Who Cares About Procedural Fairness? An Experimental Approach to Support for Village Elections

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

After roughly two decades of village elections, to what extent are high quality local elections consolidated in rural China? While attitudinal and behavioral evidence tell a mixed story, this paper leverages experimental data to understand how the procedural quality of village elections, specifically the methods used to nominate candidates, affects support for elections in rural China. After establishing that procedural fairness has a significant effect on whether villagers support village elections, we explore why this is the case. Using democratic consolidation as an analogy, we explore both instrumental and intrinsic motivations for procedural fairness. Some types of people – namely farmers and wealthy villagers, may value procedural fairness for ego-tropic, instrumental reasons. Alternatively, some may value procedurally fair elections for the expected collective outcomes, such as increased public goods provision. Finally, some individuals likely appreciate procedural fairness as an inherent good. We assess each motivation by interacting nomination procedures with measures of profession, income, village level public goods provision and egalitarian core values. With the exception of farmers, each interaction is significant, suggesting that multiple constituencies value high quality village elections in the countryside, likely, for diverse reasons.

Keywords

Procedural Fairness Village Elections Instrumental and Intrinsic Value Egalitarian Core Values Interactions 

References

  1. 1.
    Schedler, Andreas. 1998. What is democratic consolidation? Journal of Democracy 9(2): 91–107.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schedler, Andreas. 2001. Measuring democratic consolidation. Studies in Comparative International Development 36(1): 66–92. doi:10.1007/BF02687585.
  3. 3.
    Valenzuela, J Samuel. 1992. Democratic consolidation in post-transitional settings: notion, process and facilitating conditions. In Issues in democratic consolidation: the new south American democracies in comparative perspective, ed. Scott Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell, and J Samuel Valuenzuela. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, Jie. 2005. Popular support for self-government in China: intensity and sources. Asian Survey 45(6): 865–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zweig, David, and Chung Siu Fung. 2007. Elections, democratic values, and economic development in rural China. Journal of Contemporary China 16(50): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan, Qingshan, and Qiushui Xin. 2007. Village election and governance: do villagers care? Journal of Contemporary China 16(53): 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    He, Baogang. 2006. A survey study of voting behavior and political participation in Zhejiang. Japanese Journal of Political Science 7(3): 225. doi:10.1017/S1468109906002349.
  8. 8.
    Zhong, Yang, and Jie Chen. 2002. To vote or not to vote an analysis of peasants’ participation in Chinese Village elections. Comparative Political Studies 35(6): 686–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The private roots of public action: gender, equality and political participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verba, Sidney, Nancy Burns, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1997. Knowing and caring about politics: gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics 59(4): 1051–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shi, Tianjian. 1999b. “Voting and Nonvoting in China : Voting Behavior in Plebiscitary and Limited- Choice Elections” 61 (4): 1115–1139.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Brien, Kevin. 1994. Implementing political reform in China’s villages. The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, no. 32: 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oi, Jean C., and Scott Rozelle. 2000. Elections and power: the locus of decision-making in Chinese villages. The China Quarterly 162: 513–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shi, Tianjian. 1999a. Village committee elections in China: institutionalist tactics for democracy. World Politics 51(3): 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kennedy, John James. 2002. The face of ‘grassroots democracy’ in rural China: real versus cosmetic elections. Asian Survey 42(3): 456–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landry, Pierre F., Deborah Davis, and Shiru Wang. 2010. Elections in rural China: competition without parties. Comparative Political Studies 43(6): 763–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, Lianjiang. 2001. Elections and popular resistance in rural China. China Information 15(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bratton, Michael, and Robert Mattes. 2001. Support for democracy in Africa: intrinsic or instrumental? British Journal of Political Science 31(3): 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeCharms, Richard. 1968. Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCormick, Barrett L. 1996. China’s Leninist parliament and public sphere: a comparative analysis. In China after socialism: in the footsteps of Eastern Europe or East Asia? ed. Barrett L. McCormick and Jonathon Urger, 29–53. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Brien, Kevin J. 2011. Understanding China’s grassroots elections. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 1617460. Rochester: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kennedy, John James. 2007. “The Implementation of Village Elections and Tax for Fee Reform in Rural Northwest China.” In Grassroots Political Reform in Contemporary China, edited by Elizabeth Perry and Merle Goldman, 48–74. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pastor, Robert A., and Qingshan Tan. 2000. The meaning of China’s village elections. The China Quarterly 162: 490–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tan, Qingshan. 