Policy Design and Social Construction amid Mass Protests
Studies on mass protests primarily examine the process, consequences and implications of protests from such angles as resource mobilization, political structure and opportunity, as well as policy frameworks, with little attention paid to the guiding role that related government policy have in dealing with mass protests. This paper analyzes the basic characters of government policies, further explains the basic logic behind their design, and takes the response to the Wukan incident as a typical case for confirmatory analysis. The study find that policy elements such as policy purpose, target groups, policy tools and executive bodies have remarkable underlying assumptions about effectiveness. If some assumptions fail to occur, policy failure is likely to appear. Therefore, in face of varying circumstances, it is recommended that policy design attach importance to elements about social construction, and adopt an open, interactive model which involves protesters in policy design.
Little Wukan, Big China: Lessons to Be Drawn from the Wukan Incident for China’s Political and Economic Development
Abstract This paper argues that the Wukan Incident reflects the common difficulties faced at the state-society level by contemporary China as the country finds itself experiencing both an important strategic chapter in its development, and a period during which social problems are coming to the fore. As such, the task of developing an understanding of the Wukan Incident offers the chance to draw crucial lessons about China’s future political and economic development. Firstly, the modernization development model, according to which economic growth and development take precedence above all else, has already led to a building up of serious social problems. China’s future development efforts must draw on and put into practice the theories of the Scientific Outlook on Development. Secondly, the demands made by the villagers of Wukan could feasibly become political and economic problems common throughout the whole country. This includes issues such as how state-owned assets and land are dealt with; transparency of public finances; and safeguards for the democratic rights and interests of Chinese citizens. The government must face these difficulties and use reforms to tackle each of them. Should it fail to do so, these issues could spark a serious social crisis or even affect the stability of the political order. Thirdly, the current mechanisms by which the Party and the government respond to the public’s interest-related claims require urgent improvement. Finally, there is no magic pill to solve the political and economic problems faced in China today. Elections are certainly not a magic solution.
The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell
The “policy scientist of democracy” was a model for engaged scholarship invented and embodied by Harold D. Lasswell. This disciplinary persona emerged in Lasswell's writings and wartime consultancies during the 1940s, well before he announced in his APSA presidential address, printed in the Review precisely 50 years ago, that political science was “the policy science par excellence.” The policy scientist of democracy knew all about the process of elite decision making, and he put his knowledge into practice by advising those in power, sharing in important decisions, and furthering the cause of dignity. Although Lasswell formulated this ambitious vision near the zenith of his influence, the discipline accorded the ideal—and Lasswell—a mixed reception. Some heralded the policy scientist of democracy; others observed a contradictory figure, at once positivist and value-laden, elitist and democratic, heroic and implausible. The conflicted response exemplifies Lasswell's legacy. The policy scientist of democracy was—and is—too demanding and too contradictory a hero. But the vital questions Lasswell grappled with still must be asked a century into the discipline's development: what is the role of the political scientist in a democratic society? Do political scientists have any obligation to inform or shape policy? Are there democratic values that political science should serve, and if so, what are they? Lasswell never satisfactorily answered these questions. But in asking and trying to answer them—in his writings and in his own career—he was guided by a profound and inspiring conviction: Political science has a unique ability, and even perhaps a special obligation, to engage with issues of democratic choice that fundamentally affect the life circumstances of citizens.