1. See Kristof, Nicholas D., “‘New Authoritarianism’ seen in Chinese actions,” New York Times (NYT), 28 02 1989, p. A13Google Scholar, in which reference is made to “Some foreign diplomats and many Chinese [who] believe that Mr Zhao shares the idea of new authoritarianism, but it almost certainly is not his alone,” implying that the concept was also endorsed by Deng Xiaoping. A Hong Kong newspaper also associated neo-authoritarianism with “Zhao Ziyang's old brain trust.” Kesi, Ai, “Controversial ‘new authoritarianism’,” Zhengming (Contending) (Hong Kong) No. 137, 1 03 1989, pp. 55–56Google Scholar, in Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS)–CAR–89–047) 17 May 1989, p. 12. In 1991, two and a half years after his fall from power, Zhao was accused by a senior adviser to the CCP's Organization Department of having attempted to set up a personal dictatorship under the banner of neo-authoritarianism. Yeping, Chen, “Consciously uphold the Party's authority,” Qiushi (Seeking Truth), 16 10 1991, pp. 11–16.Google Scholar

2. Kristof, Nicholas D., “Aging of China leaders reviving fear of chaos,” NYT, 16 07 1990, p. A6.Google Scholar

3. See Xueliang, Ding, “Dongya moshi yu ‘xinquanweizhuyi’” (“The East Asian model and neo-authoritarianism”), Minzhu Zhongguo (Democratic China) (Paris) (04 1990), pp. 29–36.Google Scholar

4. See, e.g., Nisbet, Robert, Twilight of Authority (Oxford: New York, 1975), ch. 5 on the need to restore political authority.Google Scholar

5. On the push for “political structural reform” in 1986, see Harding, Harry, China's Second Revolution (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1987), pp. 191–99.Google Scholar

6. An economist, Su became director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute for Research on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought in 1983, where he promoted theories derived from western social science and European Marxist circles. He was criticized during the regime's campaign against “spiritual pollution” in 1983–84, criticized again during the campaign against “bourgeois liberalization” in 1987, and removed from his position as Institute director. Su successfully appealed against an attempt to revoke his Party membership and left China shortly after June 1989 to spend a year teaching in the United States. Hamrin, Carol Lee, China and the Challenge of the Future: Changing Political Patterns (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990), pp. 235, 240.Google Scholar In an interview with the Hong Kong periodical Bai xing (The People), 1 09 1989, pp. 20–23Google Scholar, in JPRS–CAR–89–121, 22 December 1989, pp. 10–15, Su outlined his views in the wake of the suppression of the student movement, stating, inter alia, that “proletarian dictatorship is only slightly different from fascist dictatorship,” “revisionism is not a bad thing,” and “the Swedish model is I don't know how many times closer to socialism than the Chinese model.”

7. Sullivan, Lawrence R., “Leadership and authority in the Chinese Communist Party,” in Goodman, David and Segal, Gerald (eds.), China at Forty: Midlife Crisis? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 62 (emphasis supplied by Sullivan).Google Scholar Sullivan argues that “Rather than concentrating on restricting the central leader's authority and prohibiting leadership cults, perhaps Deng Xiaoping should encourage a ‘liberal authoritarianism’ to sweep away entrenched opponents of reform.” Ibid. pp. 62–63. This argument expresses the essence of the neo-authoritarian idea.

