudal fashion, now they are free to leave the countryside and seek employment elsewhere; and
3) Chinese economic growth has been so massive that it is a nonzero sum game in which there was, at least initially, ‘reform without losers’ so there is no large class of ‘losers of capitalism’, and rural poverty has been reduced by some 90%
Whyte: Why are the rural poor less concerned with inequality?
1) Perhaps because rural workers and farmers in particular are quite optimistic about their conditions improving.
2) China’s peasants more likely than anyone else to say hard work is rewarded and becoming rich or staying poor is one’s own fault.
3) Possible that those most favoured by the socialist system are most bitter about what they’ve lost. The farmers never had anything!
Central thesis of Martin Whyte
Argues against the ‘myth of the social volcano’ and demonstrates that the Chinese are mostly satisfied with the Chinese social system. Citizens do not like inequality (large majority thinks level of inequality is excessive) but are happier than citizens in eg. US and favour a state with safety net rather than socialist redistribution.
Why? 1) inequality an inevitable outcome of meritocracy and a by-product of economic development;
2) optimistic about their own chances for mobility - Chinese society is fair enough to enable ordinary citizens to get ahead and prosper based on hard work, talent, and training. Many support affirmative action to promote equality.
The only inequality large majorities disliked was the hukou system and its effect on migrant workers.
Contrary to popular belief, under socialism there were still stark material differences of different cities and rural residents lived a poor life with rigid social hierarchies. Most rural protest incidents in recent years have involved procedural injustices rather than distributive injustice.
Whyte: Why are urbanites more likely to be dissatisfied?
1) they have more to lose - eg. could lose jobs, benefits etc; 2) have more examples close at hand of new millionaires and their lavish and segregated lifestyles; 3) subjective comparisons to the past and to others in local communities mean they will be more unhappy
Central thesis of Ya-wen Lei
Revisits Whyte’s discussion of China’s social volcano with three findings: 1) critical attitudes toward inequality correlate with a structural understanding of inequality and skepticism of procedural or institutional justice; 2) Chinese people’s attitudes toward inequality changed little between 2004-09 but between 2009 and 2014, there was increasing criticality of both inequality and its seeming disjuncture with China’s socialist principles. 3) Discontent with inequality increases distrust of local government, and those who use socialism to critique inequality are more likely to distrust the central and local governments.
Lei: What are the responses to Whyte?
1) Larsen suggests that China is in the middle rather than at the top of acceptance of inequality compared to similar countries;
2) argues that even though many believe hard work and effort are necessary conditions for economic success, they are not sufficient conditions. Even if they believe in meritocracy, this may overestimate their acceptance of inequality.
Hence 3) early hints that the social volcano might be forming
Central thesis of Youngshan Cai
Analyses why grassroots protests succeed/fail. Argues 1) a protesting group’s ability to create and exploit the divide within the state, 2) mobilize participants, or 3) gain extra support directly affects the outcome of its collective action.
Protest outcomes are a function of two factors: 1) the cost of concessions for the authorities (political and monetary) and 2) the ‘forcefulness’ of protesters’ actions. If a protest has more than 500 participants, involves casualties, or receives media coverage, the authorities are likely to make concessions. One method of resistance is ‘issue connection’ and exposing local governments to central to extract concessions. Decentralisation also protects the central government’s image by distancing themselves from suppression, or pretending not to know if they don’t want to intervene. Concludes there is significant flexibility in dealing with protests, especially with the distance of the central government.
Cai: What are some examples of government concessions with large-scale protests?
1) abolition of the much-hated agricultural tax in the early 2000s and 2) the enactment of a new labor law in 2008
Cai: What are the local government responses to protests?(four short)
1) concessions, 2) concessions with discipline, 3) tolerance, and 4) suppression, different when costs are high (land disputes) vs non zero-sum like mediating labour disputes.
Central thesis of Madsen (2011)
Tries to square the findings of Whyte and Cai, concluding they are surveying different things, as it is not mutually exclusive that most people in China are satisfied with the government despite increased inequality and other social problems, and that lots of grassroots protests are happening because of concretely experienced injustice eg. confiscation of farmland without fair compensation, layoffs, and home demolitions