Towards a Non-zero-sum Interactive Framework of Spatial Politics: The Case of Centre—Province in Contemporary China
| Author | Linda Chelan Li |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00069 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Towards a Non-zero-sum Interactive
Framework of Spatial Politics:
the Case of Centre±Province
in Contemporary China
LINDA CHELAN LI
City University of Hong Kong
This paper proposes an interactive, non-zero-sum framework to understand an
important facet of spatial politics in contemporary China: the central-provincial
relationship. The `conventional wisdom' of the ®eld, it is argued, confuses the role of
coercion in the exercise of power, and assumes a static, zero-sum central-provincial
relationship. Changes are merely cyclical, and hopes for genuine changes are pinned
on ad hoc factors such as the arrival of `enlightened' leaders. Drawing on Parsons'
insights on the concept of power, the article outlines a new approach which sees the
forces of genuine changes as residing within the institutional system. It interprets the
central-provincial relationship as a non-zero-sum, interactive process of con¯icts and
compromises, whereby genuine changes to the relationship are made.
What degree of power does the provincial government command within the
Chinese political system, and what is the nature of this power? This is the
fundamental question which runs through the literature of central-provincial
relations in contemporary China. In trying to understand this power relation-
ship, analysts have often dwelt on the roles of provincial leaders and the nature
of the political system within which they operate. This paper examines how the
existing literature has addressed and answered the following questions. To what
extent do provincial leaders act as the loyal agents of the Centre, and, con-
versely, as representatives of their province? How can we make sense of the
prevalence of bargaining behaviour between the Centre and the provinces, and
the intensity of con¯icts in their interactions? Do the instances of China's
previous disintegration, and the emergence of separatist movements in some
provinces, signal a movement towards independence by the provinces, or do
they represent the reaction of provincial forces to a weak Centre? How should
these tensions between the Centre and the provinces be interpreted? Moreover,
by what approach may changes in the balance of power between the Centre and
the provinces be better understood?
The paper argues that the literature has, by and large, failed to reconcile the
co-existence of two apparently contradictory phenomena: on the one hand,
complex bargaining activities between the Centre and provinces, with the latter
often winning concessions from the former; on the other hand, the undeniable
superior power of the Centre as witnessed during occasional `crackdowns'. The
#Political Studies Association 1997. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Political Studies (1997), XLV, 49± 65
major shortcoming of the existing literature stems from its interpretation of the
concept of power. A recurring problem has been whether the asymmetrical
relationship between the Centre and the provinces is of a zero-sum nature.
The Development of Central-provincial Studies
The development of Western studies on China's post-1949 central-provincial
relations has been heavily in¯uenced by Western studies on the Chinese political
system in general.1This was true of the `totalitarian' literature of the 1950s and
1960s, the `pluralist' and `con¯ict' approach of the late 1960s and 1970s, and the
reform studies of the 1980s.
Totalitarian Literature: Provincial Leaders as Agents of the Centre
From the 1950 to early 1960s a model of totalitarianism derived from studies of
the Soviet Union dominated China studies and resulted in a three-fold image of
the post-1949 political system: the pervasiveness of Marxist ±Leninist ±Maoist
ideology, great centralization of political power and an unprecedented
penetration of the state into society. This early literature attempted to explain
the success of the Chinese revolution in terms of ideology, leaders and organ-
ization. The central-provincial relationship was seen as one between super-
ordinate and the subordinate. The provincial government, as the major
intermediate level between the Centre and the vast rural expanse, was perceived
as the Centre's agent.
This literature did not, however, deny that the intermediate level of govern-
ment was granted some discretion in policy decisions. Barnett, for instance,
when describing the post-1949 Chinese system as totalitarian, admitted that the
degree of autonomy granted to provincial departments by central ministries was
at times substantial.2Similarly, Schurmann recognized the importance of
decentralization between the central and lower levels of government even when
power in the 1950s was generally considered to be highly centralized.3
The nature and extent of provincial power as envisaged in the totalitarian
model was, however, pretty limited. The literature assumed a hierarchy in the
formulation and implementation of policy.4Policy formulation was by de®nition
the job of the Centre, with provinces allowed to exercise initiative and innova-
tion only when implementing these policies. Analysts argued that accusations of
localism in Chinese politics often merely camou¯aged changes within the
50
#Political Studies Association, 1997
Spatial Politics in Contemporary China
1In this discussion, for practical reasons the coverage will mostly be on studies conducted in the
United States, Britain, and to a lesser extent Australia. The discussion on the China studies
literature draws heavily from D. Shambaugh (ed.), American Studies of Contemporary China
(Armonk NY, Sharpe, 1993); Victor Nee and D. Stark, `Towards an Institutional Analysis of State
Socialism' in Nee and Stark (eds), Remaking the Economic Institutions of Socialism: China and
Eastern Europe (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1989), pp. 1± 31; M. Oksenberg, `Politics
Takes Command: an Essay on the Study of Post-1949 China' in J. K. Fairbank and Roderick
MacFarquhar (eds), The Cambridge History of China, Volume 14 (Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1987), pp. 543± 90; H. Harding, `The study of Chinese politics: towards a third genera-
tion of scholarship', World Politics, 36, no. 2 (1984), 284± 307.
2A. D. Barnett, Cadres, Bureaucracy, and Political Power in Communist China (New York and
London, Columbia University Press, 1967), p. 72.
3F. Schurmann, Ideology and Organization in Communist China (Berkeley CA, University of
California Press, new, enlarged ed., 1968).
4Schurmann, Ideology and Organization, p. 216; Barnett, Cadres, p. 74.
To continue reading
Request your trial