Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:34:38.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2010

James S. Fishkin ,
Baogang He ,
Robert C. Luskin  and
Alice Siu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 435 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Posner, Richard A., Law, Pragmatism and Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), p. 163.Google Scholar

2 See Sanders, Lynn M., ‘Against Deliberation’, Political Theory, 25 (1997), 347–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marion Young, Iris, Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy and Policy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), chap. III; and Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), chap. 2Google Scholar.

3 See Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes’, Yale Law Journal, 110 (2000), 71–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘The Law of Group Polarization’, in James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett, eds, Debating Deliberative Democracy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003); and also Republic.Com (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar, chap. 3.

4 Zhongzhao, Peng, Lan, Xue and Ke, Kan, Public Hearing System in China (Beijing: Qinghua University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

5 He, Baogang, Rural Democracy in China (NY: Palgrave, 2007), chap. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 He, Baogang, ‘The Theory and Practice of Chinese Grassroots Governance: Five Models’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 4, no. 2 (2003), 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Unger, Jonathan and Chan, Anita, ‘The Internal Politics of an Urban Chinese Work Community: A Case Study of Employee Influence on Decision-making at a State-Owned Factory’, The China Journal, No. 52, July, 2004), pp.1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See the official document, Democratic Sincerely Talk: The Innovation from Wenling (compiled by the Department of Propaganda, Wenling, 2003), p. 98.

9 Mang, Zhu, Multiple Dimensions of Administrative Law (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2004)Google Scholar. Chap. 1 is devoted to the topic of public hearings on administrative punishment.

10 Quansheng, Wang, A Study of Legislative Hearing (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

11 Their speeches at the international conference on public hearings in China, 2005. See Shengyong, Chen and He, Baogang, eds, Development of Deliberative Democracy (Beijing: China’s Social Sciences Press, 2006), pp. 445 and 449.Google Scholar

12 Chen, and He, , eds, Development of Deliberative Democracy, AppendixGoogle Scholar. The appendix includes a summary of the international conference on public hearings held July 2005.

13 For more on the rationale for deliberative polling, see Fishkin, James S. and Luskin, Robert C., ‘Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion’, Acta Politica, 40 (2005), 284–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 They were paid 50 Chinese yuan (RMB) each, equivalent at the time to around US $6.

15 A few participants were excluded from the analysis because they appeared to be cases in which the designated participant sent a family member or friend in his or her stead.

16 Almost two-thirds of the participants but just over 80 per cent of the non-participants were male. The participants averaged 47.5 years old, the non-participants 37.6 years old. Only about 20 per cent of the participants but more than 50 per cent of the non-participants had at least a high school education. More than 60 per cent of the participants but only about 20 per cent of the non-participants were farmers. Only 16.5 per cent of the participants but 52.2 per cent of the non-participants were entrepreneurs.

17 See Mill, J. S., Considerations on Representative Government (New York: Prometheus Books, 1991)Google Scholar, especially chaps 1 and 8, pp. 78–9 and 171–3. See also Mansbridge, Jane, ‘On the Idea that Participation Makes Better Citizens’, in Stephen L. Elkin and Karol Edward Soltan, eds, Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions (University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press, 1999), pp. 291–325Google Scholar.

18 Sanders, , ‘Against Deliberation’; and Young, ‘Intersecting Voices’.Google Scholar

19 For concerns about the inequalities in the current public hearing system, see Chen, and He, , eds, Development of Deliberative Democracy, pp. 445 and 449.Google Scholar

20 See Sunstein, , ‘Deliberative Trouble?’ and ‘The Law of Group Polarization’, in Fishkin and Laslett, eds, Debating Deliberative Democracy.Google Scholar

21 See, for example, Luskin, Robert C., Fishkin, James S. and Jowell, Roger, ‘Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science, 32 (2002), 455–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 See Sunstein, Cass R., Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, especially chap. 2; and Schkade, David, Sunstein, Cass R. and Hastie, Reid, ‘What Happened on Deliberation Day?’, California Law Review, 95 (2007), 915–940Google Scholar.

23 Luskin, et al. , ‘Considered Opinions’, p. 477.Google Scholar

24 Luskin, Robert C., ‘True Versus Measured Information Gain’ (Department of Government, University of Texas, Austin), also available at http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2001/true-infogain.pdfGoogle Scholar, summarized in Luskin, et al. , ‘Considered Opinions’, pp. 480–483Google Scholar.

25 All the variables are implicitly subscripted for the ith participant and jth project index.

26 See Luskin, et al. , ‘Considered Opinions’, pp. 480–481Google Scholar, and Luskin, , ‘True versus Measured Information Gain’Google Scholar.

27 Just as in Luskin, et al. , ‘Considered Opinions’. Results available on request.Google Scholar

28 These criteria date from the 16th National Congress in 2002 and were reaffirmed in the 17th. See Mingai, Zhang, ‘Congress Mapped Out China’s Democratic Politics’, China Elections, http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=11877 (accessed 26 July 2008).Google Scholar

29 Jiang, Zaohua and He, Baogang, ‘Deliberative Democracy: The Participatory Decision-making Mechanism’, in Chen and He, eds, Development of Deliberative Democracy, pp. 227–228.Google Scholar

30 Personal communication to the authors.

31 French, Howard W., ‘China’s new frontiers: Tests of democracy and dissent’, New York Times, 19 June 2005.Google Scholar

32 See He, Baogang and Yuhua, Xie, ‘Participation at Workplace: A Case Study of Deliberative Forum in Longbiao Company’, Twentieth-First Century (Hong Kong), No. 4, (2008), 102–112.Google Scholar

33 Ogden notes the importance of ‘deliberation in the Chinese political system as a means of reaching consensus’ and argues that this deliberation ‘could prove to be an important building block for democratization’ (Ogden, Suzanne, Inklings of Democracy in China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 257)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Professor Lin Shangli, the dean of social sciences at Fudan University, argues for deliberation-led democratization (see Shangli, Lin, ‘Deliberative Politics: A Reflection on the Democratic Development of China’, Academic Monthly (Shanghai), No. 4 (2003), 19–25)Google Scholar. On this issue, see Leib, Ethan and He, Baogang, eds, The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China (New York: Palgrave, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.