Abstract
This chapter aims to establish a theoretical framework for analyzing state-society interaction or, more specifically, state’s control over society in the Confucian revival. The Confucian revival is an important aspect of contemporary Chinese social life, and the engagement between state and society in the revival is also a key aspect of Chinese state-society relations in general. The first part of the chapter provides an analytical framework about state and society relations, focusing on how a state, with limited resources, can retain its control over a rapidly growing society. After explaining the predominance of power and resources in the struggles between state and society, the chapter then explains that a state can manage an increasingly strong society by adroitly using coercion and co-optation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The state thus defined can be traced back to Weber’s (1958) concept of government bureaucracy which is “a compulsory association which organizes domination”, and “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”. Such a view of the state is also based on empirical conceptions developed by Marx, Weber, and Hintze (Sellers 2010). It also has deep roots in the absolutist state that existed in the European continent during the Industrial Revolution.
- 3.
For example, Sellers (2010) challenges the notion of a unitary state by showing that the actual modern state encompasses strong horizontal and vertical diversity. Horizontally, it comprises of dozens of institutionally distinct policy sectors with highly diverse organizational architectures, from macroeconomic management to environmental regulations. Vertically, there is at least some amount of autonomy among different levels of the state organization.
- 4.
It needs to be clarified that this book does not deliberately intend to treat the state and society in an undifferentiated manner. It is true that the image of the state (and also society) as a holistic entity pulling in single directions is sometimes misleading. Furthermore, the assumption is that the state and society as unitary actors acting strategically to maximize their interests is also oversimplified (Migdal 2001; Sellers 2010). However, a general pattern of state-society relations is still summarizable for this thesis. This is because even though different segments of states and societies do have distinctive patterns of interactions, this study only focuses on the key building blocks of states and societies, and their major interaction modes. Although my model will lose some delicacy and nuances in capturing the complexities in the state-society interactions, it still suffices to serve as a broad and general framework for a specific case, the Chinese state-society interactions in the Confucian revival.
- 5.
As a core concept in social sciences, power has a long list of definitions given by numerous scholars from different perspectives (for some representative views, see Weber 1968; Thomson 1990; Nye 1990, 2004). For example, Weber (1968, p. 53) defined power as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance”. In this book, it has a narrow focus on political activities and has different denotations for society and state. Specifically, for society, power means people’s capacity to express and organize associations in order to affect the state’s actions. For the state, it means the state’s capability to penetrate society and regulate social relationships such as controlling the society’s members’ freedom of speech and association.
- 6.
Resources refer to the economic, military, political, and ideological sources for social power (Mann 2012, p. 2). It does not only cover material resources such as money, manpower, service, and other assets but also spiritual ones such as accepted beliefs and symbols. According to Migdal (1988), systems of meaning and symbolic configuration, whether it is ideology or simple beliefs, are important resources for social power, especially when they are packed by powerful social forces together with material rewards and punishments. Power and resources are closely interconnected, as Giddens (1979, p. 91) has pointed out, “resources are the media through which power is exercised”.
- 7.
This is especially so in the “participant civil culture”, one of the five types of civil culture listed by Almond and Verba (1989).
- 8.
Such belief, in fact, is not new. It can be traced back all the way to Plato. It has regained its vigor in the early twentieth century particularly in continental Europe, where a few German and Italian political theorists developed the elitism argument while criticizing the idea that an extension of voting rights would mean a real, popular democratic decision-making (Pierson 2011).
- 9.
Michels, in his 1911 book Political Parties, claims that any mass of citizens are psychologically not able to make complicated decisions, and thus they need powerful leaders to organize and lead them.
- 10.
Statist literature remains a powerful part of some other social and political theories such as Structuralism, Neo-Realism, etc.
- 11.
According to an arena is not necessarily spatially limited but a conceptual locus where significant struggles and accommodations occur among social forces.
- 12.
To be sure, coercion can also mean stripping the coerced of other valuables such as social status or personal assets. However, constraint on freedom is fundamental because it limits social forces’ exercise of power and resources and therefore averts possible threats to the state’s rule (for details concerning the close relations between coercion and freedom, see Carr 1988; Anderson 2010; Pennock 2015).
- 13.
But to be sure, there are also other factors affecting the state’s use of different levels of coercion, for instance, how much resources the coerced element possesses, and how influential it is over other societal members. But the fundamental criterion is its perceived threat to state power.
- 14.
According to Selznick (1949), there are two basic forms of co-optation. One is formal and the other informal. This part mainly talks about informal co-optation.
- 15.
- 16.
Fukuyama (2011) contends that the building of this centralized state by Qin should be attributed to the earlier warfare among different dukes, which had lasted for more than 500 years, because the warfare had greatly enhanced the state’s capacity through facilitating the state’s appropriation of economic resources and control of human power.
- 17.
The imperial state was represented at different times by not only the emperor and his families, but also his court, eunuchs, and also high-ranking officials.
- 18.
For details, see (Tu 1989).
- 19.
The Four Books refer to The Analects of Confucius (Lun Yu), The Mencius (Meng Zi), The Great Learning (Da Xue) and The Doctrine of the Golden Mean (Zhong Yong); The Five Classics refer to The Book of Songs (Shi Jing), The Classic of History (Shu Jing), The Classic of Rites (Li Ji), The Book of Changes (I Ching), and The Spring and Autumn Annals (Chun Qiu), all of which are said to be compiled or revised by Confucius.
- 20.
There are different estimations of the ratio for passing the examination. Generally, there was less than 1.5% for even the lowest level of examination. Ichisada (1981) gives full accounts of the difficulties of preparing, participating, and passing the examination.
- 21.
The examination has three levels, the county, provincial, and palace, with the county as the lowest and the palace as the highest. Those succeeding in the palace examination would be appointed a government official position and those passing the provincial examination, theoretically speaking, were eligible to become government officials, though no secure position could be guaranteed. Those who only received a degree at the lowest (county) examination level would not be awarded any official position. But they could become a member of the local gentry, who could help local officials in managing affairs and therefore be rewarded with social status and economic benefits such as tax exemption. Elman (2000) has a very detailed discussion of the appointment prospects for the holders of the different levels of degree.
- 22.
“Scholar bureaucrats” here refer to those imperial officials who hold political power in the dynastic bureaucracy, including magistrates of counties or prefectures, and higher-ranking officials in imperial court. Gentry here mean local landlords who hold local social and economic power over local affairs, assisting bureaucrats for some administrative affairs. But they did not have official positions.
- 23.
They remained loyal to the emperor, because the emperor was the only buyer of their talents (Elman 2000). Thus, they had a strong stake in the monarch’s existence and prosperity. However, it needs to be pointed out that the scholar-gentry were not just an instrument of imperial rule. They had their own power, and sometimes evaded or even challenged the emperor’s orders (Elman 1990; Glahn 1996).
- 24.
This practice had an important side effect. It sustained strong social interest in and dedication for Confucian education, given the fact that Confucian learning could possibly lift one’s social status and so therefore achieve upward social mobility.
- 25.
But it needs to be made clear that those from low origins or poverty had very limited chances, given that the examination required long and money-consuming preparation (Ichisada 1981). Wittfogel (1963) provides detailed figures concerning the different percentages of bureaucrats from families of officials, the ruling house, and commoners respectively during China’s Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. The general trend was that most of the recruited bureaucrats came from families of officials and the ruling house. Only 15–23% were commoners. But, the selection based on the civil service examination did reduce the number of bureaucrats from aristocratic families.
- 26.
The reason to omit state-society relations in modern China (1911–1949) is because this portion of history did not deeply affect the formation of contemporary Chinese state and society relations. As will be explained later, the Communist Party who later took power had implemented a series of social and economic transformations which had almost totally changed the pattern of state and society relations formed in this period.
- 27.
The CCP’s total control was, in many ways, in line with the “totalitarian” model formulated by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski (1956), which highlights elite efforts to mobilize and control non-elites.
- 28.
Walder’s model, however, was also challenged by a few scholars. For example, Shue (1988) argues that the state’s control over rural work unit was not that strict. She believes that rural work units suffered from “less direct and unmediated central penetration”, as their strong parochialism had posed a serious obstacle to the state’s control (Shue 1988, p. 54).
- 29.
- 30.
Deborah S. Davis and Ezra Vogel’s edited book, Chinese Society on the Eve of Tiananmen, has systematically captured the changes that the economic reforms had made upon the relationship between the Chinese state and society.
- 31.
For details of contemporary social stratification, please refer to Lu (2010).
- 32.
- 33.
Perry and Selden (2003) have thoroughly examined the conflicts and “dominant modes of popular resistance” engendered by the economic reforms.
- 34.
By using the concept of “economic reliance”, I do not mean that the staff and employees are unsatisfied with the state. In fact, most of them are content with the “economic dependence” as the material benefits in these government bureaus and SOEs are often better than what can be obtained from the market. Hence, they are, more often than not, the staunchest supporters for the current regime. For details, see Wright (2010).
- 35.
Zheng (2010) has a detailed discussion of the Party’s domination of all state apparatus.
- 36.
- 37.
The importance of legitimacy has been discussed in detail in Chap. 1.
References
Almond, G & Verba, S 1989, The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Anderson, SA 2010, ‘The enforcement approach to coercion’, Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 1.
Arendt, H 1951, The origins of totalitarianism, Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York.
Arato, A 1981, ‘Civil society against the state: Poland 1980–81’, Telos, vol. 1981, no. 47, pp. 23–47.
Billioud, S 2011a, Thinking through Confucian modernity: a study of Mou Zongsan’s moral metaphysics (Vol. 5), Brill.
Billioud, S 2011b, ‘Confucian revival and the emergence of “Jiaohua Organizations”: a case study of the Yidan Xuetang’, Modern China, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 286–314.
Börzel, TA 2002, States and regions in the European Union: institutional adaptation in Germany and Spain, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brown, K 2012. ‘The communist party of China and ideology,’ China: An International Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 52–68.
Brook, T & Frolic, BM 1997, Civil society in China, ME Sharpe, New York.
Buckley, C 2012, ‘China domestic security spending rises to $111 billion’, viewed on February 2nd, 2013, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/05/us-china-parliament-security-idUSTRE82403J20120305
Burns, J 1978, ‘Elections of production team cadres in rural china, 1958–1974,’ The China Quarterly, vol. 74, pp. 273–296.
Cai, YS 2008, ‘Power structure and regime resilience: contentious politics in China’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 38, no. 3.
Carr, CL 1988, ‘Coercion and Freedom,’ American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 25, pp. 59–67.
Chan, A Madsen, R & Unger, J 1992, Chen village under Mao and Deng, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Chan, A & Unger, J 2008, Associations and the Chinese state: contested spaces, M.E. Sharpe.
Chen, J & Dickson, BJ 2010, Allies of the state: China’s private entrepreneurs and democratic change, Harvard University Press.
Cheng, L (Ed.). 2009, China’s changing political landscape: prospects for democracy, Brookings Institution Press.
Dahl, R 1961, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Dahl, R 1963, Modern Political Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dahl, RA 1977, ‘On removing certain impediments to democracy in the United States’. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 1–20.
Dickson, B 2003, Red Capitalists in China: the party, private entrepreneurs and prospects for political change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dickson, B 2008, Wealth into power: the Communist Party’s embrace of China’s private sector, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dickson, B 2011, ‘Sustaining party rule in China’, In Brown, NJ (ed.), The dynamics of democratization: dictatorship, development, and diffusion, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Dickson, BJ 2000, ‘Cooptation and corporatism in China: the logic of party adaptation’, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 517–540.
Dittmer, L 1987, “Public and Private Interests and the Participatory Ethic in China,” in Citizens and Groups in Contemporary China, edited by Falkenheim V. C., pp. 18–23, Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan.
Dryzek, J & Dunleavy, P 2009, Theories of the democratic state, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Dunleavy, P & O’leary, B 1987, Theories of the state: the politics of liberal democracy, Macmillan.
Eberhard, W 1970, Conquerors and rulers: social forces in Medieval China, Brill Archive.
Elman, B 2000, A cultural history of civil examinations in late imperial China, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Elman, BA 1990, Classicism, politics, and kinship: the Ch’ang-chou school of new text Confucianism in late imperial China, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Evans, P 1995, Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Evans, PB, Rueschemeyer, D, & Skocpol, T (eds.) 1985, Bringing the state back in, Cambridge University Press.
Fairbank, JK & Feuerwerker, A 1986, The Cambridge history of China, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Foster, Kenneth W 2001, ‘Associations in the embrace of an authoritarian state: state domination of society,’ Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 84–109.
Foster, KW 2002, ‘Embedded within state agencies: Business associations in Yantai’, The China Journal, vol. 47, pp. 41–65.
Friedrich, C & Brzezinski, Z 1956, Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy, Harvard University Press.
Fukuyama, F 2011, The Origins of political order: from prehuman times to the French revolution, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
Giddens, A 1979, Central problems in social theory, Macmillan, London.
Giddens, A 1981, A contemporary critique of historical materialism, Macmillan, London.
Giddens, A 1984, The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Giddens, A 1987, The nation-state and violence: volume 2 of a contemporary critique of historical materialism (Vol. 2), University of California Press.
Glahn, RV 1996, Fountain of fortune: money and monetary policy in China, 1000–1700, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gold, TB 1990, “Party-State versus Society in China.” In Building a Nation-State: China at Forty, edited by Kallgren JK., pp. 125–151. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
Gramsci, A 1971, The prison notebooks, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Greenfeld, L & Martin, ML 1988, Center: ideas and institutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Guo, S 2012, Chinese politics and government: power, ideology and organization, Routledge, London and New York.
Hagopian, F 1994, ‘Traditional Politics against State Transformation in Brazil’, In Migdal, J, Kohli, A & Shue, V (eds.), State power and social forces: domination and transformation in the Third World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hall, JA & Ikenberry, GJ 1989, The state, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Hall, PA 1986, Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France, Oxford University Press, New York.
Hall, PA & Taylor, RCR 1996, ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies, vol. XLIV, pp. 936–957.
Ho, PT 1962, The ladder of success in imperial China: aspects of social mobility, 1368–1911, Wiley & Sons, New York.
Huang, P 1985, The peasant economy and social change in North China, Stanford University Press.
Ichisada, M 1981, China’s examination hell: the civil service examinations of imperial China, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Jennings, MK 1997, “Political participation in the Chinese countryside”, The American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 2.
Jensen, L 2008, ‘politics, history and the state of the States’, Polity, vol. 40, no. 3.
Jessop, B 1977, “Recent theories of the capitalist state”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, no. l, pp. 353–73.
Jessop, B 1982, The capitalist state: Marxist theories and methods, Blackwell, Oxford.
Jessop, B 1990, State theory: putting the capitalist state in its place, Polity, Cambridge.
Jessop, B 2008, State power: a strategic-relational approach, Polity, Cambridge.
Joel S Migdal 1989, ‘Strong states, weak states: power and accommodation’, in Myron Weiner and Samuel P Huntington, (eds.), Understanding political development, Little Brown, Boston, pp. 396–397.
Joseph, WA 2010, Politics in China: an introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York.
Kennedy, D 1982, “The States of Decline of the Public-Private Distinction”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, no. 130, pp. 1349–1357.
Kennedy, S 2005, The business of lobbying in China, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
King, D & Lieberman, RC 2008, ‘Finding the American state: transcending the “statelessness” account’. Polity, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 368–378.
Kohli, A 2004, State-directed development: political power and industrialization in the global periphery, Cambridge University Press.
Kornhauser, W 1959, The politics of mass society, Free Press, Glencoe.
Kraus, RC 2004, The party and the arty in China: the new politics of culture, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kriesi, H et al, 1992, ‘New social movements and political opportunities in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 22, pp. 219–244.
Lee, CK 2007, Against the law: labor protests in China’s rustbelt and sunbelt, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Lenin, VI 1960, ‘The state and revolution’, in Collected Works 25, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Li, C 2010a, China’s emerging middle class: beyond economic transformation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Li, S 2010b, ‘Gaoshang daode: haizimen chengzhang de jinshen liliang’ (The fine morality: the spiritual power for the children’s growth), Renmin Jiaoyu (People’s Education), vol. 615, p. 33–37.
Lieberthal, K 1995, Governing China: from revolution through reform, W. W. Norton, New York.
Lim, L 2012, “In China, a ceaseless quest to silence dissent”, viewed on November 30th, 2012, available at http://www.npr.org/2012/10/30/163658996/in-china-a-ceaseless-quest-to-silence-dissent
Linz, JJ & Stepan, A, 1996, Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe, John Hopkins University Press.
Lu, XB & Perry, EJ (ed.) 1997, Danwei: The changing Chinese workplace in historical and comparative perspective. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk and London.
Lu, X 2002, Research report of the social strata in contemporary China, Social Science Academic Press, China.
Lu, X 2010, Dangdai zhongguo shehui jiegou (Contemporary Chinese social structure), Social Science Academic Press, China.
Lynch, DC 1999, After the propaganda state: media, politics, and “thought work” in reformed China, Stanford University Press.
MacPherson, CB, 1973, Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mann, M 1986, The sources of social power (Volume 1), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mann, M 2012, The sources of social power: global empires and revolution, 1890–1945, (Volume 3), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
March, JG & Olsen, J 1989, Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics, Free Press, New York.
Marx, K 1973, ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, reprinted in The revolutions of 1848, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Mayntz, R & Scharpf, FW 1995, ‘Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten institutionalismus’, In Mayntz, R & Scharpf, FW (eds.), Steuerung und selbstorganisation in staatsnahen sektoren, Campus, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 39–72.
McConnell, G 1966, Private power & American democracy, Knopf.
Michels, R 1962, Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchic tendencies of modern democracy, Free Press, New York.
Migdal, J 2001, State in society: studying how states and societies transform and constitute one another, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Migdal, JS 1988, Strong societies and weak states: state-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Migdal, JS, Kohli, A, & Shue, V 1995, State power and social forces. Domination and transformation in the Third World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Moody, P 1995, Tradition and modernization in China and Japan, Wadsworth Pub. Co., Belmont.
Mosca, G 1939, The ruling class, Mcgraw Hill, New York.
National Bureau of Statistics of China 2012, China statistical yearbook, Chapter 23, “Culture and Sports”, http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2011/indexch.htm, accessed on June 1st, 2013.
Nettl, JP 1968, ‘The state as a conceptual variable’, World Politics, vol. 20, pp. 559–592.
Nordlinger, FA 1981, On the autonomy of the democratic state, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nye, JS 1990, ‘Soft power’, Foreign Policy, no. 80, pp. 153–171.
Nye, JS 2004, Soft power: the means to success in world politics. Public affairs.
O’Brien, KJ & Li, LJ 2006, Rightful resistance in rural China, Cambridge University Press.
O’Brien, KJ 2008, Popular protest in China, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Oi, J 1985, ‘Communism and clientelism: rural politics in China’, World Politics, vol. 37, pp. 238–266.
Oi, J 1989, State and peasant in contemporary China: the political economy of village government, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Oi, JC 1992, ‘Fiscal reform and the economic foundations of local state corporatism in China’, World Politics, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 99–126.
Oi, JC 1995, ‘Fiscal reform and the economic foundations of local state corporatism in China’, World politics, 45(1), 99–126.
Oksenberg, M 1968, ‘Occupational groups in Chinese society and the Cultural Revolution,’ in Oksenberg, M, Riskin, C, Scalapino, R &Vogel, E (eds), The Cultural Revolution: 1967 in review, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Pei, MX 2006, China’s trapped transition: the limits of developmental autocracy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pei, M 2012, ‘Is CCP rule fragile or resilient?’ Journal of Democracy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 27–41.
Pelczynski, ZA 1988, ‘Solidarity and the rebirth of civil society’, in Civil society and the state, pp. 361–380.
Pennock, JR 2015, Democratic political theory, Princeton University Press.
Perry, EJ & Selden, M (eds.) 2003, Chinese society: change, conflict and resistance, Routledge.
Pierson, C 2011, The modern state, Routledge, New York.
Poggi, G 1978, The development of the modern state: a sociological introduction. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Poulantzas, N 1978, State, power, Socialism, Verso, London.
Qian, M 2001, ZhongGuo Lidai Zhengzhi Deshi (Chinese political success and failure in past dynasties), Sanlian Chubanshe (Triad press).
Reischauer, EO & Fairbank, JK 1962, East Asia: the great tradition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Schmitter, P 1974, ‘Still the century of corporatism?’ Review of Politics, vol. 36, no. 1.
Schumpeter, J 1976, Capitalism, Socialism, and democracy, Allen & Unwin, London.
Schurmann, F, 1966, Ideology and Organization in Communist China, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Sellers, JM 2010, ‘State-Society relations’, In Bevir, M (ed.), Sage handbook of governance, Sage Publications, London.
Selznick, P 1949, TVA and the grass roots: a study in the sociology of formal organization. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Shambaugh, D 2000, The Modern Chinese State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shue, V 1988, The Reach of the State: Sketches of the Chinese Body Politics, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Skilling, HG 1983, ‘Interest groups and Communist politics revisited’, World Politics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–27.
Skilling, HG & Griffiths, F (eds.) 1970, Interest groups in Soviet politics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Skocpol, T 1979, States and social revolutions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Skocpol, T 1992, ‘State formation and social policy in the United States’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 35, no. 4–5, pp. 559–584.
Solinger, D 2004, ‘The new crowd of the dispossessed: the shift of the urban proletariat from master to mendicant’, in Gries, PH & Rosen, S (eds.), State and society in 21st century China: crisis, contention, and legitimation, RoutledgeCurzon, New York.
Strand, D 1990. ‘Protest in Beijing: Civil Society and Public Sphere in China,’ Problems of Communism, vol. 39 (May–June), pp. 1–19.
Sun, Y 2013, ‘Popular religion in Zhejiang: feminization, bifurcation, and Buddhification’, Modern China, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 455–487.
Sun, Y 2017. ‘The Rise of Protestantism in Post-Mao China: State and Religion in Historical Perspective,’ American Journal of Sociology, vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 1664–1725.
The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China 2012, “The Chinese state’s total revenue amounted to 10.37 trillion RMB in 2011, with a 24.8% increase over the year of 2010”, it can be accessed via http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-01/20/content_2050059.htm
Thomson, JJ 1990, The realm of rights, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tong, JW 2007, Revenge of the Forbidden City: The suppression of the falungong in China, 1999–2005, Oxford University Press.
Truman, DB 1951, The governmental process: political interests and public opinion, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Truman, DB (1967) 1951, The governmental process: political interests and public opinion.
Tu, WM 1989, Confucianism in historical perspective, Institute of East Asian Philosophies, Singapore.
Tullock, G 1976, The vote motive, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Unger, J & Chan, A 1995, ‘China, corporatism, and the East Asian model’, Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, vol. 33 (January 1995), pp. 29–53.
Unger, J & Chan, A 1996, ‘Corporatism in China; a developmental state in an East Asian context’, In McCormick, B & Unger, J (eds.), China after socialism, In the footsteps of Eastern Europe or East Asia? M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 95–129.
Unger, J 2008, Associations and the Chinese state: Contested spaces, ME Sharpe.
Walker, KR 1984, ‘Chinese agriculture during the period of the readjustment, 1978–83’, The China Quarterly, vol. 100, pp. 783–812.
Walder, A 1985, communist neo-traditionalism: work and authority in Chinese industry, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Warner, M 2000, Changing workplace relations in the Chinese economy, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke and London.
Wasserstrom, J & Perry, E 1994, Popular protest and political culture in China: lessons from 1989, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Weber, M 1958, From Max Weber: essays in sociology, translated by Gerth HH & Mills CW, Routledge.
Weber, M 1963, ‘Struggle of monarch & nobility: origin of the career open to talent’, In Menzel, JM (ed.), The Chinese civil service: career open to talent? D.C. Heath, Boston.
Weber, M 1968, Economy and society: an interpretative sociology, Bedminster, New York.
Weiss, L & Hobson, J 1995, States and economic development: a comparative historical analysis, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Weston, TB 2004, ‘Society’s ‘masters’ struggle to survive: state workers, joblessness and contention in Post-Deng China’, In Gries, PH & Rosen, S (eds.), State and society in 21st century China: crisis, contention, and legitimation, RoutledgeCurzon, New York.
White, G 1993. Riding the Tiger: The Politics of Economic Reform in Post-Mao China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Whiting, S 1991, ‘The Politics of NGO Development in China,’ Voluntas, vol. 2, no. 2 (November), pp. 16–48.
Whyte, MK 1992. ‘Prospects for Democratization in China,’ Problems of Communism (May–June), pp. 58–70.
Williams, J 2010. ‘‘Attacking Queshan’: Popular Culture and the Creation of a Revolutionary Folklore in Southern Henan,’ Modern China, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 644–675.
Wittfogel, K 1963 “The hereditary privilege vs. merit”, In Menzel, JM (ed.), The Chinese Civil Service: Career Open to Talent? D.C. Heath, Boston.
Wittfogel, KA 1957, Oriental despotism, a comparative study of total power, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Worden, RL, Savada, AM & Dolan, RE 1987, China: a country study, US Government Printing Office, Washington.
Wright, T 2010, Accepting authoritarianism: state-society relations in China’s reform era, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Xu, Y 2003, Rural governance and Chinese politics, China Social Sciences Publishing House Beijing.
Xiao, GQ 2002, ‘Zhongguo xiandaihua zhuanxing zhong de defang bihuwang zhengzhi (The local asylum politics in China’s modernization)’, Jingji guanli wenzhai (Economic Management Digest), no. 21, pp. 36–41.
Yang, MM 1989. ‘Between State and Society: The Construction of Corporateness in a Chinese Socialist Factory,’ Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, vol. 22 (July), pp. 31–60.
Yep, R 2000. ‘The Limitations of Corporatism for Understanding Reforming China: an empirical analysis in a rural county,’ Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 9, no. 25, pp. 547–566.
Zhao, S 2001, ‘Deadlock: Beijing’s national reunification strategy after Lee Tenghui’, Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 42–53.
Zheng, YN 2010, The Chinese Communist Party as organizational emperor: culture, reproduction, and transformation, Routledge, London.
Zhou, L 2014. ‘Administrative Subcontract (xingzheng fabaozhi),’ Society (shehui), vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1–38.
Zhou, X 2000. ‘Reply: Beyond the debate and toward substantive institutional analysis,’ American Journal of Sociology, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 1190–1195.
Zhou, X 2010. ‘The institutional logic of collusion among local governments in China,’ Modern China, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 47–78.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pang, Q. (2019). China’s Mutually Empowering State and Society Relations. In: State-Society Relations and Confucian Revivalism in Contemporary China. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8312-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8312-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8311-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8312-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)