{"title":"Unbalanced Reform (Comparative Analysis of China’s and Russia’s Experience)","authors":"F. Haiting","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2022-105-2-49-70","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transforming a political system is never an easy task. The reforms that launched this process can easily fall into the “balancing trap”, when a lion's share of political capital is directed to ensure a balance of interests of various social groups, which inevitably leads to the curtailment of reforms and, as a result, stagnation. The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the approaches of China and Russia to solving this problem. The essence of the Chinese approach, which is usually referred to as the “policy experimentation”, is that reforms are first carried out in a separate region, and then, if successful, gradually spread to the whole country. However, the key to China's success lies not only in experimentation, but also in a variety of reform strategies, the choice of which is determined by the specific conditions prevailing in a given region. Russia also uses this model, which is known as an “unbalanced reform” and aimed at spotting areas of least resistance to reforms in order to prevent the unification of the efforts of the opponents to reforms and direct confrontation between the state and the society. However, its Russian version differs remarkably from the Chinese one. According to the author, the differences between the Chinese and the Russian models of reforms are rooted in the political sphere and are associated with the specifics of the electoral and party systems of these countries, and most importantly, with the nature of the relations in the “center-regions” system. In China, when carrying out reforms, the emphasis is placed upon the initiative from below, while Russia prefers political instruments that are under the direct control of the federal structures.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"27 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-105-2-49-70","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Transforming a political system is never an easy task. The reforms that launched this process can easily fall into the “balancing trap”, when a lion's share of political capital is directed to ensure a balance of interests of various social groups, which inevitably leads to the curtailment of reforms and, as a result, stagnation. The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the approaches of China and Russia to solving this problem. The essence of the Chinese approach, which is usually referred to as the “policy experimentation”, is that reforms are first carried out in a separate region, and then, if successful, gradually spread to the whole country. However, the key to China's success lies not only in experimentation, but also in a variety of reform strategies, the choice of which is determined by the specific conditions prevailing in a given region. Russia also uses this model, which is known as an “unbalanced reform” and aimed at spotting areas of least resistance to reforms in order to prevent the unification of the efforts of the opponents to reforms and direct confrontation between the state and the society. However, its Russian version differs remarkably from the Chinese one. According to the author, the differences between the Chinese and the Russian models of reforms are rooted in the political sphere and are associated with the specifics of the electoral and party systems of these countries, and most importantly, with the nature of the relations in the “center-regions” system. In China, when carrying out reforms, the emphasis is placed upon the initiative from below, while Russia prefers political instruments that are under the direct control of the federal structures.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.