This article assumes that whether the current Chinese authoritarian government can maintain socio-political stability during the potentially turbulent transition to the post-Deng Xiaoping era depends, at least in part, upon the level of popular support for the political regime (or regime legitimacy). Based on data derived from a sample survey of Beijing residents, this study seeks to address two fundamental questions: “To what extent does the current Chinese communist regime enjoy public support?” and “What are the possible sources of popular support for the political regime in contemporary China?” The findings in this study suggest that (1) the current communist regime still enjoys a moderately high level of popular support, and (2) popular support for the regime is most likely to be found among those who are optimistic about the country's economic and political futures, who are most satisfied with their life, who give high evaluations of incumbent policies, who often follow public affairs, and who are older. Based on these findings, the article concludes that the current communist regime seems to have a good chance of remaining legitimate among a majority of the Chinese people, while it is still facing serious challenges from its policy performance in some major public policy areas.

No abstract

No abstract

UMEROUS scholars have commented on the growing import of N racial and ethnic divisions in contemporary urban politics (Har-JL ~) rigan 1981; Judd 1979). Historically, the primary instruments for assimilating the nation's ethnic and racial minorities have been the cities. With their large and growing underclasses, however, the cities appear to have been more successful in fulfilling this function for earlier immigrants than more recent arrivals (Glazer and Moynihan 1970). Today, urban politics is fraught with some of the most perplexing and intractable issues that confront a liberal democracy; namely, racial segregation, social exclusion, and political fragmentation.These issues now appear to challenge a key objective of the pluralist dream; i.e., the development of an integrated society cemented by the bonds of economic self-interest and material progress. For instead of emphasizing the economic and social problems that residents share in common, much urban politics revolves around the racial, ethnic, and cultural divisions that separate them (Elazar 1970). Thus, while national politics has generally been dominated by distributive economic issues, urban politics has been more preoccupied with the distribution of spatial turf, social access, and cultural life styles (Williams 1967). And to the extent issues are important in urban elections, they are generally the visceral &dquo;valence&dquo; issues of tribal membership rather than the rational &dquo;position&dquo; issues of the social welfare state (Orren 1979).In order to mute the social tensions and political conflicts that abound at the urban level, and to promote a unitary concept of the city, structural reformers have traditionally relied on a variety of electoral reforms. The primary vehicles of reform have been the introduction of at-large districts, nonpartisan ballots, off-year elections, and multimember races. Though these institutions have doubtlessly worked to reduce the influence of partisan differences, they have also served to reinforce the inherent racial, ethnic, and cultural fragmentation of urban politics. For in an electoral setting of low political information, a lack of media attention, and the absence or reduction of voting cues provided by partisan politics, what else is left to invoke political trust other than racial and ethnic identities and social group memberships?This political context implies a far different voting calculus than those which are normally assumed by partisan voting models at the national and state levels (Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes 1960;Kovenock, Prothro, and Beardsley 1973;Miller, Miller, Raine, and Brown 1976; NOTE: We wish to express appreciation to Acting Editor Alan Wyner and three anonymous referees for their suggestions for improving the manuscript. We, of course, are responsible for the final version of the article.