Iza Ding’s The Performative State comes at an important time in environmental governance. Powerful states’ resistance to acknowledging the necessity of action to protect the environment is largely now something of a distant memory (although, of course, notable laggards remain). In fact, environmental action is becoming, more and more, central to states’ policy portfolios. Foremost amongst these changed actors is China. Whilst China’s initial launch of the ‘ecological civilisation’ concept and ensuing pledges around environmental ambition were met with suspicion by other global players, the fifteen years since have evidenced a continuation of (at least rhetorical) commitment to protecting the environment. This commitment has been underscored by the long-standing environmental considerations of the country’s ruler, Xi Jingping, who, even when governor of Zhejiang (2002–2007), publicised the need for the Chinese Communist Party to take a more active role in correcting the harmful balance existing between rapid industrialisation and caring for the natural environment.
Whilst these rhetorical commitments to environmental action are now established in China, as Ding states: ‘Beneath any smooth rhetoric always lies a choppy reality’ (p. 61). And so it is with China’s commitment to environmental protection. Most readers will be aware of China’s contemporary record as the world’s largest polluter, with almost as much coal-fired power capacity as the rest of the world combined, and a population which feels the negative health effects of the country’s role as the ‘world’s factory’. One might also imagine that China’s authoritarian politics gives citizens little chance to protest such a situation. On this latter point, readers of this text may be surprised to learn how responsive the Chinese state can be to citizens’ concerns. However, what is key, is whether that response has substance.
Ding establishes performance as an important aspect of governing from the very beginning of the book, linking to the example of Julius Caesar’s utilisation rhetorical performance during his ascent to power. However, whilst Caesars are few, Ding asserts that this does not mean that the act of performing in governance is also rare. Whereas superstar political figures go down in history for their speeches and charisma, the average bureaucrat may well also be busy playing their own role – acting the part of the change maker when they well know that they have little power to deliver. This focus on the performance is this work’s core. The Performative State hinges on a simple and effective argument: when there is a high level of public scrutiny and demand for action, but state capacity is simultaneously weak, the state will proceed to act performatively to appear to be meeting public demands. This is a concept built on extensive field work, case research, and quantitative survey work to develop a coherent argument throughout this work.
Chapter 3 is the empirical heart of the book. This is where Ding’s ethnographic fieldwork, observing an Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) office in ‘Lakeville’, China, is first reported and makes for fascinating and highly enjoyable reading. Scenes of committed, intelligent bureaucrats trying their best to ‘perform’ governance in a reaction to their weak institutional capacity and the demands of public opinion are simultaneously endearing and disheartening. This chapter is also (in a rare triumph for any academic book) genuinely amusing. Accounts of citizens’ messages to EPB agents (‘Why is no one taking care of this strong rubber smell … Taxpayers are raising a bunch of lazy animals’ (p. 83)), of agents’ commitment to their own performances, and the extent to which one particular factory owner tried to escape an EPB reprimand, are all examples which stay in one’s mind long after putting the book down.
It is also in this case study that the weight of Ding’s conception of performative governance comes to bear. The EPB presented here is a clearcut example of Ding’s concept, but it is the concept itself that one should take away from this read: identifications of performative governance are not static. In Ding’s later fieldwork it is revealed that the EPB has been provided some of the capacity it lacked during her first observations and is moving towards a more substantive form of governance. Nevertheless, while the EPB may have to perform less, the concept has much wider application and one can foresee the application of the ‘performative governance’ label to a myriad of other cases by other scholars in the future. The framework is one that Ding suggests is a way for researchers to analyse and understand state behaviour without having backstage access to the highest echelons of decision makers.
The concept is useful not only in identifying attempts to perform, but also when these performances fail to hit the mark. To illustrate this, in Chapter 5 Ding broadens the case study focus, utilising examples that include Flint, Michigan’s water crisis (a useful non-authoritarian state example) and Wuhan, China’s COVID-19 outbreak to explore ‘performative breakdown’. These cases show that whilst performative governance might work in response to slow violences, when the lack of substantive governance is more immediately apparent (with lead-poisoned water or a fast-spreading and deadly virus), performance cannot act as a stand-in to pacify public expectations and needs.
The Performative State stands as a testament to the possibilities of mixed-methods research and makes a sizable contribution to the field. This brilliantly written and researched work is one that those studying environmental governance, state responsiveness, or bureaucratic capacity will find captivating and highly useful.
![Fund for environmental causes such as supporting lawsuits, building grassroots lobbying networks and donor base.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112462/JournalAd-FENP-DirectResponse-Skyscraper.png"})