IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v41y2024i6p921-940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local lobbying in single‐party authoritarian systems: Do institutions matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Hua Wang
  • Jane Duckett

Abstract

Lobbying, and its role in the policy process, has been extensively studied in democratic states, but much less is known about similar practices in authoritarian political systems. Although a few studies have identified lobbying in China, most have focused on big businesses and national policy making, and some have argued that it is unaffected by differences in political institutions. Our paper challenges this portrayal of business lobbying in autocracies. Through a study of the lobbying activities of business associations based on documentary research and fieldwork in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin between 2011 and 2013, we show that although business associations have similar lobbying motivations to their counterparts in democracies, their specific practices are often shaped by authoritarian political institutions. While they are similar in seeking to build informal relationships with public officials, provide expertise to shape policies, and raise their profile through public relations activities and media engagement, they differ in focusing their relationship‐building efforts on helping officials with routine work, helping Communist Party organizations establish cells in businesses, and brokering between businesses and government. Rather than donating to political campaigns like their counterparts in democracies, they become legislators themselves, hire retired officials, and seek positions on advisory bodies. Rigged elections, an unreliable legal system, and restrictions on media and freedom of movement are key authoritarian institutions that shape these distinctive lobbying practices. 民主国家的游说及其在政策过程中的作用已被广泛研究,但很少有研究聚焦于威权主义政治系统中的类似实践。尽管一些研究识别了中国的游说活动,但大多聚焦于大企业和国家决策,并且一些研究认为,游说活动不受政治制度差异的影响。我们的论文对关于威权国家中的商业游说描述提出质疑。通过对商业协会游说活动进行文献研究,以及2011–2013年间在中国北方城市天津的实地考察,我们表明,尽管商业协会与民主国家的对等机构具有相似的游说动机,但其具体做法往往受到威权政治制度的影响。虽然前者在寻求与公职人员建立非正式关系、提供专业知识来影响政策、以及通过公共关系活动和媒体参与来提高自身形象方面具有相似之处,但其不同之处在于将关系建立聚焦于帮助官员开展日常工作、帮助共产党组织在企业中设立支部、以及在企业与政府之间发挥中介作用。它们不像民主国家那样对政治运动捐款,而是自己成为立法者、雇用退休官员、并在咨询机构中寻求职位。操纵选举、不可靠的立法系统、以及对媒体和行动自由的限制,是形成这些独特游说行为的关键威权主义制度。 El lobby y su papel en el proceso político se han estudiado ampliamente en los estados democráticos, pero se sabe mucho menos sobre prácticas similares en sistemas políticos autoritarios. Aunque unos pocos estudios han identificado el lobby en China, la mayoría se ha centrado en las grandes empresas y la formulación de políticas nacionales, y algunos han argumentado que no se ve afectado por las diferencias en las instituciones políticas. Nuestro artículo cuestiona esta descripción del lobby empresarial en las autocracias. A través de un estudio de las actividades de lobby de las asociaciones empresariales basado en investigación documental y trabajo de campo en la ciudad de Tianjin, en el norte de China, entre 2011 y 2013, mostramos que aunque las asociaciones empresariales tienen motivaciones de lobby similares a las de sus homólogos en las democracias, sus prácticas específicas a menudo están moldeadas por instituciones políticas autoritarias. Si bien son similares en cuanto a tratar de construir relaciones informales con funcionarios públicos, brindar experiencia para dar forma a las políticas y elevar su perfil a través de actividades de relaciones públicas y participación de los medios, difieren en centrar sus esfuerzos de construcción de relaciones en ayudar a los funcionarios con el trabajo rutinario, ayudar a los comunistas. Las organizaciones del partido establecen células en las empresas y realizan intermediaciones entre las empresas y el gobierno. En lugar de hacer donaciones para campañas políticas como sus homólogos en las democracias, ellos mismos se convierten en legisladores, contratan funcionarios retirados y buscan puestos en órganos asesores. Elecciones amañadas, un sistema legal poco confiable y restricciones a los medios de comunicación y a la libertad de movimiento son instituciones autoritarias clave que dan forma a estas prácticas distintivas de lobby.

