Dimensionality, contextuality, and conceptual equivalence: the case of critical citizens

ABSTRACT

The paper argues that dimensionality and contextuality analyses are essential to maintaining conceptual equivalence in comparative studies of critical citizens. It argues that underlying the concept of critical citizens is a two-dimensional typology of citizens. One dimension is trust in existing state institutions, and the other is adherence to the underlying regime principles. Measuring each dimension with a dichotomy, we gobserve four types of citizens: (1) trustful system supporters; (2) trustful system opponents; (3) distrustful system supporters; (4) distrustful system opponents. Critical citizens are distrustful system supporters in established democracies, where the concept originates. However, the concept is stretched when applied to non-democracies like China, where critical citizens are distrustful system opponents. The paper generalises the concept, arguing that critical citizens have two defining features. First, they distrust the national government, whether it is democratically elected or self-appointed. Second, they accept electoral and representative democracy as the ideal form of government. Drawing on a national survey, the study finds that about twelve percent of Chinese people are critical citizens. Furthermore, it shows that individuals dissatisfied with the economy, government performance and corruption control are more likely to be critical citizens.

KEYWORDS:

• Critical citizens
• trust in government
• acceptance of regime principles
• support for democracy
• China

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the financial support of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (Project ID: CUHK14601820). He thanks Yue Guan and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. He thanks Kai Yang for technical assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The national survey is the Mainland China chapter of the third wave of the Asian Barometer Survey, which is co-directed by Professor Fu Hu and Professor Yun-han Chu and receives major funding support from Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, Academia Sinica and National Taiwan University. The Asian Barometer Project Office is solely responsible for data distribution. Details of the sampling procedure are available on the website of the survey proprietor: http://www.asianbarometer.org/survey/wave-4th-survey. Data used with permission.

2. The survey employs a six-point scale, but only a very small minority of respondents express strong, very strong, and extremely strong distrust. For the sake of simplicity, the study merges the three expressions of strong distrust into one category.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee.

Notes on contributors

Lianjiang Li

Lianjiang Li is a professor in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research focuses popular contentious and political trust in China. He is the co-author (with Kevin J. O’Brien) of Rightful Resistance in Rural China (Cambridge University Press, 2006). His research articles have appeared in China Quarterly, China Journal, Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Studies, Journal of Contemporary China, Modern China, Political Behavior and Political Studies. Email: [email protected].