Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Political Efficacy, Social Network and Involvement in Public Deliberation in Rural China

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the role of political efficacy and social networks in rural China to understand the social characteristics that might affect an individual’s disposition to join in public deliberations. A model is developed and empirically tested by Partial Least Squares analysis. This shows active involvement in public deliberation to be positively influenced by political efficacy (with external political efficacy being a partial mediator), high internal or external political efficacy, and a high internal efficacy leading to high external political efficacy. Social networks have a moderating effect, individuals with a high social network status having an enhanced positive internal political efficacy-public deliberation involvement but weakened positive external political efficacy-public deliberation involvement. The research advances the theoretical understanding of complex political psycho-behavior relationships and provided insights into the role of social settings. The findings could also help boost deliberative democracy in such limited democratic societies as China.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acock, A. C., & Clarke, H. D. (1990). Alternative measures of political efficacy: Models and means. Quality & Quantity, 24(1), 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aish, A.-M., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1990). A panel model for political efficacy and responsiveness: An application of LISREL 7 with weighted least squares. Quality & Quantity, 24(4), 405–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five countries. Princeton: Princeton university.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. R. (2010). Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology, 31(1), 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M., & Carpini, M. X. D. (2012). Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & Society, 14(3), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baekkeskov, E., & Öberg, P. (2017). Freezing deliberation through public expert advice. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(7), 1006–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive social theory. Englewood Cliffs: Pretince Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, R. (2004). Political efficacy and voter turnout in East and West Germany. German Politics, 13(2), 317–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmke, F. J., & Bowen, D. C. (2012). Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning, C. R., Dietz, R. D., & Feinberg, S. L. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83(2), 503–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action: Network models of social structure, perception, and action. New York: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. E. (2013). Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberations, discursive participation and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. A. (2015). Decision networks and quasi-citizens: Who deliberates, where? Policy Studies, 36(3), 345–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M., & Guo, J. (2013). The role of political eficacy on the relationship between facebook use and participatory behaviors: A comparative study of young American and Chinese Adults. Cyberpsychology Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 460–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In J. Bohman, & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P., & Chan, H. S. (2009). State capacity building in China: An introduction. Public Administration and Development, 29(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, F. L., Delli Carpini, M. X., & Jacobs, L. (2007). Who deliberates? Discursive participation in America. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: can the people govern (pp. 25–44). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutwin, D. (2003). The character of deliberation: Equality, argument, and the formation of public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(3), 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles network centrality and gender segregation in same-and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76(1), 48–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: Deliberative polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, 40(02), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J., & Xenos, M. (2010). Of attitudes and engagement: Clarifying the reciprocal relationship between civic attitudes and political participation. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 318–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., Setälä, M., & Herne, K. (2010). Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review, 2(01), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartz Karp, J., Anderson, P., Gasti, J., & Felicetti, A. (2010). The Australian citizens’ parliament: Forging shared identity through public deliberation. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(4), 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B. C., & Bean, C. S. (1993). Political efficacy: A comparative study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia. European Journal of Political Research, 23(3), 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three different logics at work. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, B., & Warren, M. E. (2011). Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 269–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, F. M., & Leal, D. L. (2001). The opportunity to engage: How race, class, and institutions structure access to educational deliberation. Educational Policy, 15(3), 474–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative contexts of political behavior: Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. Journal of Politics, 55(2), 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, K., Kobayashi, T., & Richey, S. (2012). Recreation and participation: Testing the political impact of social interaction. Social Science Quarterly, 93(2), 464–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, H. R. (1975). Idols of the tribe: Group identity and political change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Carpini, M. X. D. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, M., & Sohl, S. (2010). Who comes strengthened out of public deliberation?: Analyzing changes in political efficacy among participants in a deliberative conference. Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR graduate conference, pp. 1–35.

  • Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2008). Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klofstad, C. A. (2009). Civic talk and civic participation: The moderating effect of individual predispositions. American Politics Research, 37(5), 856–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komporozos-Athanasiou, A., & Thompson, M. (2015). The role of emotion in enabling and conditioning public deliberation outcomes: A sociological investigation. Public Administration, 93(4), 1138–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F. L. F. (2006). Collective efficacy, support for democratization, and political participation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(3), 297–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2011). Exploring the role of social networks in affective organizational commitment: Network centrality, strength of ties, and structural holes. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leighley, J. E. (1990). Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Research, 18(4), 459–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 467–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcum, C. S. (2011). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 40(2), 235–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClain, P. D., Johnson Carew, J. D., Walton, E., Jr., & Watts, C. S. (2009). Group membership, group identity, and group consciousness: Measures of racial identity in American politics? Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 471–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClurg, S. D. (2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 449–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, 6(1), 151–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 951–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nannicini, T., Stella, A., Tabellini, G., & Troiano, U. (2013). Social capital and political accountability. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 222–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., Kennedy, R. P., Lazer, D. M. J., & Sokhey, A. E. (2010). Who wants to deliberate—And why? American Political Science Review, 104(3), 566–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitzl, C. (2016). The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development. Journal of Accounting Literature, 37, 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okamoto, J., Johnson, C. A., Leventhal, A., Milam, J., Pentz, M. A., Schwartz, D., et al. (2011). Social network status and depression among adolescents: An examination of social network influences and depressive symptoms in a Chinese sample. Research in human development, 8(1), 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Hidden consequences of political efficacy: Testing an efficacy-apathy model of political mobilization. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(4), 533–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21(3), 315–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setälä, M., Grönlund, K., & Herne, K. (2010). Citizen deliberation on nuclear power: A comparison of two decision-making methods. Political Studies, 58(4), 688–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, S., & Abelson, J. (2012). Why and when should we use public deliberation? Hastings Center Report, 42(2), 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, Y., & Feng, S. (2013). Adapt or voice: Class, guanxi, and protest propensity in China. The Journal of Asian Studies, 72(01), 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R., & Halperin, E. (2013). Making a difference: Political efficacy and policy preference construction. British Journal of Political Science, 1(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, Q. (2006). Deliberative democracy and village self-government in China: ed. Ethan Leib and Baogang He. New York: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 307–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2012). Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Q., Perkins, D. D., & Chow, J. C.-C. (2010). Sense of community, neighboring, and social capital as predictors of local political participation in China. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by The National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 16BSH080).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China

    Zhijun Pei & Yingchun Pan

  2. School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Martin Skitmore

Authors
  1. Zhijun Pei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingchun Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Skitmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingchun Pan.

Appendix

Appendix

Measurement Validity Before testing the hypothesized relationships, measurement validity is first assessed. Table 2 summarizes the values for the average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability, R square, Cronbach’s alpha and correlations between all the study variables. All Cronbach’s alpha values, values for AVE and composite reliabilities are around or exceed the threshold values (0.7, 0.5 and 0.7, respectively). The construct reliability measures for the latent variables, therefore, are satisfactory. Discriminant validity is assessed at both the item level and the construct level. At the item level, the PLS confirmatory factor analysis indicates that all indicators load at their highest with their respective construct and that no indicator loads higher on other constructs than on its intended construct, which suggest that the discriminant validity of survey items is established. At the construct level, comparing the square root of each reflective construct’s AVE and latent variable correlations (Table 2) suggests that discriminant validity is satisfactory. Evaluation of the reflective measurement models reveals that all constructs are of satisfactory reliability and validity for the purposes of the analysis.

Multicollinearity The high correlation among political efficacy, social networks and public deliberation may be interpreted as reflecting a strong positive relationship between these constructs, as was predicted in the hypotheses. However, it may also be indicative of scale item cross loading on both constructs and inaccuracy in measurement. Additional checks to assess the threat of multicollinearity include the variance inflation factor (VIF) when all these predictors are incorporated into the models. All VIFs are below 5.0 when all predictors are entered, and tolerance is over .2, which indicates that multi-collinearity is unlikely to be a significant issue affecting the validity of the results. These results, together with evidence that PLS SEM is robust to relatively high levels of multicollinearity, indicate that this is not likely to be a significant problem in the analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pei, Z., Pan, Y. & Skitmore, M. Political Efficacy, Social Network and Involvement in Public Deliberation in Rural China. Soc Indic Res 139, 453–471 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1737-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1737-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation