Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:36:30.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Administrative Burdens in Chinese Public Services: A Case of Selective Affinity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2023

Ou Wang ,
Dongtao Qi Open the ORCID record for Dongtao Qi [Opens in a new window]  and
Yangge Liu
Ou Wang
Affiliation:
School of Public Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Dongtao Qi
Affiliation:
East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Yangge Liu*
Affiliation:
School of Government, Peking University, Beijing, China.
*
Corresponding author: Yangge Liu, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The non-take-up of public services has the potential to undermine civil rights and deepen social inequality. Looking at the case of the Youth Community College Programme in China, an innovation in governance to facilitate community integration of the migrant population by providing free education, this study finds that the targeted disadvantaged groups are systematically excluded due to the disproportionate imposition of various administrative burdens on them. We propose that an interaction mechanism – which we term “selective affinity” – between the policy process and individuals’ human capital leads to this unintended outcome. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of the causal mechanisms underlying vulnerable people's non-take-up of public services, while highlighting an example of dysfunctional state–society interaction and a mechanism for the reproduction of social inequality under authoritarianism in China.

摘要

摘要

未接受公共服务可能会损害公民权利，扩大社会不平等。本文研究了中国的一个青年社区学院项目：它本是一项治理创新的尝试，冀通过提供免费教育来促进外来人口的社区融合，但由于各种管理负担过重，作为此项公共服务目标的弱势群体却被系统地排除在服务之外。本文提出，这是由于政策过程和个人人力资本之间的“选择性亲和”互动机制导致了这个非意图性的结果。此研究有助于深化理解弱势群体未接受公共服务的因果机制，同时凸显了“国家-社会”互动的一种失调机制，以及中国威权主义体制下社会不平等的一种再生产机制。

Keywords

administrative burdennon-take-up of public servicesmigrantsselective affinityinequalityChina管理负担未接受公共服务外来工选择性亲和不平等中国
Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 255 , September 2023 , pp. 734 - 752
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS University of London

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

Aizer, Anna. 2003. “Low take-up in Medicaid: does outreach matter and for whom?” American Economic Review 93 (2), 238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alatas, Vivi, Purnamasari, Ririn, Wai-Poi, Matthew, Banerjee, Abhijit, Olken, Benjamin and Hanna, Rema. 2016. “Self-targeting: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia.” Journal of Political Economy 124 (2), 371–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, Sameen, and Altaf, Samia. 2021. “Citizen trust, administrative capacity and administrative burden in Pakistan's immunization program.” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 (1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baekgaard, Martin, Moynihan, Donald and Thomsen, Mette Kjærgaard. 2021. “Why do policymakers support administrative burdens? The roles of deservingness, political ideology, and personal experience.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31 (1), 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, Luttmer, Erzo and Mullainathan, Sendhil. 2000. “Network effects and welfare cultures.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3), 1019–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Coate, Stephen. 1992. “Workfare versus welfare: incentive arguments for work requirements in poverty-alleviation programs.” The American Economic Review 82 (1), 249–261.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Eric, Long, Bridget Terry, Oreopoulos, Philip and Sanbonmatsu, Lisa. 2012. “The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127 (3), 1205–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billett, Stephen. 2000. “Defining the demand side of vocational education and training: industry, enterprises, individuals and regions.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 52 (1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, Evelyn, and Majmundar, Malay. 2010. “Administrative exclusion: organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (4), 827–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruun, Hans Henrik, and Whimster, Sam. 2012. Max Weber Collected Methodological Writings. NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry, Canon, David, Mayer, Kenneth and Moynihan, Donald. 2012. “The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: evidence from election administration.” Public Administration Review 72 (5), 741–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buvinić, Mayra, and Gupta, Geeta. 1997. “Female-headed households and female-maintained families: are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries?” Economic Development and Cultural Change 45 (2), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Julian, Aarøe, Lene, Baekgaard, Martin, Herd, Pamela and Moynihan, Donald. 2020. “Human capital and administrative burden: the role of cognitive resources in citizen–state interactions.” Public Administration Review 80 (1), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chudnovsky, Mariana, and Peeters, Rik. 2021. “The unequal distribution of administrative burden: a framework and an illustrative case study for understanding variation in people's experience of burdens.” Social Policy & Administration 55 (4), 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornell, Agnes, and Lapuente, Victor. 2014. “Meritocratic administration and democratic stability.” Democratization 21 (7), 1286–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, Janet 2004. “The Take Up of Social Benefits.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 10488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, Janet, and Gahvari, Firouz. 2008. “Transfers in cash and in-kind: theory meets the data.” Journal of Economic Literature 46 (2), 333–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasandi, Niheer, and Esteve, Marc. 2017. “The politics–bureaucracy interface in developing countries.” Public Administration and Development 37 (4), 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, Jorrit, and Rizvi, Gowher. 2009. The State of Access: Success and Failure of Democracies to Create Equal Opportunities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, Patrick, Margetts, Helen, Bastow, Simon and Tinkler, Jane. 2006. “New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Gary, and Schamberg, Michelle. 2009. “Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adult working memory.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (16), 6545–6549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, Peter. 1992. “The state as problem and solution: embedded autonomy and structural change.” In Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert (eds.), The Politics of Economic Adjustment: International Constraints, Distributive Conflicts and the State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 139–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fix, Michael, Passel, Jeffrey and Sucher, Kenneth. 2003. “Trends in Naturalization. Immigrant Families and Workers.” Urban Institute, Washington, DC, September 2003.Google Scholar
Frederickson, George. 2015. Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Golding, Peter, and Middleton, Sue. 1982. Images of Welfare: Press and Public Attitudes to Poverty. Oxford: Robertson.Google Scholar
Gooden, Susan. 2015. Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James, and Smith, Jeffrey. 2004. “The determinants of participation in a social program: evidence from a prototypical job training program.” Journal of Labor Economics 22 (2), 243–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, Carolyn. 2016. “The bite of administrative burden: a theoretical and empirical investigation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26 (3), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, Carolyn, and Brill, Robert. 2015. “Stopped in the name of the law: administrative burden and its implications for cash transfer program effectiveness.” World Development 72, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, Pamela, and Moynihan, Don. 2018. Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hite, Katherine, and Cesarini, Paola. 2004. Authoritarian Legacies and Democracy in Latin America and Southern Europe. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hoxby, Caroline, and Avery, Christopher. 2012. “The Missing ‘One-Offs’: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. w18586.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen, Schneider, Anne and Deleon, Peter. 2019. “Social construction and policy design.” In Sabatier, Paul (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Abingdon: Routledge, 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanbur, Ravi, Keen, Michael and Tuomala, Matti. 1994. “Labor supply and targeting in poverty alleviation programs.” The World Bank Economic Review 8 (2), 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porte, Todd, Demchak, Chris and de Jong, Martin. 2002. “Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the web: empirical findings and theoretical speculations.” Administration & Society 34 (4), 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laenen, Tijs, Rossetti, Federica and van Oorschot, Wim. 2019. “Why deservingness theory needs qualitative research: comparing focus group discussions on social welfare in three welfare regimes.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 60 (3), 190–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftwich, Adrian. 1995. “Bringing politics back in: towards a model of the developmental state.” Journal of Development Studies 31 (3), 400–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Mianguan, and Walder, Robert. 2018. “On the origins of welfare stigma: comparing two social assistance schemes in rural China.” Critical Social Policy 38 (4), 667–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1984. “Bureaucratic disentitlement in social welfare programs.” Social Service Review 58 (1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 2010. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Liu, Zhiqiang. 2005. “Institution and inequality: the hukou system in China.” Journal of Comparative Economics 33 (1), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne, and Soss, Joe. 2004. “The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: bridging policy studies and mass politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migdal, Joel. 1988. Strong Societies and Weak States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Migdal, Joel. 2001. State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Donald, and Herd, Pamela. 2010. “Red tape and democracy: how rules affect citizenship rights.” The American Review of Public Administration 40 (6), 654–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Donald, and Soss, Joe. 2014. “Policy feedback and the politics of administration.” Public Administration Review 74 (3), 320–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Donald, Herd, Pamela and Harvey, Hope. 2015. “Administrative burden: learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen–state interactions.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisar, Muhammad. 2017. “Children of a lesser god: administrative burden and social equity in citizen–state interactions.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28 (1), 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1973. Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Argentina, 1966–1973, in Comparative Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Peeters, Rik. 2020. “The political economy of administrative burdens: a theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of administrative burdens.” Administration & Society 52 (4), 566–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, Ziwei. 2019. “An overview of rural to urban migration in China and social challenges.” Migration Letters 16 (2), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeskens, Tim, and van Oorschot, Wim. 2013. “Equity, equality, or need? A study of popular preferences for welfare redistribution principles across 24 European countries.” Journal of European Public Policy 20 (8), 1174–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosma, Femke, van Oorschot, Wim and Gelissen, John. 2016. “A just distribution of burdens? Attitudes toward the social distribution of taxes in 26 welfare states.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28 (3), 376–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robeyns, Ingrid. 2005. “The capability approach: a theoretical survey.” Journal of Human Development 6 (1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runciman, W.G. 2005. “Not elective but selective affinities.” Journal of Classical Sociology 5 (2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Anne, and Ingram, Helen. 1993. “Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy.” American Political Science Review 87 (2), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, James. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1977. The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, Joe. 1999. “Lessons of welfare: policy design, political learning, and political action.” American Political Science Review 93 (2), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, Joe. 2014. “Classes, races, and marginalized places: notes on the study of democracy's demise.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 651 (1), 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Walle, Dominique. 1998. “Targeting revisited.” The World Bank Research Observer 13 (2), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, Wim. 1995. Realizing Rights: A Multi-level Approach to Non-take-up of Means-tested Benefits. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, Wim. 2000. “Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public.” Policy & Politics 28 (1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, Wim. 2006. “Making the difference in social Europe: deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states.” Journal of European social policy 16 (1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, Wim, Roosma, Femke, Meuleman, Bart and Reeskens, Tim. 2017. The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, Robert. 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industralization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1992. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weiss, Linda. 2014. America Inc.? Innovation and Enterprise in the National Security State. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Widlak, Arjan, and Peeters, Rik. 2020. “Administrative errors and the burden of correction and consequence: how information technology exacerbates the consequences of bureaucratic mistakes for citizens.” International Journal of Electronic Governance 12 (1), 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Hui, and Ling, Zhu. 2019. “‘Two Chinas’: social equity, social policies, and the urban–rural divide in China.” In Morgen, Johansen (ed.), Social Equity in the Asia-Pacific Region. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar