Abstract
There is no dispute that China is in transition. But then, which country is not? The political science literature, which has limited its focus to two kinds of transition, namely democratization and liberalization, both embedded in individualism, excludes North America and Western Europe from transition studies. Furthermore, China’s transition is from both socialism and underdevelopment at the same time. This involves a mixture of transition problems and has triggered a debate between the Washington consensus and the Beijing consensus and one over the pros and cons of the so-called China model.1 Fortunately, from the point of view of the literature, the common end of transition for either a developing country or a former socialist state is the establishment of capitalist political and economic institutions. The liberalistic teleology reduces the complexity of transition studies of China even though the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders intend to stay in power permanently (see Chapter 5).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Stefan Halper, The Beijing Consensus: Legitimizing Authoritarianism in Our Time (New York: Basic Books, 2012);
Baogang Guo and He Li (eds.), The Chinese Labyrinth: Exploring China’s Model of Development (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011);
S. Philip Hsu, Yu-shan Wu, and Suisheng Zhao (eds.), In Search of China’s Development Model: Beyond the Beijing Consensus (London: Routledge, 2011).
Paul M. Sweezy and Charles Bettelheim, On the Transition to Socialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971), 105, 119–122;
Richard M. Pfeffer, “Mao and Marx in the Marxist-Leninist Tradition: A Critique of ‘The China Field’ and a Contribution to a Preliminary Reappraisal,” Modern China 2, 4 (1976):421–460;
Maurice Meisner, “Mao and Marx in the Scholastic Tradition,” Modern China 3, 4 (1977): 401–406.
Gordon White, Riding the Tiger (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993);
Edward Friedman, National Identity and Democratic Prospects in Socialist China (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1995);
Suisheng Zhao (ed.), Debating Political Reform in China: Rule of Law versus Democratization (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2006);
Victor Nee and Yang Cao, “Market Transition and the Firm: Institutional Change and Income Inequality in Urban China,” Management and Organizations Review 1, 1 (2004): 23–56;
Andrew Nathan, Chinâs Transition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997);
Andrew Walder and Jean C. Oi (eds.), Property Rights and Economic Reform in China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999);
Peter Gries, China’s New Nationalism: Pride, Politics, and Diplomacy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005);
Chih-yu Shih, Autonomy, Ethnicity and Poverty in Southwestern China: The State Turned Upside Down (London: Palgrave, 2007).
Mizoguchi Yuzo, Zuowei fangfa de zhongguo (China as method), trans. You-chong Lin (Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation, 1999).
Vasily V. Makeeve (ed.), China: Threats, Risks, Challenges to Development (in Russian) (Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center, 2005).
Takeshi Hamashita, “Tribute and Treaties: East Asian Treaty Ports Networks in the Era of Negotiation, 1834–1894,” European Journal of East Asian Studies 1, 1 (2002): 59–87.
Kwang-kuo Hwang, Easternization: Socio-cultural Impact on Productivity (Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization, 1995).
Shaoguang Wang, “Money and Autonomy: Patterns of Civil Society Finance and Their Implications,” Studies in Comparative International Development 40, 4 (Winter 2006): 3–29.
Kapyn Sanyl (ed.), Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality and Post-Colonial Capitalism (New Delhi: Routledge, 2007).
Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
Henry Yuhuai He, Dictionary of the Political Thought of the People’s Republic of China (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2001), 26.
Franz Schurmann, Ideology and Organization in Communist China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965).
Lowell Dittmer and Yu-shan Wu, “Leadership Coalitions and Economic Transformation in Reform China: Revisiting the Political Business,” in Lowell Dittmer and Guoli Liu (eds.), China’s Deep Reform: Domestic Politics in Transition (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).
This subject is equally popular among Sinophone authors; see, for example, Peter Ho, Institutions in Transition: Land Ownership, Property Rights and Social Conflict in China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005);
Chih-jou Jay Chen, Transforming Rural China (London: Taylor & Francis, 2007);
Xiaobao Hu, Problems in China’s Transitional Economy: Property Rights and Transitional Models (Singapore: World Scientific Pub. Co. Inc., 1998).
Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel Huntington (eds.), Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (New York: Basic Books, 2001).
Max Weber, The Religion of China (New York: Free Press, 1951).
Nan Lin, Social Capital and the Labor Market: Transforming Urban China, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007);
Neil. J. Diamant, Stanley B. Lubman, and Kevin J. O’Brien (eds.), Engaging the Law in China: State, Society and Possibilities for Justice (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005);
Joshua Kurlantizick, Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power Is Transforming the World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).
Homi Bhabha, “The World and the Home,” Social Text 31–32 (1993): 141–153.
Chih-yu Shih, “Responding to Globalization: Taiwanese Professional Women’s Role in the Construction of China” Paper presented at the International Conference on Gender and Development in Asia, Hong Kong, November 29, 1997.
Sue Ellen M. Charlton, Jana Everett, and Kathleen Staudt (eds.), Women, the State and Development (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989).
Karlin Jurczyk, “Time in Women’s Everyday Lives: Between Self-determination and Conflicting Demands,” Time and Society 7, 2 (1989): 283–308;
Pamela Odih, “Gendered Time in the Age of Deconstruction,” Time and Society 8, 1 (1999): 9–38.
Chih-yu Shih, Collective Democracy: Political and Legal Reform of China (Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 1999)
Jong Wong, Rong Ma, and Ma Yang (eds.), China’s Entrepreneurs (Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1995);
Kevin O’Brien, “Rightful Resistance,” World Politics 49, 1 (1996): 31–55.
Chih-yu Shih, Negotiating Ethnicity in China: Citizenship as a Response to the State (London: Routledge, 2002);
Mette Halskov Hansen, Lessons in Being Chinese (Seattle: University of Washington, 1999).
Chih-yu Shih, Navigating Sovereignty: World Politics Lost in China (London: Palgrave, 2003).
Copyright information
© 2013 Chih-yu Shih
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shih, Cy. (2013). Village Chinese: Anomaly as a Method of Chinese Transition. In: Sinicizing International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137289452_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137289452_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45016-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-28945-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)