2004. Building institutional rules and Procedures : village election in China. Policy Sciences 37(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kennedy, John James, Scott Rozelle, and Yaojiang Shi. 2004. Elected leaders and collective land: farmers’ evaluation of villager leaders’ performance in rural China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 9(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li, Lianjiang. 2003. The empowering effect of village elections. Asian Survey 43(4): 648–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, Lianjiang, and Kevin O’Brien. 1999. The struggle over village elections. In In the paradox of China’s post-Mao reforms, edited by merle Goldman and Roderick MacFarcquar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deci, Edward L., and Ryan, Richard M. 2010. “Intrinsic Motivation.” In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Justus, James, Mark Colyvan, Helen Regan, and Lynn Maguire. 2009. Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(4): 187–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sagoff, Mark. 2002. On the value of natural ecosystems: the Catskills parable. Politics and the Life Sciences 21(1): 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brennan, Geoffrey. 2008. Psychological dimensions in voter choice. Public Choice 137(3): 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walker, David W. 2009. Citizen-driven reform of local-level basic services: community-based performance monitoring. Development in Practice 19(8): 1035–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thibaut, John, and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Erbaum.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ake, Claude. 2001. Democracy and Development in Africa. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elster, Jon. 1993. The necessity and impossibility of simultaneous economic and political reform. In Constitutional democracy: transitions in the contemporary world, 267–274. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the market: political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sarsfield, Rodolfo, and Fabián Echegaray. 2006. Opening the black box: how satisfaction with democracy and its perceived efficacy affect regime preference in Latin America. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18(2): 153–173. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh088.
  38. 38.
    White, Tyrene. 1992. Reforming the countryside. Current History 91(566): 273–277.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. JHU Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, cultural change and democracy: the human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rose, Richard, Mishler, William and Haerpfer, Christian. 1998. Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies. JHU Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kelliher, Daniel. 1997. The Chinese debate over village self-government. The China Journal 37: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feldman, Stanley. 1988. Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of Core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science 32(2): 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McCann, James A. 1997. Electoral choices and Core value change: the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science 41(2): 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Feldman, Stanley, and John Zaller. 1992. The political culture of ambivalence: ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 268–307.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schwartz, Shalom. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thorisdottir, Hulda, John T. Jost, Ido Liviatan, and Patrick E. Shrout. 2007. Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: cross-National Evidence from eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(2): 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schwartz, Shalom H., Gian Vittorio Caprara, and Michele Vecchione. 2010. Basic personal values, Core political values, and voting: a longitudinal analysis: basic personal values, political values and voting. Political Psychology 31(3): 421–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goren, Paul. 2005. Party identification and Core political values. American Journal of Political Science 49(4): 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vecchione, Michele, Gianvittorio Caprara, Francesco Dentale, and Shalom H. Schwartz. 2013. Voting and values: reciprocal effects over time. Political Psychology 34(4): 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fan, Ying. 2000. A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 7(2): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Joseph, William. 2014. “Ideology and China’s Political Development” in Politics in China 2nd ed. Joseph, ed. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. 149–191.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thibaut, John, Laurens Walker, Stephen LaTour, and Pauline Houlden. 1974. Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review 26(6): 1271–1289.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kinder, Donald R., and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1981. Sociotropic Politics : the American case. British Journal of Political Science 11(2): 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lewis-Beck, Micheal. 1985. Pocketbook voting in U.S. National Elections: fact or artifact? American Journal of Political Science 29(2): 348–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mutz, Diana C., and Jeffrey J. Mondak. 1997. Dimensions of Sociotropic behavior: group-based judgements of fairness and well-being. American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 284–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Singer, Matthew M., and Ryan E. Carlin. 2013. Context counts: the election cycle, development, and the nature of economic voting. Journal of Politics 75(3): 730–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Landesa. 2012. “Summary of 2011 17-Province Survey’s Findings.” http://www.landesa.org/wp-content/uploads/Landesa_China_Survey_Report_2011.pdf.
  60. 60.
