Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:1407Hits:19733553Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
LIEBMAN, BENJAMIN L (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   130423


Legal reform: China's law-stability paradox / Liebman, Benjamin L   Journal Article
Liebman, Benjamin L Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2014.
Summary/Abstract In the 1980s and 1990s, China devoted extensive resources to constructing a legal system, in part in the belief that legal institutions would enhance both stability and regime legitimacy. Why, then, did China's leadership retreat from using law when faced with perceived increases in protests, citizen complaints, and social discontent in the 2000s? This law-stability paradox suggests that party-state leaders do not trust legal institutions to play primary roles in addressing many of the most complex issues resulting from China's rapid social transformation. This signifies a retreat not only from legal reform, but also from the rule-based model of authoritarian governance that has contributed much to the resilience of the Chinese system. The law-stability paradox also highlights the difficulties facing efforts by China's new leadership to reinvigorate legal reform.
        Export Export
2
ID:   114573


Media and the courts: towards competitive supervision? / Liebman, Benjamin L   Journal Article
Liebman, Benjamin L Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2012.
Summary/Abstract Scholarship on Chinese governance has examined a range of factors that help to explain the resilience of authoritarianism. One understudied aspect of regime resilience and institutionalization has been the growing importance of supervision by a range of party-state entities. Examining court-media relations in China demonstrates that "competitive supervision" is an increasingly important tool for increasing state responsiveness and improving accountability. Court-media relations suggest that China is seeking to develop novel forms of horizontal accountability. Placing such relations in a broader institutional context also helps to explain why common paradigms used to analyse them may be inapplicable in China.
Key Words Authoritarianism  Media  China  Supervision  Courts  Horizontal Accountability 
        Export Export