IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rgovxx/v5y2020i4p525-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Steven J. Balla
  • Zhoudan Xie

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven J. Balla & Zhoudan Xie, 2020. "Consultation as policymaking innovation: comparing government transparency and public participation in China and the United States," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 525-545, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:5:y:2020:i:4:p:525-545
    DOI: 10.1080/23812346.2020.1769539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/23812346.2020.1769539
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/23812346.2020.1769539?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:5:y:2020:i:4:p:525-545. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rgov .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.