8. Wu was born in 1955 and admitted to Beijing University (Beida) in 1977, and in 1989 was a member of the Beida Department of Economics, on secondment as deputy director of the Investigative and Research Department of the General Office of the CCP Central Committee (CCPCC), where he specialized in research on the modernization of property rights. A self-described “marginalist,” Wu's position doubtless allowed him to draft policy statements for top Party leaders. The New York Times identified Wu as “a Communist Party official and protégé of the party's General Secretary, Zhao Ziyang” and a Hong Kong journal described him as “a man in a key position in the CPC” and “Deng Xiaoping's policy intepreter.” Jiaxiang, Wu, “Between the happy ant and the despairing suicide-my experience,” Zhongguo qingnian (China Youth), No. 6, 9 06 1989, pp. 10–11Google Scholar, in JPRS–89–101, 5 October 1989, pp. 8–9; Po, Wen, “The People's University Congress outside the Great Hall-big debate between ‘neo-authoritarians’ and ‘democrats’,” Xin wan bao (New Evening News) (Hong Kong), 5 04 1989, p. 4Google Scholar, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS)–CHI–89–065, 6 04 1989, p. 29Google Scholar; Kristof, , NYT, 28 02 1989, p. A13Google Scholar; Yu, Luo, “Star of the CPC's think tank, Wu Jiaxiang-Deng Xiaoping's policy interpreter,” Guang jiao jing (Wide Angle), No. 196, 16 01 1989, pp. 22–24Google Scholar, in JPRS–CAR–89–028, 31 March 1989, pp. 9–11. Prior to his participation in the neo-authoritarianism debate, Wu published a book Deng Xiaoping: His Thoughts and Practices. This devoted a chapter to an approving discussion of Deng's famed 1962 theory that it does not matter whether a cat is black or white; if it can catch mice it is a good cat (“mao lun”), which Wu interpreted as “no matter what kind of system or thought, as long as it can solve China's problems, it should be adopted.” Wu has written articles whose titles include “Conversion to the shareholding system: one way to further the reform process,” “Choices in the reform of product rights,” “Creditor's rights, stock ownership rights and property rights,” “A tradition of incomplete social and individual property rights,” and “Germination and transplant: the historic course of maturity of personal property rights.” See Yu, Luo, “Star of the CCP's think tank.”Google Scholar Wu also co-wrote two articles advocating the adoption of shareholding in Chinese industry, the first with Jin Lizuo, “The needs for a new strategic concept to reform the state's economic functions,” which appeared in March 1985 in Shijie jingji daobao (World Economic Herald). In a later article, Wu and his coauthor characterized shareholding as a Marxist form of public ownership because it is “property right distribution based on the principle of each according to his ability to each according to his need.” Jiaxiang, Wu and Pengrong, Zhong, “The shareholding system is a practical form of public ownership,” Jingji ribao (Economics Daily), 17 02 1989, p. 3Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–043, 7 March 1989, pp. 36–39.

9. Jiaxiang, Wu, “Commenting on neo-authoritarianism,” Shijie jingji daobao (Shanghai), 16 01 1989, p. 12Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–020, 1 February 1989, pp. 33–35. The following discussion of the early development of neo-authoritarian theories in 1986–88 relies upon the account in Wu's article and Ai Kesi, JPRS–CAR–89–047, pp. 12–14. According to a report of Gao. Yu, , “Neo-authoritarianism: does it representa ‘spirit’ or a ‘rat’?” Jingjixue zhoubao (Economics Weekly), 12 03 1989, p. 1Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–058, p. 30, the first proponent of neo-authoritarianism was Qing Ping in 1986.

10. See Huntington, Samuel, Political Order in Changing Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).Google Scholar On the influence of Huntington and other western social scientists on Chinese neo-authoritarian thought, see also Petrasen, Mark and Xiang, Mung, “The concept of Chinese neo-authoritarianism: an exploration and a democratic critique,” Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 11 (11 1990), pp. 1101, 1105Google Scholar; Yun, Ma Shu, “The rise and fall of neo-authoritarianism in China,” China Information, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Winter 1990–1991), pp. 3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Minxin, Pei, “A discussion on authoritarianism with Samuel Huntington, the pioneer of the theory of authoritarianism,” Shijie jingji daobao, 27 03 1984, p. 13Google Scholar, in Chinese Sociology and Anthropology (CSA), Vol. 23, No. 4 (Summer 1991), pp. 67–85.Google Scholar

11. Wang, born in 1955 and a 1981 graduate of Fudan, was in 1989 the director of the Institute of Politics and Administration of the International Politics Department of Fudan. In 1988, Wang argued that the decentralization of the Chinese economy and politics had led to local interests overwhelming national interests, noting that some observers regard China's provinces and counties as “split into about 30 dukedoms, with some 2,000 rival principalities.” As procedural democracy develops, local constituents could be expected to vote from local interests, an outcome that may result in separatist rule. “Non-economic reflection on problems of reform in China,” Shijie jingji daobao, 29 08 1988, p. 11Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–88–201, 18 October 1988, pp. 20–22 (an abbreviated version of this article and an interview with Wang on the development of political science in China appears in the CCP's theoretical organ, Qiushi, No. 7, 1 10 1988, pp. 35–36Google Scholar, in JPRS–CAR–88–074, 21 November 1988, pp. 30–31.

12. Tzu, Yan, “What kind of power system does China need?-the connotations of Wang Huning's ideas on a ‘new power structure’,” Guang jiao jing, No. 200, (16 05 1989), pp. 38–40Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–103, 31 May 1989, pp. 81–83. Wang maintained that a “new power structure” was needed because the separation of economic and political functions had gradually weakened the political power which had been based on the old economic structure, while a new structure had not yet been established. A new power structure could make “super-economic and advanced transformations” by “extending the representative nature of the structure, greatly raising the positions of the democratic [satellite] parties and other social groups in the political system, and allowing non-Party personages to participate in government affairs at various levels.” Democracy would be able to thrive only after this new power structure became fully developed. Wang abstained from participation in the 1989 debate on neo-authoritarianism, but expressed appreciation of the “deep understanding of China's current social conditions on the part of advocates of ‘neo-authoritarianism’” and affirmed the correctness of the views that he had expressed three years earlier. Zhang Bingjiu's 1986 seminar paper, “The progress and co-ordination between economic and political system reform,” in Jin, Liu and Lin, Li (eds.), Xin quanweizhuyi (The New Authoritarianism) (Beijing: Beijing College of Economics Press, 1989), pp. 1–26Google Scholar, translated in CSA Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1990–1991), pp. 8–35.Google Scholar See also interviews with Jiaxiang, Wu and Bingjiu, Zhang, “Radical democracy or stable democracy,” CSA, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring 1991), pp. 7–15.Google Scholar

13. On the 13th Congress, which marked a significant victory for the reform forces led by Zhao Ziyang and endorsed by Deng Xiaoping, see Oksenberg, Michel, “China's Thirteenth Party Congress,” Problems of Communism, Vol. 37, No. 6 (11–12 1987), pp. 1–17Google Scholar; Ziyang, Zhao, “Advance along the road of socialism will Chinese characteristics-report delivered at the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China on 25 October 1987,” Beijing Review, 9–15 11 1987, pp. 23–49.Google Scholar

14. See Kesi, Ai, JPRS–CAR–89–047, p. 13.Google Scholar

15. Qing, Dai, “a prominent writer in her mid-40s,”Google Scholar was arrested shortly after thr crackdown of June 1989. She had “apparently offended the leadership with a speech n Tiananmen Square in which she praised the student demonstrators but also called 01 them to leave the square.” She was released after 10 months detention on 10 May 1990 Sheryl WuDunn, “China announces release from jail of 211 dissidents,” NYT, 11 05 1990, p. A1.Google Scholar

16. Qing, Dai, “From Lin Zexu to Jiang Jingguo,”Google Scholar in Jin, Liu and Lin, Li, The New Authoritarianism, pp. 86–90Google Scholar, translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring 1991), pp, 61–66Google Scholar; Jiaxiang, Wu, FBIS–CHI–89–020, p. 34Google Scholar; Kesi, Ai, JPRS–CAR–89–047, p. 12.Google Scholar

17. Citing a Guangming ribao article published that day, a Xinhua broadcast of 24 March 1989, 1040 GMT, in FBIS–CHI–89–056, 24 March 1989, p. 40, stated that the symposium on modernization theories began the discussion of neo-authoritarianism, which it defined as a theory holding that in the absence of a developed middle class and market economy in China, a western democratic system would only produce representatives who would avoid the market or place it under the control of “like iiterests.”

18. The State Council Commission, established in 1982 and first headed by Zhao Ziyang, planned the programme for comprehensive reform and Chen Yizi and other economists are said to have “served as its brain and its legs.” Chen and other Institute officials “had direct access to Zhao through his secretary Bao Tong as well as through normal channels.” Chen was also head of the Society of Young Economists, a leading radical reform organization. In June 1989, Chen fled to Paris and became the deputy head of the Democratic Alliance, an exile organization. Hamrin, , China and the Challenge of the Future, pp. 229–230, 238.Google Scholar

19. Yizi, Chen et al. , “The deep questions and strategic choice China's reform faces,” Zhongguo: fazhan yu gaige (China: Development and Reform), No. 4 (1989), pp. 3–9Google Scholar, translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring 1991), pp. 39–60.Google Scholar See also Resi, Ai, JPRS–CAR–89–047, p. 13.Google Scholar

20. See also Ziqiang, Deng, “Concerning controversial views on neo-authoritarianism,” Shenzhen tequ bao (Shenzhen Special Economic Zone News), s.d., reprinted in Da gong bao, 17 04 1989, p. 2Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–074, 19 April 1989, pp. 26–27 fon summary of Wu's views.

21. Jian, Kong, “Is ‘neo-authoritarianism’ possible in China?” Shijie jingji daobao, 16 01 1989, p. 12Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–020, 1 February 1989, p. 32. An extended: version of this article appears in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1990–1991), pp. 46–68.Google Scholar

22. “Deng Xiaoping on neo-authoritarianism,” Zhongguo tongxun she (China News Agency), 1 04 1989Google Scholar, 0841 GMT, in FBIS–CHI–89–066, 7 April 1989, p. 15.

23. For an argument along similar lines, see Wei, Li, “‘New authority’ going astray,” Jingjixue zhoubao, 26 03 1989, p. 7Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–066, 7 April 1989. Li contended that China had never experienced authoritarianism, in the sense of control of political power by a leader who eschews the monopolization of the economy and culture. Rather, China has historically been ruled by “totalitarians,” who put all aspects of social life under strict control using coercive means, opposed the constitutional separation of powers, required absolute obedience of individuals to the state and propagated absolute collectivism. Therefore, any view that claims to be “authoritarian” is really “totalitarian.” Li also contended that neo-authoritarians confused power and authority. The Chinese government has great power, but insufficient authority; it lacks authority because of its inadequate effectiveness, not because of inadequate power. By neglecting the reform of the existing power structure, while favouring an increase in the power of the government and of individuals, the neo-authoritarians would only produce more power struggles, while political stability will be lost.

24. Haocheng, Yu, “Does China need neo-authoritarianism?” Shijie jingji daobao, 6 02 1989, p. 14Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–036, 24 February 1989, pp. 18–19. Yu's article also appears in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Summer 1991), pp. 44–55.Google Scholar See also Jianming, Wen “Debates over ‘neo-authoritarianism’,” Nanfang ribao (Southern Daily), 5 04 1989, p. 3Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–069, 12 April 1989, p. 16, in which Yu's argument is listed as one of four “diversified concepts among the theoretical circles on neo-authoritarianism.”

25. Wenzhang, Zhou, “Neo-authoritarianism: an impractical ‘panacea’,” Gongren ribao (Workers' Daily), 3 02 1989, p. 3Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–038, 28 February 1989, pp. 25–26.

26. Xinquan, Chen, “Politics in the course of modernization: democracy and authority,” Gongren ribao, 10 02 1989, p. 3Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–038, 28 February 1989, pp. 26–28.

27. Zhongxin, Fang, “An analysis of ‘neo-authoritarianism’,” Renmin ribao (People's Daily), (Beijing), 6 03 1989, p. 5Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–047, 13 March 1989, pp. 34–35.

28. Huijing, Wu, “Neo-authoritarianism a hot topic of discussion in academic circles,” Jingji cankao (Economic Reference), 7 03 1989, p. 4Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–055, 23 March 1989, pp. 45–47.

29. For additional comments by opponents of neo-authoritarianism, see Ziqiang, Deng, “Concerning controversial views on neo-authoritarianism, Part II,”Google ScholarShenzhen tequ boo, reprinted in Da gong bao, 18 04 1989, p. 2Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–074, pp. 27–28, and Yun, Xie, “On the ‘flirtation’ between autocracy and freedom,” Xin Guaricha (New Observer), No. 7, 10 04 1989, pp. 18–19Google Scholar, in JPRS–CAR–89–070, 6 July 1989, pp. 11–12. Xie argued that China had never experienced capitalist or socialist democracy and that democracy does not reject legitimate authority.

30. Yu, Gao, FBIS–CHI–89–058, p. 30.Google Scholar

31. The reform movement of 1919, generated by intellectuals, began with protests of the recognition by the post-First World War Versailles Conference of Japan's suzerainity over China's Shandong province. The principal slogan of this variegated movement was “science and democracy.” See Ts'e-tsung, Chou, The May Fourth Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

32. In the “Tiananmen Incident” of 5 04 1976Google Scholar, some 100,000 Beijing residents gathered in the square to honour the recently-deceased premier Zhou Enlai and, in many cases, to denounce Jiang Qing and the Gang of Four. The protestors were dispersed by police and the incident precipitated the second fall of Deng Xiaoping.

33. Xiaoying, Qin, “Jumping out of the vicious cycle of history-China's third polemic over authoritarianism,” Jiangjixue zhoubao, 12 03 1989, p. 7Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–062, 3 April 1989, pp. 45–49. Qin also summarized his views in an interview with Weiguo, Zhang, “Beijing holds successive seminars on neo-authoritarianism,” Shijiejingji daobao, 13 03 1989, p. 10Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–059, 29 March 1989, p. 41.

34. Gao, Gao, “Improve the social control system taking the rule of law as the main body,” Jingjixue zhou bao, 12 03 1989, p. 5Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–058, 28 March 1989, pp. 30–32.

