IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i6p5204-d1098508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy Changes in China’s Family Planning: Perspectives of Advocacy Coalitions

Author

Listed:
  • Zhichao Li

    (School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China)

  • Xihan Tan

    (School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University, Beijing 100872, China)

  • Bojia Liu

    (School of Political Science and Public Administration, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 201620, China)

Abstract

Studies on policy change focus on governmental decision-making from a technical rationality perspective, ignoring the fact that policy change is a complicated social construction process involving multiple actors. This study used the modified advocacy coalition framework to explain changes in China’s family planning policy and discourse network analysis to show the debate on the birth control policy among multiple actors (central government, local governments, experts, media, and the public). It found that the dominant coalition and the minority coalition can learn and adjust deep core beliefs from each other; the sharing and flow of actors’ policy beliefs drive change in the network structure; and actors’ obvious preferential attachment when the promulgation of the central document, are all helpful in policy change. This study can explain macro-policy changes from a micro-perspective to reveal the process and mechanism of policy changes in China’s authoritarian regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhichao Li & Xihan Tan & Bojia Liu, 2023. "Policy Changes in China’s Family Planning: Perspectives of Advocacy Coalitions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:6:p:5204-:d:1098508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/6/5204/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/6/5204/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louise G. White, 1994. "Policy analysis as discourse," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 506-525.
    2. Chadwick (Chengwei) Wang & Luhao Wang, 2017. "Unfolding policies for innovation intermediaries in China: A discourse network analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 354-368.
    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. Sebastian Haunss & Jonas Kuhn & Sebastian Padó & Andre Blessing & Nico Blokker & Erenay Dayanik & Gabriella Lapesa, 2020. "Integrating Manual and Automatic Annotation for the Creation of Discourse Network Data Sets," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 326-339.
    2. Taewook Huh & Yun Young Kim, 2021. "Triangular Trajectory of Sustainable Development: Panel Analysis of the OECD Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Niaz Ahmed Khan (University of Dhaka), "undated". "More Than Meets The Eye: Re-Reading Forest Policy Discourse In Bangladesh," QEH Working Papers qehwps177, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    4. Leung, Abraham & Burke, Matthew & Perl, Anthony & Cui, Jianqiang, 2018. "The peak oil and oil vulnerability discourse in urban transport policy: A comparative discourse analysis of Hong Kong and Brisbane," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 5-18.
    5. Gasper, D.R., 2007. "Values, vision, proposals and networks: using ideas in leadership for human development," ISS Working Papers - General Series 18758, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    6. Berg, Brennan K. & Warner, Stacy & Das, Bhibha M., 2015. "What about sport? A public health perspective on leisure-time physical activity," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 20-31.
    7. Jan Bebbington & Judy Brown & Bob Frame & Ian Thomson, 2007. "Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(3), pages 356-381, June.
    8. Walters, Lawrence C. & Sudweeks, Ray R., 1996. "Public policy analysis: The next generation of theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 425-452.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:6:p:5204-:d:1098508. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.