Explaining the variations in legal mobilization of environmental nongovernmental organizations in authoritarian China: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Law & Policy Pub Date : 2023-02-13 DOI:10.1111/lapo.12208
Huina Xiao, Chunyan Ding
{"title":"Explaining the variations in legal mobilization of environmental nongovernmental organizations in authoritarian China: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis","authors":"Huina Xiao,&nbsp;Chunyan Ding","doi":"10.1111/lapo.12208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite the growing literature on legal mobilization under authoritarianism, the variations of legal mobilization in authoritarian regimes have been less studied. Drawing on a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 175 environmental public interest litigations from 2009 to 2019, as well as in-depth interviews with environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) representatives, this is the first article to present how organizational, political, legal, and social forces (which are demonstrated by six conditions: capacity, political embeddedness, political endorsement, access, legal stock, and alliance) combine to explain the variations of NGOs' environmental legal mobilization through the use of strategic and nonstrategic litigation in authoritarian China. Although the state's policy to pluralize regulatory actors to improve environmental governance has set up a relatively friendly institutional backdrop for environmental legal mobilization, this study finds that political forces such as the relationship between NGOs and the state and the ambivalent attitudes towards environmental protection between central and local government have significantly influenced the behavioral patterns of NGOs' legal mobilization. Moreover, this study uncovers four types of legal mobilization of Chinese environmental NGOs: allied mobilization, progressive mobilization, steered mobilization, and symbolic mobilization. This study enriches the understanding of the behavioral patterns of nonstate actors in legal mobilization in authoritarian regimes and beyond.</p>","PeriodicalId":47050,"journal":{"name":"Law & Policy","volume":"45 2","pages":"181-210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lapo.12208","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lapo.12208","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the growing literature on legal mobilization under authoritarianism, the variations of legal mobilization in authoritarian regimes have been less studied. Drawing on a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 175 environmental public interest litigations from 2009 to 2019, as well as in-depth interviews with environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) representatives, this is the first article to present how organizational, political, legal, and social forces (which are demonstrated by six conditions: capacity, political embeddedness, political endorsement, access, legal stock, and alliance) combine to explain the variations of NGOs' environmental legal mobilization through the use of strategic and nonstrategic litigation in authoritarian China. Although the state's policy to pluralize regulatory actors to improve environmental governance has set up a relatively friendly institutional backdrop for environmental legal mobilization, this study finds that political forces such as the relationship between NGOs and the state and the ambivalent attitudes towards environmental protection between central and local government have significantly influenced the behavioral patterns of NGOs' legal mobilization. Moreover, this study uncovers four types of legal mobilization of Chinese environmental NGOs: allied mobilization, progressive mobilization, steered mobilization, and symbolic mobilization. This study enriches the understanding of the behavioral patterns of nonstate actors in legal mobilization in authoritarian regimes and beyond.

解释专制中国环境非政府组织法律动员的变化:模糊集定性比较分析
尽管有关威权主义下法律动员的文献越来越多,但对威权政权中法律动员的变化研究较少。本文通过对2009年至2019年175起环境公益诉讼的模糊集定性比较分析,以及对环境非政府组织代表的深入访谈,和社会力量(通过能力、政治嵌入、政治背书、准入、法律存量和联盟六个条件来证明)结合起来,通过使用战略和非战略诉讼来解释威权中国非政府组织环境法律动员的变化。尽管国家为改善环境治理而实行的监管主体多元化政策为环境法律动员建立了相对友好的制度背景,本研究发现,非政府组织与国家的关系、中央与地方政府对环境保护的矛盾态度等政治力量对非政府组织法律动员的行为模式产生了显著影响。此外,本研究揭示了中国环境非政府组织的四种法律动员类型:联盟动员、渐进动员、引导动员和象征动员。这项研究丰富了对非国家行为者在威权政权及其后的法律动员中的行为模式的理解。
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
1.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: International and interdisciplinary in scope, Law & Policy embraces varied research methodologies that interrogate law, governance, and public policy worldwide. Law & Policy makes a vital contribution to the current dialogue on contemporary policy by publishing innovative, peer-reviewed articles on such critical topics as • government and self-regulation • health • environment • family • gender • taxation and finance • legal decision-making • criminal justice • human rights
×
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