Developmental pluralism and stratified developmental citizenship: an alternative perspective on Chinese post-socialism

ABSTRACT

Developmental citizenship, which assumes the qualities of both political and social citizenship, has decisively shaped the political, social as well as economic relations between many postcolonial states and their respective citizenries. It is the historical imperative of national development that has even induced many state-socialist countries to embark on ideologically self-contradicting paths toward various types of market economies. In China’s so-called pragmatist reform, for instance, the nominally communist leadership still monopolizes political power under the premise that its developmental mission necessitates both dictatorship and the market economy. Its sociopolitical governance in the reform era presupposes the societal validity and necessity of developmental citizenship. However, it should be noted that China’s accommodation of liberal socioeconomic institutions and practices has not necessarily required a full abolishment of socialist institutions and practices. China’s developmental pluralism, insinuated in Deng Xiaoping’s famous call for ‘black cat, white cat’, has ended up resuscitating many socialist-era institutions and practices as integral elements of the so-called socialist market economy. Chinese people’s developmental citizenship in the reform era has closely reflected an extremely complicated socioeconomic order under which socialist institutions and practices both mitigate and amplify market-embedded inequalities.

KEYWORDS:

• China
• post-socialism
• developmental citizenship
• social governance
• institutional pluralism
• stratification

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. If pragmatism is defined mainly as positioning oneself unshackled from practically uncertain ideologies or theories and focusing on presently manageable tasks and/or less risky options, it falls short of being qualified as a political (economic) paradigm and instead resembles ordinary people’s way of daily life.

2. Instead of collective welfare, according to Judith Shklar (1991), self-responsibly earned income through work has been the kernel of American citizenship.

3. See the contribution by Wong and So in this special issue for a latest appraisal of this problem.

4. See Moon’s contribution in this special issue concerning such contrasting roles (corporate developmental vs. social responsibility) as expected of domestic and transnational firms in the Chinese pharmaceutical industry.

5. See Lee’s (2018) lucid account on the socioeconomic status of aged peasants in such developmental disenfranchisement. Also, see Du and Yang (2006).