Suggested Citation

  • Hua Wang & Jane Duckett, 2024. "Local lobbying in single‐party authoritarian systems: Do institutions matter?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(6), pages 921-940, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:6:p:921-940
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12582
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12582?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornelia Woll, 2012. "The brash and the soft-spoken: Lobbying styles in a transatlantic comparison," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-02186556, HAL.
    2. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mirko Draca & Christian Fons-Rosen, 2012. "Revolving Door Lobbyists," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3731-3748, December.
    3. Hilber, Christian A.L. & Robert-Nicoud, Frédéric, 2013. "On the origins of land use regulations: Theory and evidence from US metro areas," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 29-43.
    4. Hojnacki, Marie & Kimball, David C., 1998. "Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 775-790, December.
    5. Marianne Bertrand & Matilde Bombardini & Francesco Trebbi, 2014. "Is It Whom You Know or What You Know? An Empirical Assessment of the Lobbying Process," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 3885-3920, December.
    6. Maloney, William A. & Jordan, Grant & McLaughlin, Andrew M., 1994. "Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 17-38, January.
    7. Lohmann, Susanne, 1998. "An Information Rationale for the Power of Special Interests," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 809-827, December.
    8. B. Guy Peters & Yongfei Zhao, 2017. "Local policy-making process in China: a case study," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 127-148, April.
    9. Cornelia Woll, 2012. "The brash and the soft-spoken: Lobbying styles in a transatlantic comparison," Post-Print hal-02186556, HAL.
    10. Goldstein, A.O. & Bearman, N.S., 1996. "State tobacco lobbyists and organizations in the United States: Crossed lines," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(8), pages 1137-1142.
    11. Chen, Jie & Dickson, Bruce J., 2010. "Allies of the State: China's Private Entrepreneurs and Democratic Change," Economics Books, Harvard University Press, number 9780674048966, Spring.
    12. Coen, David, 1998. "The European Business Interest and the Nation State: Large-firm Lobbying in the European Union and Member States," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 75-100, January.
    13. Hanegraaff, Marcel & Poletti, Arlo & Beyers, Jan, 2017. "Explaining varying lobbying styles across the Atlantic: an empirical test of the cultural and institutional explanations," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 459-486, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian Kelleher Richter, 2013. "Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying," NBER Working Papers 19698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mirko Draca & Christian Fons-Rosen, 2012. "Revolving Door Lobbyists," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3731-3748, December.
    3. Andreas Broscheid & David Coen, 2003. "Insider and Outsider Lobbying of the European Commission," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(2), pages 165-189, June.
    4. Sharon S. Belli & Jan Beyers, 2024. "The Revolving Door and Access to the European Commission: Does the Logic of Influence Prevail?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 186-204, January.
    5. Hye Young You, 2023. "Dynamic lobbying: Evidence from foreign lobbying in the U.S. Congress," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 445-469, July.
    6. David P Baron, 2019. "Lobbying dynamics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 403-452, July.
    7. Francesco Trebbi & Miao Ben Zhang, 2022. "The Cost of Regulatory Compliance in the United States," NBER Working Papers 30691, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2018. "Guns, Environment, and Abortion: How Single-Minded Voters Shape Politicians' Decisions," Working Papers gueconwpa~18-18-15, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    9. Kempf, Elisabeth, 2017. "The Job Rating Game: The Effects of Revolving Doors on Analyst Incentives," Working Papers 258, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    10. Matthias Dahm & Robert Dur & Amihai Glazer, 2009. "Lobbying of Firms by Voters," Working Papers 080926, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    11. Heejung Byun & Joseph Raffiee & Martin Ganco, 2019. "Discontinuities in the Value of Relational Capital: The Effects on Employee Entrepreneurship and Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1368-1393, November.
    12. Awad, Emiel & Minaudier, Clement, 2023. "Persuasive Lobbying and the Value of Connections," SocArXiv 8z4ax, Center for Open Science.
    13. Martin Gregor, 2011. "Corporate lobbying: A review of the recent literature," Working Papers IES 2011/32, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Nov 2011.
    14. Asai, Kentaro & Kawai, Kei & Nakabayashi, Jun, 2021. "Regulatory capture in public procurement: Evidence from revolving door bureaucrats in Japan," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 328-343.
    15. Deniz Igan & Prachi Mishra, 2014. "Wall Street, Capitol Hill, and K Street: Political Influence and Financial Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(4), pages 1063-1084.
    16. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2013. "Guns and Votes," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2013-39, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
      • Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2013. "Guns and votes," Working Papers 43819146, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
      • Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2014. "Guns and Votes," NBER Working Papers 20253, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Zanardi, Maurizio & Conconi, Paola & Bouton, Laurent & Pino, Francisco, 2013. "Guns and Votes," CEPR Discussion Papers 9726, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Cameron K. Murray & Paul Frijters & Markus Schaffner, 2021. "Is transparency an anti-corruption myth?," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 5(1), pages 27-43, Septembre.
    18. Thea How Choon & Giovanna Marcolongo & Paolo Pinotti, 2024. "Money Talks to Autocrats, Bullets Whistle to Democrats: Political Influence under Different Regimes," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 24229, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    19. Alessandro De Chiara & Marco A. Schwarz, 2020. "A Dynamic Theory of Regulatory Capture," Working Papers 2020-12, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    20. Marianne Bertrand & Matilde Bombardini & Raymond Fisman & Brad Hackinen & Francesco Trebbi, 2021. "Hall of Mirrors: Corporate Philanthropy and Strategic Advocacy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2413-2465.

    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:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:6:p:921-940. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.