    Tao, Ran, Dali L. Yang, Ming Li, and Lu. Xi. 2014. How does political trust affect social trust? An analysis of survey data from rural China using an instrumental variables approach. International Political Science Review 35(2): 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lagerkvist, Johan. 2012. The WukanUprising and Chinese state-SocietyRelations: toward―shadow civil society. International Journal of China Studies 3(3): 345–361.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Prosterman, Roy, and Zhu, Keliang. 2012. “Land Reform Efforts in China | China Business Review.” October 1. http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/land-reform-efforts-in-china/.
  63. 63.
    Zhu, Keliang, Roy Prosterman, Jianping Ye, and Ping Li. 2007. Rural land question in China: analysis and recommendations based on a Seventeen-Province survey, the. NYUJ Int’l. L. & Pol. 38: 761.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. 2002. Reversal of fortune: geography and institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(4): 1231–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    North, Douglass C., and Barry R. Weingast. 1989. Constitutions and commitment: evolution of institutions governing public choice. Journal of Economic History 49(4): 803–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Olson, Mancur. 1993. Dictatorship, democracy, and development. The American Political Science Review 87(3): 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zhang, Xiaobo. 2006. Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in China: implications for growth and inequality. Journal of Comparative Economics, Analyzing the Socioeconomic Consequences of Rising Inequality in China 34(4): 713–726.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Luo, Renfu, Linxiu Zhang, Jikun Huang, and Scott Rozelle. 2007a. Elections, fiscal reform and public goods provision in rural China. Journal of Comparative Economics 35(3): 583–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhang, Xiaobo, Shenggen Fan, Linxiu Zhang, and Jikun Huang. 2004. Local governance and public goods provision in rural China. Journal of Public Economics 88(12): 2857–2871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Luo, Renfu, Linxiu Zhang, Jikun Huang, and Scott Rozelle. 2007b. Elections, fiscal reform and public goods provision in rural China. Journal of Comparative Economics 35(3): 583–611. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2007.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Easton, David. 1975. A Re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science 5(4): 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1981. Political Man. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mishler, William, and Richard Rose. 2001. What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and Cultual theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies 34(1): 30–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Carlin, Ryan E. 2011. Distrusting democrats and political participation in new democracies lessons from Chile. Political Research Quarterly 64(3): 668–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Cheng, Tun-Jen, and Lin Lin. 1999. Taiwan: a long decade of democratic transition. In Driven by growth: political change in the Asia-Pacific region, Revised ed. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rigger, Shelley. 2002. Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Reform. Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mertha, Andrew. 2009. Fragmented authoritarianism 2.0: political pluralization in the Chinese policy process. The China Quarterly 200: 995–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gallie, Walter Bryce. 1955. "Essentially contested concepts." Proceedings of the Aristotelian society. Vol. 56.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Collier, David, Fernando Daniel Hidalgo, and Andra Olivia Maciuceanu. 2006. Essentially contested concepts: debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies 11(3): 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Collier, David, and Steven Levitsky. 1997. Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research. World politics 49(03): 430–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    O’Brien, Kevin J., and Rongbin Han. 2009. Path to democracy? Assessing Village elections in China. Journal of Contemporary China 18(60): 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sun, Xin, Travis J. Warner, Dali L. Yang, and Mingxing Liu. 2013. Patterns of authority and governance in rural China: who’s in charge? Why?” Journal of Contemporary China 22 (83): 733–54. doi:10.1080/10670564.2013.782124.
  83. 83.
    Schubert, Gunter, and Anna Ahlers. 2012. Participation and empowerment at the grassroots: Chinese Village elections in perspective. Boulder: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Oi, Jean. 1996. Economic development, stability, and Democratic Village self-governance. In China review 1996, 125–144. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Duch, Raymond, and Harvey D. Palmer. 2004. It’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game: self-interest, social justice and mass attitudes toward market transition. American Political Science Review 98(3): 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gibson, James L. 2002. Truth, justice and reconciliation: judging the fairness of amnesty in South Africa. American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 540–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gibson, James L., and Amanda Gouws. 1999. Truth and reconciliation in South Africa: attributions of blame and the struggle over apartheid. The American Political Science Review 93(3): 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lind, E. Allan, Bonnie E. Erickson, Nehemia Friedlan, and Michael Dickenberger. 1978. Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution: a cross-National Study. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 22(2): 318–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Chinese Political Science/Association of Chinese Political Studies 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Criminal JusticeCalifornia State UniversityChicoUSA
  2. 2.School of Public AffairsXiamen UniversityXiamenPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations