Advertisement

Policy and Public Preferences Regarding the University Enrollment Quotas System across Chinese Provinces

  • Xiaolei Qin
  • Ross BuchananEmail author
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

The University Enrollment Quota Policy in China determines the proportion of Chinese University Entrance Exam (known colloquially in China as the Gaokao) takers in each province that is admitted to the country’s universities each year. This policy strongly favors Gaokao takers from just eight provinces, while those from the other 23 provinces have no quota privilege. In this article, we find evidence that this policy negatively affects the public’s preferences regarding the university enrollment quotas policy after examining the relationship between changes in university enrollment quotas and public preference in 23 Chinese provinces from 2011 through 2016. This relationship is consistent with what is predicted by the “thermostatic” responsiveness model, which has only been tested in democracies until now. We also test whether government policy is responsive to public preferences and find that government policy is not responsive to the general public in this issue domain. Our findings support the argument for deep reform of the university enrollment quota policy to address the core disparities in quotas across provinces and improve equal access to higher education in China.

Keywords

university enrollment quotas policy public responsiveness equal rights in higher education China 

Notes

Funding

National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science from China (15BZZ072).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

41307_2019_170_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. Bartels, L. M. (1991) ‘Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: the Reagan defence buildup’, American Political Science Review 85(2): 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevan, S. (2015) ‘Bureaucratic responsiveness: Effects of elected government, public agendas and European attention on the UK bureaucracy’, Public Administration, 93(1): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonafont, L. C. and Palau, A. M. (2011) ‘Assessing the responsiveness of Spanish policymakers to the priorities of their citizens’, West European Politics 34(4): 706–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai, Y. (2010) Collective resistance in China: why popular protests succeed or fail, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. E. (2013) ‘Social networks and political participation’, The Annual Review of Political Science 16(1): 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cashore, B. and Howlett., M. (2007) ‘Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry’, American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 532–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, J., Pan, J. and Xu, Y. (2016) ‘Sources of Authoritarian responsiveness: a field experiment in China’, American Journal of Political Science 60(2): 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. China Internet Network Information Center. (2011) Statistical Report on Internet Development in China. Retrieved June 1, 2017, from http://www1.cnnic.cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/201302/P020130221391269963814.pdf.
  9. China Internet Network Information Center. (2017) Statistical Report on Internet Development in China. Retrieved May 5, 2018, from http://www1.cnnic.cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/201302/P020130221391269963814.pdf.
  10. Davey, G., Lian, C. De and Higgins, L. (2007) ‘The university entrance examination system in China’, Journal of Further and Higher Education 31(4): 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ding, X. (2014) ‘Is it hard to dissuade the overleaping petitioners?’ Henan Daily, 13 November.Google Scholar
  12. Erikson, R. S., Stimson, J. A. and Mackuen, M. (2002) The macro polity, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Esaiasson, P. and Wlezien, C. (2016) ‘Advances in the study of democratic responsiveness: an introduction’, Comparative Political Studies, published online 3 March.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016633226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobolt, S. B. and Klemmemsen, R. (2005) ‘Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark’, Political Studies 53(2): 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Im, D.-K. and Meng, T. (2016) ‘The policy-opinion nexus: the impact of social protection programs on welfare policy preferences in China’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28(2): 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, B. D. et al. (2009) ‘A general empirical law of public budgets: A comparative analysis’, American Journal of Political Science. published online 18 September.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00405.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, B. D. and Baumgartner, F. R. (2005) The politics of attention, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Koehler-Derrick, G. (2013) ‘Quantifying anecdotes: google search data and political development in Egypt’, Political Science and Politics 46(2): 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lü, X. (2014) ‘Social policy and regime legitimacy: the effect of education reform in China’, American Political Science Review 108(2): 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCombs, M. (2004) Setting the agenda: the mass media and public opinion, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Qin, Q. and Xu, Y. (2010) ‘Quota and equity: Chinese Gaokao enrollment policy’, Law Review (Chinese Journal) 161(3): 12–18.Google Scholar
  22. Quadagno, J. (1988) ‘From old-age assistance to supplemental security income: the political economy of relief in the south, 1935–1972’, in M. Weir, A.A. Orloff and T. Skocpol (eds.) The politics of social policy in the United States, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 235–263.Google Scholar
  23. Ripberger, J. T. (2011) ‘Capturing curiosity: using internet search trends to measure public attentiveness’, The Policy Studies Journal 39(2): 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Soroka, S. N. and Wlezien, C. (2004) ‘Opinion representation and policy feedback: Canada in comparative perspective’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 37(3): 531–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soroka, S. N. and Wlezien, C. (2005) ‘Opinion-policy dynamics: public preferences and public expenditure in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Political Science 35(4): 665–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soroka, S. N. and Wlezien, C. (2010) Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stockmann, D. (2009) ‘One size doesn’t fit all: measuring news reception east and west’, Chinese Journal of Communication 2(2): 140–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stockmann, D. and Gallagher, M. E. (2011) ‘Remote control: how the media sustain authoritarian rule in China’, Comparative. Political Studies 44(4): 436–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stokes, D. (1963) ‘Spatial models and party competition’, American Political Science Review 57(2): 368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tang, W. (2005) Public opinion and political change in China, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Vaughan, L. and Chen, Y. (2015) ‘Data mining from web search queries: a comparison of google trends and baidu index’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(1): 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang, H. (2010) ‘Research on the influence of college entrance examination policies on the fairness of higher education admissions opportunities in China’, Chinese Education and Society 43(6): 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, L. (2011) ‘Social exclusion and inequality in higher education in China: a capability perspective’, International Journal of Educational Development 31(3): 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wei, J. and Hou, J. (2010) ‘The household registration system, education system, and inequalities in education for migrant children’, Chinese Education and Society 43(5): 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wlezien, C. (1995) ‘The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for spending’, American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wlezien, C. (1996) ‘The president, congress, and appropriations, 1951–1985’, American Politics Quarterly 24(1): 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wlezien, C. (2004) ‘Patterns of representation: dynamics of public preferences and policy’, The Journal of Politics 66(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wlezien, C. (2016) ‘Public opinion and policy representation: on conceptualization, measurement, and interpretation’, The Policy Studies Journal online publication 12 November.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S. (2003) ‘Measures and models of budgetary policy’, Policy Studies Journal 31(2): 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S. (2007) ‘The relationship between public opinion and public policy’ in Russell Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.) Oxford handbook of political behavior, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 799-817.Google Scholar
  41. Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S. (2011) ‘Federalism and public responsiveness to policy’, The Journal of Federalism 41(1): 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S. (2016) ‘Public opinion and public policy’, in J. C. Courtney and D. E. Smith (eds.) The Oxford handbook of canadian politics, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Published online 1 April.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.74
  43. Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S. N. (2012) ‘Political institutions and the opinion-policy link’, West European Politics 35(6): 1407–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public AdministrationNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of GovernmentUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations