Consultation as policymaking innovation: comparing government transparency and public participation in China and the United States

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
S. J. Balla, Zhoudan Xie
{"title":"Consultation as policymaking innovation: comparing government transparency and public participation in China and the United States","authors":"S. J. Balla, Zhoudan Xie","doi":"10.1080/23812346.2020.1769539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article compares government transparency and public participation in policymaking across China and the United States. The analysis specifically focuses on the notice and comment process—government announcement of proposed policies and solicitation of public feedback—at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOC) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MOC and EPA are leading organizations in the implementation of such consultation in their respective countries. Information is collected and coded for hundreds of draft regulations and thousands of public comments that occurred during the 2002–2016 period. Statistical analysis of levels of, and variation in, transparency and participation demonstrates both similarities and differences in the operation of the notice and comment process at the MOC and EPA. Transparency and participation are generally lower at the MOC than in EPA consultations. Within such constraints, however, there is evidence of standardization in the administration of consultation by the MOC. These findings suggest that differences in the Chinese and U.S. political systems, rather than issues of administrative capacity, are the primary limitations of consultation as a policymaking innovation in contemporary China.","PeriodicalId":45091,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Governance","volume":"5 1","pages":"525 - 545"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23812346.2020.1769539","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chinese Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2020.1769539","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Abstract This article compares government transparency and public participation in policymaking across China and the United States. The analysis specifically focuses on the notice and comment process—government announcement of proposed policies and solicitation of public feedback—at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOC) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MOC and EPA are leading organizations in the implementation of such consultation in their respective countries. Information is collected and coded for hundreds of draft regulations and thousands of public comments that occurred during the 2002–2016 period. Statistical analysis of levels of, and variation in, transparency and participation demonstrates both similarities and differences in the operation of the notice and comment process at the MOC and EPA. Transparency and participation are generally lower at the MOC than in EPA consultations. Within such constraints, however, there is evidence of standardization in the administration of consultation by the MOC. These findings suggest that differences in the Chinese and U.S. political systems, rather than issues of administrative capacity, are the primary limitations of consultation as a policymaking innovation in contemporary China.
作为决策创新的咨询:中美政府透明度与公众参与比较
摘要本文比较了中美两国政府透明度和公众参与决策的情况。该分析特别关注中国商务部(MOC)和美国环境保护局(EPA)的通知和评论过程,即政府宣布拟议政策和征求公众反馈。MOC和EPA是在各自国家实施此类协商的领先组织。收集并编码了2002-2003年期间发生的数百项法规草案和数千条公众评论的信息。对透明度和参与度的水平和变化进行的统计分析表明,主运行中心和环境保护局在通知和评论过程中的操作既有相似之处,也有不同之处。MOC的透明度和参与度通常低于EPA协商。然而,在这些限制条件下,有证据表明主运行中心在咨询管理方面是标准化的。这些发现表明,中美政治制度的差异,而不是行政能力的问题,是协商作为当代中国决策创新的主要局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信