Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 453–471 | Cite as

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

  • Zhijun Pei
  • Yingchun Pan
  • Martin Skitmore
Article

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.

Keywords

Political efficacy Public deliberation Social networks Rural China 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

References

  1. Acock, A. C., & Clarke, H. D. (1990). Alternative measures of political efficacy: Models and means. Quality & Quantity, 24(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five countries. Princeton: Princeton university.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. R. (2010). Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology, 31(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baekkeskov, E., & Öberg, P. (2017). Freezing deliberation through public expert advice. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(7), 1006–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive social theory. Englewood Cliffs: Pretince Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, R. (2004). Political efficacy and voter turnout in East and West Germany. German Politics, 13(2), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boehmke, F. J., & Bowen, D. C. (2012). Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burt, R. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action: Network models of social structure, perception, and action. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, D. E. (2013). Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chalmers, D. A. (2015). Decision networks and quasi-citizens: Who deliberates, where? Policy Studies, 36(3), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Collins, P., & Chan, H. S. (2009). State capacity building in China: An introduction. Public Administration and Development, 29(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 19(2), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three different logics at work. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. He, B., & Warren, M. E. (2011). Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative contexts of political behavior: Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. Journal of Politics, 55(2), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Isaacs, H. R. (1975). Idols of the tribe: Group identity and political change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klofstad, C. A. (2009). Civic talk and civic participation: The moderating effect of individual predispositions. American Politics Research, 37(5), 856–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leighley, J. E. (1990). Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Research, 18(4), 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 467–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marcum, C. S. (2011). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 40(2), 235–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, 6(1), 151–193.Google Scholar
  55. Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 951–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.Google Scholar
  58. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pickett, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  65. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Solomon, S., & Abelson, J. (2012). Why and when should we use public deliberation? Hastings Center Report, 42(2), 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Su, Y., & Feng, S. (2013). Adapt or voice: Class, guanxi, and protest propensity in China. The Journal of Asian Studies, 72(01), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Tan, Q. (2006). Deliberative democracy and village self-government in China: ed. Ethan Leib and Baogang He. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public AdministrationZhejiang University of Finance and EconomicsHangzhouChina
  2. 2.School of Urban DevelopmentQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations