No abstract

Private entrepreneurs play an invisible but increasingly influential role in Chinese political life. Therefore, more studies on government–business relations are needed for a better understanding of political developments in contemporary China. Based on the theoretical assumption of ‘no bourgeoisie, no democracy’, existing research studies explore whether there is an autonomous and opposing capitalist class in the process of market transition. Most of these studies conclude that the capitalist class in China is quite dependent on and colludes with the state because of their shared political values and interests as well as the political co-optation and corporatism of the party-state. Other studies reflect on these viewpoints and contend that it is improper to consider private entrepreneurs to be a homogeneous social class with common interests and a common identity. The theoretical assumption of ‘no bourgeoisie, no democracy’ is also questioned and modified. Based on these studies, the article argues that existing studies have placed too much emphasis on private entrepreneurs’ role in the democratization process, acting either for or against it, while neglecting the actual individual or collective influences of private entrepreneurs on policymaking and implementation. This situation, however, signifies great political change in contemporary China. Therefore, this paper suggests that it is necessary to reflect on the existing theoretical assumption in order to deepen our understanding of the relationship between private entrepreneurs and the Chinese government. Furthermore, future research studies on private entrepreneurs in China may need to shift their focus from democratization to policy influence and from autonomy to influence.

This paper discusses how citizens become engaged in networks for civic engagement and what affects the initiation, continuity, and impact of an actual action. My case study of the citizens’ engagement in rebuilding Enning Road in Guangzhou found that virtual communities expanded people’s actual connections; Internet mobilization, owing to its broad connectedness, helped stimulate the initiation of public participation but the shared channel of this type of media lacked the power to start an actual action or maintain the momentum. The existing studies suggested that whether the public attention and discussion based on virtual communities could be transformed into sustainable and influential public participation in action depended upon whether the ‘issue’ had its own sustainability and also upon whether the mobilizing ‘agent’ was a rights-protecting group that shared similar interests. The case study reported in this paper, however, found that the off-line ‘liaison and mobilization mechanisms,’ as well as their closely related characteristics, were also significant factors. Connection and mobilization via interpersonal networks pushed virtual discussions into real actions and helped keep the actions going on, while the open space of the city expanded the actual social and policy influences for such actual civic engagement. The distinction of different liaisons from the mobilization mechanisms illustrated in this paper facilitates the explanation of the civic engagement in contemporary China from the ‘diachronic’ and ‘differentiated participation’ angles. The paper concludes that either interpersonal networking organizations being supplementary to the organization of social groups or the public space opened up by the city being supplementary to the closed nature of the structure of the political system itself is still quite limited in the civic engagement in China.

No abstract

No abstract