We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Based on in-depth ethnographic research, Chapter 3 elaborates what accommodating informal norms are in place, how and why they are created, situations when they fail to work, and the impact of these norms on regime stability. The analysis is based on case studies of three regime-engaging economic protests. In these struggles, the government frequently acquiesced to actions such as illicit petitions and demonstrations, leading to an extralegal space for protest; meanwhile, aggrieved citizens endeavored to discipline themselves while pushing the envelope. The chapter delves into the interactive role that various actors, from top-down to bottom-up, play in determining the emergence and functioning of the unwritten rules, and it also illustrates the diverse forms of coercion employed to curb resistance in an illiberal state. Through functioning as a social safety valve, channeling street protests to the negotiation table, and promoting self-discipline among aggrieved citizens, accommodating informal norms have a beneficial effect on alleviating conflict, on managing contention, and ultimately on enhancing regime resilience.
This chapter examines how and why accommodating informal norms vary across regions, social groups, and time based on four cases of mobilization against garbage incineration. Holding the contentious issue—environmental protection—in all cases constant, it illustrates that factors including identity politics, local political climates, and distinctions in the resources that protesters have (such as media access and social connections) matter in the application of accommodating informal norms. For instance, compared to the urban middle class, rural peasants have fewer resources, which reduces officials’ incentive to comply with the informal norms and thus leaves the dissidents with a narrower space for protest. Moreover, because police officers largely live outside of villages, they are less likely to identify themselves as rural residents and probably feel less empathy toward villagers than toward urbanites. Yet if peasants manage to demonstrate the solidarity of their community, they can create more space for resistance as well. For a single protest, the protest space can expand or contract over time, depending on the dynamic engagement between the state and protesters.
Chapter 2 provides a bird’s-eye view of contentious politics in China and demarcates the boundaries between state tolerance and repression. Based on an original nationwide dataset of 1,418 protest events, the chapter explores the main forms of protest and major patterns of state reaction in the country. Binary and multinomial logistic regression analysis reveals a real space for protest within this this one-party state: Nearly two-thirds of protest events were tolerated by the state. Furthermore, most protesters confined themselves to this space: They stayed away from violence, radical political claims (e.g., opposing Communist rule), and linking organizationally with other protests. Contradictory to the common view that repression and transgression should prevail in an authoritarian regime like China, this chapter concludes that regime-engaging protests are the dominant form of contention in this one-party state. The statistical analysis also reveals that the space for protest is not equally open to all social groups and all regions.
This chapter introduces a theory of informal norms and a conceptual framework of protests to further the understanding of the puzzling coexistence of authoritarian resilience and growing protest in China. Unlike most existing scholarship which focuses on formal institutions to explain authoritarian resilience, Chapter 1 brings attention to informal norms, or unwritten rules, and examines how they contribute to promoting conflict resolution through dialogue and building regime stability. The origins, functions, dynamics, and effects of these norms are sketched out in the chapter. Moreover, it presents an original theoretical model for examining the dynamics of protest and regime resilience, distinguishing between regime-engaging and regime-threatening protests. Offering critical indicators of regime stability/instability, this model is applicable to the investigation of the nature of protests and allows for the monitoring of the trajectory of political contention not only in China but in other regimes as well.
The concluding chapter summarizes the main findings of this research and discusses their implications for studies of contentious politics and authoritarian resilience in and beyond China. It analyzes informal norms of contention and regime resilience in other illiberal states (such as the Soviet Union and Vietnam) and details how to apply the conceptual model of regime-engaging and regime-threatening protests constructed for this book to the observation and analysis of the trajectory of political contention in other authoritarian states, including Poland in the 1980s and some Arab countries in 2011. Highlighting a variety of tactics that can be used by authoritarian regimes to handle contention, the theory of informal norms and the conceptual framework of regime-engaging and regime-threatening protests provide a new perspective on the diverse ways in which power is employed in contentious politics, facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexity of authoritarian politics, and help inspire new approaches to the study of rules, legitimacy, and resistance in general.
Focusing on regime-threatening protests, Chapter 5 explores how and why antagonistic informal norms—characterized by transgressive resistance and unlawful repression—come to the fore and examines their undermining impact on regime legitimacy and stability. The analysis draws on three high-profile cases of regime-threatening protests—ethnic unrest in Xinjiang (China’s far west), protest by the Falun Gong (a quasi-religious group), and the Charter 08 campaign (pro-democracy resistance). Each of these protests involved one type of political grievance or another that overstepped the official limits; in each case, officials responded with resolute repression, through lawful and unlawful means. By reviewing the interactions of challengers and the state over the course of history, this chapter demonstrates that when conflicts and grievances are mixed with such factors as ethnicity, religion, ideology, a history of animosity, and international linkage, the chance that antagonistic informal norms will play out increases and contention of such kind frequently sets in motion a vicious cycle of repression and transgression, thereby intensifying conflict and challenging regime stability.
This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the development of, and public responses to, celebrity-fronted philanthropy in the People's Republic of China. It explores the extent and nature of celebrity philanthropy with reference to a sample of mainland Chinese celebrities in entertainment and sports. It then draws on interviews conducted with employees of large charities to examine the kinds of links that are being forged between China's not-for-profit sector and commercial organizations managing the work of celebrities. Finally, it analyses the responses to a national survey on celebrity and philanthropy. We conclude that the relationship between China's government, not-for-profit and celebrity sectors is becoming more professionalized and organized. This development reveals how the roles and capacities of government are being reconfigured and expanded, even as it also enhances the scope for action and the influence of new social actors and organizations to address government-led national development issues.