Party-led public participation in neighborhood governance: a comparative analysis of two forms of social networks

Abstract

Neighborhood governance has been the center of attention in urban politics and public policy for many decades. Although wide-ranging literature explores the favorable effects of public participation on neighborhood governance, it is only relatively recently that attention has been directed to the manner in which effective participation develops and the consequent implications for participatory democracy. This article examines how local states encourage public participation in neighborhood governance using social networks in contemporary China. Based on a case study of the Minor Facts program, our findings demonstrate that even when participation mechanisms are introduced by the Party, horizontal networks also play a role in participation. Moreover, we present two forms of social networks and their mechanisms to illustrate how local states strategically mobilize them. These social networks also increase the social status and moral authority of Party members and political elites in ways they find useful for strengthening local government capacity to ensure political compliance. This article provides an important qualitative insight into network-related activators of participatory behaviors in the community.

Keywords:

• Party-led public participation
• social networks
• neighborhood governance
• China
• political efficacy

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 Tang, “Grid Governance”.

2 Burt, “The Network Structure of Social Capital”.

3 Fung, “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance”; Putnam, Bowling Alone

4 Fukuyama, “Social Capital and Development”.

5 Deng and O’Brien, “Relational Repression in China”.

6 Coleman, “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”.

7 Tsai, “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability”.

8 Musso and Weare, “From Participatory Reform to Social Capital”.

9 Li et al., “Participatory Budgeting and The Party”; Tang, “Grid Governance”.

10 Lin, "Social Networks and Status Attainment".

11 Xu et al., “Sense of Community, Neighboring”; Tong et al., “The Role of Social Capital”.

12 Zhang et al., “Social Capital in China”. 

13 Katherine et al., “Emanating Effects”; Ingham and Levin, “Can Deliberative Minipublics Influence Public Opinion”.

14 See note 6 above.

15 See Tsai, “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability”.

16 See note 6 above.

17 See note 2 above.

18 Trigilia, “Social Capital and Local Development”.

19 Fukuyama, “Social Capital, Civil Society and Development”.

20 See note 2 above.

21 Bourdieu, “The Form of Capital”.

22 Granovetter, “Economic Action, Social Structure”.

23 Mutz, “The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks”.

24 Granovetter, “Economic Action, Social Structure”; Putnam and Feldstein, Better Together: Restoring the American Community, 2.

25 Kim and Matsubayashi, “Civic Engagement and Mass-Elite Policy”.

26 Henry et al., “Belief System and Social Capital”.

27 Lin et al., Social Capital: Theory and Research, 3.

28 Lin et al., Social Capital: An International Research Program, 7.

29 Reich and Hershcovis, “Interpersonal Relationships at Work”.

30 Wang, “Exploring the Determinants of Network Effectiveness”.

31 Gupta et al., “The Effects of National Cultural Values”.

32 Borgatti and Foster, “The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research”.

33 Musso et al., “Toward ‘Strong Democracy’ in Global Cities”; Cristofoli et al., “Collaborative Administration”.

34 Morrell, “Deliberation Democratic Decision-Making”; Nancy, “Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation”.

35 Mattingly, The Art of Political Control in China, 2.

36 Siciliano, “Professional Networks and Street-Level Performance”; Moulton and Sandfort, “The Strategic Action Field Framework”.

37 Woodman, “Local Politics, Local Citizenship”.

38 See note 1 above.

39 Guo, “The Emergence of the Citizen Concept”; Shi, “Democratic Values Supporting”.

40 Liu et al., “Do Citizen Participation Programs Help Citizens Feel Satisfied”; Wang and Clarke, “Four Modes of Neighbourhood Governance”.

41 Tang, “Grid Governance”; Zhang et al., “Experimentalist Governance in China”.

42 Liu, “People’s Will or the Central Government’s Plan”; Wang and Clarke, “Four Modes of Neighbourhood Governance”.

43 Shi, “Democratic Values Supporting”; Wang and Clarke, “Four Modes of Neighbourhood Governance”.

44 Liu, “People’s Will or the Central Government’s Plan”.

45 Li, “Citizen Participation in China’s Eco-City”; Zhang and Liao, “The Active Participation in A Community Transformation Project in China”.

