Civil Society and China’s Governance Dilemmas in the Era of National Rejuvenation

  • David Kerr
Part of the The Nottingham China Policy Institute series book series (NCP)


Chinese society has changed far more radically in the last 30 years than the Chinese system of government. There are many consequences to this lack of correlation between social and political change but one evident outcome is the widening of the governance gap. All political systems must aim to match the capacities and activities of government to the values and expectations of populations, not least because a failure to do so will lead to public alienation and in extreme conditions to public rejection of government. Therefore while all governments may experience a governance gap of some kind one of the main tasks of government is to convince populations that the government is aware of the governance gap, that it is mobilizing to deal with the gap, and that it has a determination not to let the gap widen to the point where it becomes a major issue of competence and legitimacy. Much of the rhetoric and activity of the Hu Jintao—Wen Jiabao administrations in China, 2003–13, showed the Chinese government’s awareness of this politics.1


Civil Society Chinese State Political Society Harmonious Society Global Civil Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and references

  1. 1.
    On the politics of governance in contemporary China see the collected essays in ‘Growing Pains in a Rising China’, Dædalus, 143(2), Spring 2014. Also, Hongyi Lai (2010) ‘Uneven Opening of China’s Society, Economy, and Politics: pro-growth authoritarian governance and protests in China’, Journal of Contemporary China, 19(67), pp. 819–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    On the politics of stability preservation (weiwen) and rights defence (weiquan) see Feng Chongyi (2013) ‘Preserving Stability and Rights Protection: Conflict or Coherence?’, Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 42(2), pp. 21–50.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Giovanni Sartori (1970) ‘Concept Misinformation in Comparative Politics’, American Political Science Review, 64(4), pp. 1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 7.
    This is a broadly Habermasian view of the civil society and the system of law. See Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vols.1&2 (Cambridge: Polity, 1987); Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity, 1992).Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Gordon White, Jude Howell and Shang Xiaoyuan (1996) In Search of Civil Society: market reforms and social change in contemporary China (Oxford: Clarendon), p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 9.
    Muthiah Alagappa (2004) Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: expanding and contracting democratic space (Stanford: Stanford University Press), p. 51.Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    Wang Ming and Sun Weilin (2010) ‘Trends and Characteristics in the Development of China’s Social Organizations’, The China Nonprofit Review, 2(2), pp. 153–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 15.
    Jonathan Unger and Anita Chan (1995) ‘China, Corporatism, and the East Asian Model’, The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, (33), pp. 29–53. Bruce J. Dickson (2000) ‘Cooptation and Corporatism in China: The Logic of Party Adaptation’, Political Science Quarterly, 115(4), pp. 517–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 16.
    Joseph Fan, Randall Morck and Bernard Young (2011) ‘Capitalizing China’, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, DC, NBER Working Paper 17687, p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 17.
    Jude Howell (2012) ‘Civil Society, Corporatism and Capitalism in China’, Journal of Comparative Asian Development, 11(2), pp. 271–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 18.
    Yiyi Lu (2007) ‘The autonomy of Chinese NGOs: a new perspective’, China: An International Journal, 5(2), pp. 173–203.Google Scholar
  12. Andrew Mertha (2009) ‘“Fragmented authoritarianism 2.0”: political pluralization in the Chinese policy process’, The China Quarterly, 200, pp. 995–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tony Saich (2000) ‘Negotiating the state: the development of social organizations in China’, The China Quarterly, 161, pp. 124–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Patricia M. Thornton (2013) ‘The Advance of the Party: Transformation or Takeover of Urban Grassroots Society’, China Quarterly, 213, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 19.
    Susan K. McCarthy (2013) ‘Serving Society, Repurposing the State: Religious Charity and Resistance in China’, The China Journal, 70, p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 20.
    Eli Friedman and Ching Kwan Lee (2010) ‘Remaking the World of Chinese Labour: A 30-Year Retrospective’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 3, p. 529.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    On the differences between interest-based and rights-based labour activism see, Feng Chen and Mengxiao Tang (2013) ‘Labor Conflicts in China: typologies and their implications’, Asian Survey, 53(3), pp. 559–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 29.
    On civil society and democratization in China, see Yu Liu and Dingding Chen (2012) ‘Why China Will Democratize’, The Washington Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. On civil society without democratization, see Jessica C. Teets (2013) ‘Let Many Civil Societies Bloom: The Rise of Consultative Authoritarianism in China’, The China Quarterly, 213, pp. 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. On regime sustainability, see Andrew J. Nathan (2003) ‘Authoritarian Resilience’, Journal of Democracy, 14(1), pp. 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. On the limits of regime sustainability, see Cheng Li (2012) ‘The End of the CCP’s Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China’, China Quarterly, 211, pp. 595–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 31.
    Angang Hu (2007) Economic and Social Challenges in China: challenges and opportunities (Abingdon: Routledge), p. 222.Google Scholar
  23. 32.
    Andrew Wedeman (2012) Double Paradox: rapid growth and rising corruption in China (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press), p. 141.Google Scholar
  24. 37.
    Jie Lu (2013) ‘Democratic Conceptions in East Asian Societies: a contextualized analysis’, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 9(1), pp. 117–45.Google Scholar
  25. 38.
    Jie Lu (2013) ‘A Cognitive Anatomy of Political Trust and Respective Bases: Evidence from a Two-City Survey in China’, Political Psychology, 35(4), p. 483.Google Scholar
  26. 40.
    Joseph Fewsmith (2013) The Logic and Limits of Political Reform in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  27. 41.
    The China Model debate can best be framed as a Chinese form of modernization theory. It shares with previous modernization theories three characteristics: it is a political economy question about the relationship between national and international development; it is a political development question about how modernity will or should change political relations between states and publics; and it is a world politics question about the relationship between pluralism and solidarism in international society—is there one model or many models of modernity? For examples of these three kinds of discussion, see on political economy, Sean Breslin (2011) ‘The “China model” and the global crisis: from Friedrich List to a Chinese mode of governance?’, International Affairs, 87(6), pp. 1323–43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. on political development, Suisheng Zhao (2010) ‘The China Model: can it replace the Western model of modernization?’, Journal of Contemporary China, 19(65), pp. 419–36; and on political solidarism or pluralism, see Daniel C. Lynch (2007) ‘Envisioning China’s Political Future: elite responses to democracy as a global constitutive norm’, International Studies Quarterly, (51), pp. 701–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 42.
    Mary Kaldor (2003) ‘The Idea of Global Civil Society’, International Affairs, 79(3), pp. 583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 43.
    Christopher R. Hughes (2011) ‘The Enduring Function of the Substance/ Essence (Ti/Yong) Dichotomy in Chinese Nationalism’, in William A. Callahan and Elena Barabantseva (eds), China Orders the World: Normative Soft Power and Foreign Policy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press for the Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, DC), pp. 118–42.Google Scholar
  31. 46.
    See the essays in Guoguang Wu (2012) China’s Challenges to Human Security: foreign relations and global implications (London and New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  32. 47.
    Shi Yinhong (2011) ‘China, “Global Challenges” and the Complexities of International Cooperation’, Global Policy, 2(1), p. 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 53.
    Edward S. Steinfeld (2010) Playing Our Game: why China’s rise doesn’t threaten the West (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  34. 54.
    Ann Kent (2008) ‘China’s Changing Attitude to the Norms of International Law and its Global Impact’, in Pauline Kerr, Stuart Harris and Qin Yaqing (eds), China’s New Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
  35. 55.
    Peerenboom argues that there has been broad improvement to regulatory efficiency in the legal system, but notes that legal reforms have reached an impasse that requires resolution of issues that go beyond the bounds of a thin or procedural rule of law to the differences that define competing thick or substantive conceptions of rule of law. Randall Peerenboom (2007) China Modernizes: threat to the West or model for the rest? (Oxford: Oxford University Press) p. 229.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Kerr 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Kerr

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations