Shades of Authoritarianism and State–Labour Relations in China
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12436 |
| Author | Jude Howell,Tim Pringle |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12436
57:2 June 2019 0007–1080 pp. 223–246
Shades of Authoritarianism and
State–Labour Relations in China
Jude Howell and Tim Pringle
Abstract
Attempts to analyse authoritarianism in China tend towards a static focus on the
state that is homogeneous across time. We argue for a more nuanced approach
that captures the dynamism and contours of state–civil society relations, and
state–labour relations,in particular, in authoritarian states. Taking state–labour
relations as a bellweather, we conceptualize ‘shades of authoritarianism’ as a
framework for better understanding the complexities and evolution of state–
society relations in authoritarian states. We illustrate this through the case of
China, distinguishing dierent shades of authoritarianism in the Hu-Wen era
(2002–2012) and in the current regime of Xi Jinping
1. Introduction
Unchanging authoritarianism is assumed to be a persistent feature of
governance in reformist China that consistently limits the scope of citizen
action. Cycles of repression and relaxation may come and go but the basic
contours of authoritarianism remain. This assumption lacks the nuance
required to comprehend shifting state–labour relations in China. Dierent
‘shades’ of authoritarianism can shape the possibilities for civil action,
constraining or extending the spaces where organizing is tolerated. These
shades can aect, too, the scope for workers organizing collective action, the
responses of state ocials and the potential forfinding new ways of addressing
workers’ grievances.
Given that the prospect of a well-organized and independent labour
movement is anathema to authoritarian regimes, state–labour relations serve
well as a barometer to gauge shades of authoritarianism. Giventoo that China
remains nominally ‘a socialist stateunder the people’s democratic dictatorship
led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants’,1
state–labour relations acquire an additional symbolic significance to the
credibility (or otherwise) of the Communist Party of China (CPC). How the
Jude Howell is at the London School of Economics and PoliticalScience. Tim Pringle is at the
University of London.
C
2018 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
224 British Journal of Industrial Relations
CPC balances repression with concession has consequences for production,
capital accumulation and ultimately regime survival. Understanding these
shades matters to the analysis of authoritarianism.
Todate, case studies of state–labour relations in authoritarian regimes have
not developed a theory of authoritarianism and state–labour relations that
accounts for dierent shades of authoritarian governance. We address this
gap by developing a framework for analysing shades of authoritarianism and
state–labour relations across authoritarian regimes. We propose four ideal-
type shades, namely, exploitative, protective, open and encapsulating. The
eects of these shades on state–labour relations are analysed in terms of
approaches to resolving industrial conflicts, labour organizing and labour-
related policies and legislation. We argue that these shades are shapedby three
political-economic contextual factors, namely, globalization, development
strategy and leadership approach to governance.
In applying this framework to state–labour relations in China, we compare
two periods of rule, namely, the ‘open’ Hu-Wen era from 2002 to 2012 and
the ‘encapsulating’, Xi Jinping era from 2012 onwards. In the more outward-
looking, pragmatic Hu-Wen era, experimentation with dierent approaches
and willingness to engage with perceived adversaries ‘outside the system’
(tizhi wai) became possible. Hence, localized semi-organized labour action
provoked some local governments to respond in new ways. Alternatively, in
the more closed, disciplinary type of authoritarianism characteristic of the
encapsulating Xi era, harder lines are drawn and innovation is restricted to
sources from ‘inside the system’ (tizhi nei).
Section 2 locates our framework of analysis within a broader
theoretical literature on authoritarianism in general and recent research
on authoritarianism in China in particular. We then present the framework
itself with reference to changing state–labour relations in authoritarian
regimes in Section 3. In Sections 4 and 5, we apply this analytic framework,
respectively, to the Hu-Wen period and the current Xi period. The Xi period
has already earned a reputation forbeing more repressive but Chinese leaders
do not abandon entirely the legacy they inherit. In distinguishing ‘shades
of authoritarianism’, we suggest that there are likely continuities as well
as analytically untidy, fudged areas between shades. Both the continuities
and breaks in state–labour relations and the ‘shades of authoritarianism’
underline the dynamic heterogeneity of authoritarianism.
This article draws on over 20 years of extensive fieldwork by both authors
on state–labour relations in China and discussions at a dedicated workshop
in 2016 on this topic.2Both researchers have undertaken documentary and
interview-based work between 1987 and 2018 on trade unions, grass-roots
trade union elections, labour non-governmental organisations (NGOs),3the
conditions of migrant workers and worker resistance. This has included over
300 semi-structured interviews with trade union ocials at central and local
levels, workers, local government ocials, labour studies academics, activist
labour lawyers, labour NGOs and sta of civil society organizations. These
interviews and documentary work have informed the analysis in this article.
C
2018 John Wiley& SonsLtd.
To continue reading
Request your trial