46 Li, “Public Participation in China”. 

47 Nagao and Kennedy, “The Rite to Vote”.

48 Liu et al., “Do Citizen Participation Programs Help Citizens Feel Satisfied”.

49 Yi et al., “The Influence of Religious Belief”.

50 Fieldwork, interview, and observation, April and May 2021.

51 Fung, “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance”; Suyeon and Nabatchi, “Different Process, Different Outcomes”.

52 Ergenc, “Political Efficacy through Deliberative Participation”.

53 Fieldwork, March 2021.

54 Zhang, “The Theory of Integration of ‘Three-Governances”; Yu, “Sustainable Innovation of ‘Three-Governances’”.

55 Liu, “Empowered Autonomy”.

56 Wang and Clarke, “Four Modes of Neighbourhood Governance”.

57 It is selected as one of the best-developed county-level cities in 2022.

58 See China Daily, http://jiangsu.chinadaily.com.cn/zhangjiagang/2020-11/17/c_564292.htm

59 Elite interview, March 2021.

60 Elite interview, May 2021.

61 Lucidarme et al., “A Comparative Study of Health Promotion Networks”.

62 See note 30 above.

63 Qin and Owen, “The CCP, Campaign Governance and COVID-19”.

64 Ansell and Gash, “Collaborative Platforms as A Governance Strategy”; Emerson and Nabatchi, “Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes”.

65 See note 60 above.

66 Edelenbos et al., “The Evolution of Community Self-Organization”.

67 Choi and Kim, “Power and Cognitive Accuracy”.

68 Zhang and Zhu, “Social Ties and Citizen-Initiated Contacts”.

69 Zhang and Fu, “Non-institutional Factors”.

70 Interview, a resident of Compound D, May 2021.

71 Interview, a cell leader of Compound D, an RCs member of Compound D, May 2021.

72 Cropanzano and Mitchell, “Social Exchange Theory”; Skvoretz and Agneessens, “Reciprocity, Multiplexity, and Exchange”.

73 Lin et al., Social Capital: Theory and Research, 4.

74 Purdue, “Neighbourhood Governance”; Klijn et al., “Trust in Governance Networks”.

75 Interview, a representative of the self-elected group in Compound D, May 2021.

76 Nabatchi, “Putting the ‘Public’ Back in Public Values Research”.

77 Interview, in Compound L, June 2021.

78 Interview, resident interviews in Compound L, June 2021

79 Elite interview, October 2021.

80 Interview, a resident of Compound L, June 2021.

81 Berlin and Carlström, “Collaboration Exercises”.

82 See note 79 above.

83 Interview, a resident of Compound F, a volunteer in Compound F, July 2021.

84 Interview, residents of Compound F, July 2021.

85 Carlile, “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries”.

86 See note 52 above.

87 Wang and Clarke, “Four Modes of Neighbourhood Governance”;

88 Wang and Clarke, “Four Modes of Neighbourhood Governance”; Fieldwork, interview, and observation, June and July 2021.

89 See note 7 above.

90 See note 50 above.

91 See note 35 above.

92 See note 68 above.

93 Fieldwork, interview, and observation, June and July 2021.

94 Boulianne, “Building Faith in Democracy”; McAllister, “Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust”.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Huifeng Li

Huifeng Li is an Associate Professor in the School of Politics and Public Administration at Soochow University. She is also a researcher in the Center for Chinese Urbanization Studies and Collaborative Innovation Center for New Urbanization and Social Governance, Soochow University. Trained in economy and political science, her current interests include administrative reform and local governance in China, as well as the modernization of urban governance. At the moment, she conducts field research on the modes and consequences of China’s new digital governance policy in various municipalities. Email: [email protected]

Ceren Ergenc

Ceren Ergenc is a researcher at the East Asian Studies and Research Centre (CERAO), Autonomous University of Barcelona. She holds a PhD in Political Science from Boston University and previously held positions as an assistant professor at Middle East Technical University and associate professor at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. Her research interests include China’s local governance, public participation in governance, comparative urban politics, and China’s domestic and international policy process.