35. In fact, Mao acquiesced in, but did not launch the anti-rightist movement of 1958, which was. proposed by Shaoqi, Liu and Xiaoping, Deng. See McFarquhar, Roderick, Origins of the Cultural Revolution (New York: Columbia University, 1974).Google Scholar Not Mao, but writers associated with the Gang of Four criticized increased foreign trade as a new form of comprador relations. See Fenwick, Ann, “Chinese foreign trade and the campaign against Deng Xiaoping,”Google Scholar in Pingar, Thomas (ed.), China's Quest for Independence in the 1970s (Stanford Journal of International Studies, No. 15 (1979)), pp. 199–224.Google Scholar

36. See also Liping, Sun, “The present authority crisis and its cause,” Shijie jingji daobao, 12 03 1989, p. 5Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–058, 28 March 1989, pp. 32–33. Sun, citing Max Weber argues that resistance to higher authority stems from the regime's lack of a rational-legal basis for its authority. Similar comments were made by other opponents of neo-authoritarianism in interviews with Zhang, FBIS–CHI–89–059, pp. 39–42. Hu Jiwei, former editor of Renmin ribao and a National People's Congress Standing Committee member, argued for the principle of equality before the law as a counterweight to authoritarianism. Zhang Xianyang, a researcher of the Research Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Academy of Social Sciences considered Mao to have been “the greatest strongman in history,” while a poet and essay writer, Shao Yanxiang, compared neo-authoritarianism to Nazism and argued that the masses, whom Hitler despised, nevertheless regarded him as enlightened autocrat. The jurist Zhang Zonghou argued that freedom is guaranteed by the authority of law. “A well-known scholar” contended that backwardness was no obstacle to Chinese democracy because China was more advanced than ancient Athens or the United States under George Washington, both of which practised democracy and, one might add (although the anonymous scholar did not), slavery.

37. Gongqin, Xiao, “Checks and balances by authority: the only way to success in China's reform,” Shijiejingji daobao, 13 03 1989, p. 11Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–056, 24 March 1989, pp. 40–43.

38. Contrasting the “monistic authority” of traditional systems and neo-authoritarianism to the coexistence of “plural authorities,” Shoujin, Hu, in “Authority: monistic or pluralistic?-what is our choice?” Shijie jingji daobao, 20 03 1989, p. 13Google Scholar in FBIS–CHI–89–058, 28 March 1989, pp. 34–35, argued that checks and balances between plural authorities would compel officials to obey laws, constrain the power of each system, force authorities to restrain their own powers, prevent power abuses, and guarantee citizens' rights and freedoms. Hu remarked that “People still remember that today's old authority was also a new authority on which many people pin[ned] their hopes when it was established.”

39. Ironically, opponents of neo-authoritarianism often attributed the advocacy of the doctrine to fear among intellectuals of another Cultural Revolution and their simultaneous discouragement with the depth of the present regime's reform efforts. See the interviews with Wang Yizhou, a researcher at the Research Institute of Marxism-Leninism, and Xianxing, Jiang, a “young theoretician”Google Scholar of the Institute of Sociology, in Zhang Weiguo, FBIS–CHI–89–059, p. 41.

40. These are the principles of upholding the rule of the Party, the people's democratic dictatorship, Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought and the socialist road. In practice, the four principles reduce to the first principle.

41. See also Ziqiang, Deng, FBIS–CHI–89–074, p. 27Google Scholar for a summary of Xiao's views.

42. Weiguo, Zhang, FBIS–CHI–89–059, 29 03 1989, p. 42.Google Scholar

43. Suijian, Guo, “On the error zone of ‘neo-authoritarianism’,” Gongren ribao, 17 03 1989, p. 3Google Scholar in FBIS–CHI–89–059, 29 March 1989, pp. 42–44.

44. See also the views of Yuan Zhimin, a Renda philosophy Ph.D., who argued that both the advocates and opponents of neo-authoritarianism share a goal of establishing “a broad social democracy” in China, a goal which implies political pluralism and a market economy. Yuan concurred with the neo-authoritarians that power had to centralize in the hands of an “elite,” but pointed out that the training of this elite had not yet been adequately considered by the neo-authoritarians. Ta kung pao, 18 04 1989, p. 2Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–074, 19 April 1989, p. 28.

45. Jun, Liu, “A brief introduction to the debate on ‘neo-authoritarianism’,” 17 03 1989, p. 3Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–06S; 6 April 1989, pp. 30–32.

46. See also Deng Ziqiang, FBIS–CHI–89–074, p. 27 for a summary of Zhang's views.

47. The 17 March 1989 Guangming ribao article also summarized the opinions of the opponents of neo-authoritarianism already discussed above, including Wang Haocheng, Rong Jian, Wang Yizhou, Huang Wansheng, Yu Haocheng and Zhou Wenzhang. See also Gongqin, Xiao and Wei, Zhu, “A painful dilemma: a dialogue on the theory of ‘neo-authoritarianism’,” Wenhui bao, 17 01 1989, p. 4Google Scholar; Wansheng, Huang, “A dialogue on the critiques of new authoritarianism,” Wenhui bao, 22 02 1989Google Scholar, translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1990–1991), pp. 69–93Google Scholar; Yizhou, Wang, “Why we cannot agree with the new authoritarianism,”Google Scholar in Jin, Liu and Lun, Li, The New Authoritarianism, pp. 188–195Google Scholar, translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Summer 1991), pp. 56–66.Google Scholar

48. Zhongguo tongxun she, 7 04 1989Google Scholar in FBIS–CHI–89–066, p. 15.

49. The Xin wan bao correspondent erroneously identified the National People's Congress then in session as the Fourth NPC. It was in fact the Seventh, the Fourth having occurred in 1975.

50. Po, Wen, FBIS–CHI–89–065, 6 04 1989, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

51. Yang Baikui was arrested after the June 1989 crackdown and released with 210 other detainees on 10 May 1990. WuDunn, , NYT, 11 05 1990, p. A7.Google Scholar See also Baikui, Yang, “Democracy and authority in the course of political development,”Google Scholar in Jin, Liu and Lun, Li, The New Authoritarianism, pp. 91–102Google Scholar, translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring 1991), pp. 67–80.Google Scholar

52. Jiaxiang, Wu, “Commenting again on neo-authoritarianism-pushing democratization forward through the market,” Shijie jingji daobao, 10 04 1989, p. 12Google Scholar in FBIS–CHI–89–074, 19 04 1989, pp. 24–26Google Scholar. See also Jiaxiang, Wu, “An outline for studying the new authoritarianism,”Google Scholar in Jin, Liu and Lun, Li, The New Authoritarianism, pp. 47–53Google Scholar, translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring 1991), pp. 16–23.Google Scholar

53. Wu's views are also summarized in Ziqiang, Deng, FBIS–CHI–89–074, p. 27.Google Scholar

54. Jirong, Yan, “On the relationship between democracy and authority,” Jingjixue zhoubao, 9 04 1989, p. 5Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–085, 4 05 1989, pp. 46–47Google Scholar. The definition propounded by Easton is that politics is “the authoritative distribution of values.”

55. Xiaogang, Zhang, “Can the ‘new authority’ represent new productive forces?” Shijie jingji daobao, 17 04 1989, p. 15Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–081, 28 04 1989, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

56. Ziming, Chen, “Shortcomings in the structure of the neo–authoritarianism theory,” Jiangjixue zhoubao, 30 04 1989, p. 7Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–095, pp. 83–86.Google Scholar

57. Xianqing, Wu, “Can ‘authority’ be an ally of freedom,” Shijie jingji daobao, 1 05 1989, p. 14Google Scholar, in FBIS–CHI–89–100, 25 05 1989, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

58. Jiaxiang, Wu, “Neo-authoritarianism: the debate has still truly not begun,” Zhonguo qingnian, No. 6, 9 06 1989, pp. 10–11Google Scholar, in JPRS–CAR–89–101, 5 10 1989, pp. 9–10Google Scholar. The article, however, was almost certainly written well before the student movement peaked. Wu Jiaxing's article “The new authoritarianism: an express train toward democracy by building markets” appeared in Jin, Lui and Lun, Li, The New Authoritarianism, which was published in 05 1989Google Scholar. It is translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1990), pp. 36–45Google Scholar

59. Linz, Juan, “An authoritarian regime: Spain,” in Allardt-Rokkan, E. and Rokkan, S. (eds.), Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology (New York: 1970), p. 255.Google Scholar

60. Sahlin, Michael, Neo-authoritarianism and the Problem of Legitimacy: A General Study and a Nigerian Example (Stockholm: Raben & Sjogren, 1977), p. 34.Google Scholar

61. Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (London: Methuen & Co., 1964 (3rd ed.)), p. 426.Google Scholar

62. Myrdal, Gunnar, Asian Drama, Vol. II (New York: Pantheon, 1968), p. 784Google Scholar. See also Sahlin, , Neo-authoritarianism and the Problem of Legitimacy, ch. 1.Google Scholar

63. Articles by Cao Yuanzheng, then deputy chief of the Division of Comparative Economic Studies of the Chinese Economic System Reform Research Institute and a supporter of neo-authoritarianism, are an exception. He examined the Brazilian and South Korean cases in “The model of the market economy under a ‘hard government’” and the Chilean and Turkish cases in Zhongguo: fazhan yu gaige, No. 10 (1987)Google Scholar, translated in CSA, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring 1991), pp. 24–38.Google Scholar

