|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
132506
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Bilateral flows of international migrants exhibit tremendous variance both across destination countries and over time. To explain this variance, studies of international migration tend to focus on economic determinants such as income differentials or on social conditions such as the presence of coethnics in certain destination countries. The authors argue that migration is driven not solely by economic or social determinants; rather, the political environment across destinations plays a substantively large role in influencing bilateral migration flows. They test the importance of the political environment-citizenship rights and the prominence of right-wing parties-using data on migration flows from 178 origin countries into 18 destination countries over the period 1980-2006. They find, even after controlling for a variety of economic, social, policy, and international variables, that variation in political environments across time and destination plays a key role in observed patterns of international migration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137369
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the evolution of the Yunnan model of civil society management, and through a pretest–posttest research design, finds that new regulations in 2010 create a larger role for the local state in developing civil society. These changes bring the Yunnan model closer to the more supervised model of social management pioneered by Beijing and away from the more autonomous model exemplified by Guangdong. This has important implications for the future regulation and development of civil society as the central government debates adopting one of these models as a national system of social management. While both the Guangdong and Beijing models encourage relaxing registration requirements, the social management model in Yunnan develops new channels for state guidance of civil society such as government training, funding, and project collaboration or supervision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
119192
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, I analyse civil society development in China using examples from Beijing to demonstrate the causal role of local officials' ideas about these groups during the last 20 years. I argue that the decentralization of public welfare and the linkage of promotion to the delivery of these goods supported the idea of local government-civil society collaboration. This idea was undermined by international examples of civil society opposing authoritarianism and the strength of the state-led development model after the 2008 economic crisis. I find growing convergence on a new model of state-society relationship that I call "consultative authoritarianism," which encourages the simultaneous expansion of a fairly autonomous civil society and the development of more indirect tools of state control. This model challenges the conventional wisdom that an operationally autonomous civil society cannot exist inside authoritarian regimes and that the presence of civil society is an indicator of democratization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
147542
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Decentralised policymaking in China is often cited as a key success factor in economic reform and authoritarian resilience. Although the existing literature presents policy diffusion as a technocratic process where socially optimal policies diffuse, many examples exist where the reverse is true or where the central government sanctioned local innovation but the policy diffuses to other places regardless. The author contends that policy diffusion in authoritarian regimes should be understood as a political process, where local officials serve as policy entrepreneurs, rather than a technocratic one. Subnational officials do not respond uniformly to either incentives from the central government or local pressure, but rather adopt experimental policies as a strategy learned from other successful officials. Policy experimentation has emerged as a strategy for officials desiring either career advancement or security, resulting in an S-shaped curve of policy diffusion characteristic of a learning process whereby a few initially innovate but others quickly adopt the experiment once viewed as successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
142793
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, I address the puzzle of what motivates local officials in China to do something new—create a new policy, launch a pilot, adopt an experimental policy—especially when such innovation has uncertain outcomes. Despite the uncertainty and risk, we observe a great deal of policy innovation, both the creation and adoption of experiments, at the subnational level in China. In this article, I explore local policymakers' incentives regarding innovation to understand why they experiment with new policies under conditions of political risk and uncertainty. I utilize data from existing studies on policy innovation, including the Local Gov-ernance Innovation Awards (中國地方政府創新獎), to conduct this analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
089769
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Many analysts contend that participation in the Sichuan earthquake relief efforts strengthened Chinese civil society. I examine these claims based on interviews with civil society organizations, academics and local officials in Sichuan, and argue that participation in relief efforts has strengthened civil society through increased capacity, publicity and interaction with local government. Conversely, relief efforts also reveal weaknesses in civil society and their governing institutions which inhibit further development, such as the trust and capacity deficit of these organizations. Participation in relief efforts served as a learning process whereby government, society and civil society groups learned how to work together effectively. However, in order to consolidate these gains and further strengthen civil society, there must be greater institutionalization of these groups' roles, increased capacity building, and greater trust between society, groups and the local state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|