64. By the late 1980s, Brazil suffered from the world's worst inflation and foreign indebtedness and had the most maldistributed income of any major country. See Langoni, Carlos Geraldo, The Development Crisis: Blueprint for Change (San Francisco: International Center for Economic Growth, 1987), p. 40Google Scholar; Baer, Werner, The Brazilian Economy: Growth and Development (New York: Praeger, 1989 (3rd ed.)), pp. 124–25Google Scholar and ch. 7; Morley, Samuel A., Labor Markets and Inequitable Growth: the Case of Authoritarian Capitalism in Brazil (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), ch. 3Google Scholar. Turkish growth and living standards also fell dramatically from the late 1970s to mid-1980s. See Keyder, Caglar, State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development (London: Verso, 1987), pp. 192, 225Google Scholar; Lewis, Jeffrey D. and Urata, Shujiro, Turkey: Recent Economic Performance and Medium-Term Prospects, 1978–1990 (World Bank Staff Working Papers No. 602) (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1983), pp. 13–17Google Scholar; Kopits, George, Structural Reform, Stabilization, and Growth in Turkey, (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 1987), pp. 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. For a journalistic but useful introduction to the politics and economy of the Dragons, see London, Mark and Kelly, Brian, Four Little Dragons (New York: Simon and Schuster), 1989.Google Scholar

66. On the historic and continuing role of the state, and particularly its military component, in the Korean economy, see Steinberg, David I., The Republic of Korea: Economic Transformation and Social Change (Boulder: Westview Press), 1989, p. 142Google Scholar; Huer, Jon, Marching Orders: The Role of the Military in South Korea's “Economic Miracle,” 1961–1971 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989)Google Scholar; MacDonald, Donald, The Koreans: Contemporary Politics and Society (Boulder: Westview Press, 1988), pp. 191–192Google Scholar; Nuedde-Neurath, Richard, “State intervention and export-oriented development in South Korea,” in White, Gordon (ed.), Developmental States in East Asia (New York: St Martin's Press, 1988), pp. 68–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mason, Edward S. et al. , The Economic and Social Modernization of the Republic of Korea (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 294CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ch. 8; Steers, Richard, Shin, Yoo Keun and Ungson, Gerardo, The Chaebols (Jae Bol): Korea's New Industrial Might (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), pp. 29–32Google Scholar; Soo, Rhee Yang, Ross-Larsen, B. and Pursell, G., Korea's Competitive Edge (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1984), pp. 29–35Google Scholar. On the subordination of Korean labour and increasing income disparities, see Deyo, Franklin, Beneath the Miracle: Labor in the New Asian Industrialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 135–140, 143–45Google Scholar; Sohn, Hak-kyu, Authoritarianism and Opposition in South Korea (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 131–142.Google Scholar

67. See Amsden, Alice, “Taiwan's economic history: a case of etatisme and a challenge to dependency theory,” Modern China, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 341–380 (03 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gold, Thomas, State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1986), pp. 97–111Google Scholaret passim; Li, K. T., The Evolution of Policy Behind Taiwan's Development Success (New Haven: Yale, 1988), ch. 5Google Scholar; Wade, Robert, “State intervention in ‘outward-looking’ development: neoclassical theory and Taiwan practice,”Google Scholar in White, , Developmental States, pp. 45–48, 57–58Google Scholar; Myers, Ramon, “The economic development of the Republic of China on Taiwan, 1965–1981,” in Lau, Lawrence (ed.), Models of Development: A Comparative Study of Economic Growth in South Korea and Taiwan (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1986), p. 43Google Scholar; Copper, John F., Taiwan: Nation-State or Province? (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990), p. 81Google Scholar; Sutler, Robert, Taiwan: Entering the 21st Century (Lanham: University Press of America, 1988), p. 34.Google Scholar

68. Mizra, , Multinationals, pp. 49–56Google Scholar; Deyo, Frederic, Dependent Development and Industrial Order: An Asian Case Study (New York: Praeger, 1981).Google Scholar

69. Chen, Edward K. Y., “The economic setting,” in Lethbridge, David (ed.), The Business Environment in Hong Kong (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984 (2nd ed.)), pp. 36–43Google Scholar; Deyo, , Beneath the Miracle, p. 27.Google Scholar

70. “The drenching of Roh Tae Woo,” The Economist, Vol. 315, No. 7654 (12 05 1990), pp. 33–34Google Scholar; Sterngold, James, “Korea boils as economy cools,” NYT, 11 05 1990, p. C1Google Scholar; “Economic-political unrest erupts in violent protests in South Korea,” NYT, 10 05 1990, p. A1Google Scholar; Kristof, Nicholas D., “Hong Kong's desperation over '97 can be measured in foreign passports,” NYT, 16 05 1990, p. A7Google Scholar; Rodan, Garry, The Political Economy of Singapore's Industrialization: National State and International Capital (New York: St Martin's Press, 1989), pp. 191, 197–98Google Scholar; Sanger, David, “Singapore aim: high-tech future,” NYT, 15 05 1990, p. C1.Google Scholar

71. Cheng, Tun-jen, “Is the dog barking? The middle class and democratic movements in the East Asian NICs,” International Studies Notes, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Winter 1990), pp. 10–16, 40Google Scholar; Rodan, , The Political Economy of Singapore's Industrialization, pp. 201–204.Google Scholar

72. On China's troubles in the late 1980s, see Burns, John P., “China's governance: political reform in a turbulent environment,” The China Quarterly, No. 119 (09 1989), p. 489Google Scholar; Dittmer, Lowell, “China in 1989: the crisis of incomplete reform, Asian Survey, Vol. 30, No. 1, p. 37Google Scholar; Chan, Anita, “The challenge to the social fabric,” in Goodman and Segal (eds.), China at Forty: Midlife Crisis? p. 73Google Scholar; Fewsmith, Joseph, “Agricultural crisis in China,” Problems of Communism, Vol. 37, No. 6 (11–12 1988), pp. 78–83Google Scholar. On the Soviet Union's troubles, see Goldman, Marshall, “Gorbachev the economist,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Spring 1990), pp. 29, 35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Silk, Leonard, “Soviet crisis worse, economists declare,” NYT, 15 03 1990, p. C16Google Scholar; “Behind the failure of Soviet reforms,” NYT, 2 03 1990, p. C2.Google Scholar

73. See Dolganov, V. and Stepovoi, A., “The question of a presidency is on the agenda,” Izvestia, 27 02 1990, pp. 1–2Google Scholar, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press (CDSP), Vol. 42, No. 9 (4 04 1990), pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Ovcharenko, G. and Ursov, Yu., “The country needs a president,” Pravda, 28 02 1990, p. 1Google Scholar, in CDSP, Vol. 42, No. 9 (4 04 1990), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; Lukyanov, A. I., “On making changes in and additions to the USSR Constitution (Basic Law) and establishing the post of president of the USSR,” Pravda and Izvestia, 13 03 1990, pp. 1–2Google Scholar, in CDSP, Vol. 42, No. 11 (18 04 1990), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; “On establishing the post of president of the USSR and making changes in and additions to the USSR Constitution (Basic Law),” Pravda and Izvestia, 16 03 1990, pp. 1, 2Google Scholar in CDSP, Vol. 42, No. 14 (9 05 1990)Google Scholar; Dolganov, V. and Stepovoi, A., “The deputies are for an extraordinary congress,” Izvestia, 28 02 1990, pp. 1–2Google Scholar, in CDSP, Vol. 42, No. 9 (4 04 1990), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; “The extraordinary Third Congress of USSR People's Deputies,” (verbatim report), Izvestia, 13 03 1990, pp. 3–4Google Scholar, in CDSP, Vol. 42, No. 11 (18 04 1990), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

74. Keller, Bill, “How Gorbachev rejected plan to ‘shock treat’ the economy,” NYT, 14 05 1990, p. 1Google Scholar; Bohlen, Celestine, “Soviets unveil limited plan toward ‘Regulated Market’,” NYT, 23 05 1990, p. A4Google Scholar; Keller, Bill, “Gorbachev urges a fractious party to pull together,” NYT, 3 07 1990, p. A1Google Scholar; Keller, Bill, “Soviets adopt emergency plan to center power in Gorbachev and leaders of republics,” NYT, 18 11 1990, p. A1Google Scholar; Rubinfein, Elisabeth, “Gorbachev, under pressure proposes radical shake-up,” Wall Street Journal, 19 11 1990, p. A11.Google Scholar

75. On Yeltsin's emerging powers, see Dobbs, Michael, “Green light for Yeltsin plan,” International Herald Tribune, 1–2 11 1991, p. 1Google Scholar. The Polish president Lech Walesa has also sought emergency powers and is quoted as stating that Poland may need “tough, strong, revolutionary methods… with fear… to reorient the economy.” Newman, Barry, “Poland lurches down the road to capitalism,” Asian Wall Street Journal, 20–21 09 1991, p. 1.Google Scholar

76. See also Kraus, Richard, “Eastern Europe as an alternative west for China's middle class,” Studies in Comparative Communism, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Winter 1989), pp. 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar