IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/chnrpt/v61y2025i3p374-397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Study on the 1992 Consensus, China’s Favour-Granting Policies and Taiwanese Identification with China

Author

Listed:
  • Shih-Kai Lin

    (Shui Sha Lian Research Center for Humanities Innovation and Social Practice, National Chi Nan University, Nantou, Taiwan. sklin1105@gmail.com)

  • Hung-Chang Chung

    (Department of Business Administration, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan. d10522006@yuntech.edu.tw)

Abstract

Ever since Taiwan implemented the lifting of martial law and China initiated its policy of reform and opening up, both sides of the Taiwan Strait and their officials and private sectors have set up unprecedented exchanges and interactions. The literature covering the issue of cross-strait identity has become an integral part of the development of such relations, but as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwan denies the existence of the 1992 Consensus, current cross-strait talks have fallen into a deadlock. Communist Party of China (CPC) authorities have perhaps noticed that it is difficult to force Taiwan to negotiate over the 1992 Consensus and have determined that the DPP government will never provide a satisfactory answer to the issue of national sovereignty. For this reason, CPC leaders have deemed that it is no longer necessary to engage in interactions at the official level. They have decided to bypass the Taiwan government and directly carry out unilateral work with the private sectors by proposing favour-granting policies with the expectation of using economic and cultural means to influence Taiwanese people to identify themselves with China. Taiwanese people’s identification with China is actually a political identification, which is an expression of political feelings as well as a political value or a political value orientation. Therefore, it is not necessarily rational thinking nor choice. The American scholar Ronald Inglehart has presented long-term observations on the relationship between European economic development and political and cultural changes and indicated that the former is an important variable affecting political culture, while political culture also shapes political identity. Therefore, this study focuses on Inglehart’s logical inferences and uses quantitative empirical methods for a discussion of cross-strait issues. This study obtains data from 1,237 samples through the distribution of questionnaires and applies Model 1 of Andrew F. Hayes’ process statistical analysis in SPSS statistical software to analyse the correlations among research variables in order to establish a well-rounded model including the 1992 Consensus, China’s favour-granting policies and Taiwanese identification with China. The research results show that: (a) China’s favour-granting policies have a positive effect on Taiwanese identification with China; (b) the 1992 Consensus has a positive effect on Taiwanese identification with China; but (c) the 1992 Consensus negatively influences China’s favour-granting policies and Taiwanese identification with China.

Suggested Citation

  • Shih-Kai Lin & Hung-Chang Chung, 2025. "An Empirical Study on the 1992 Consensus, China’s Favour-Granting Policies and Taiwanese Identification with China," China Report, , vol. 61(3), pages 374-397, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:61:y:2025:i:3:p:374-397
    DOI: 10.1177/00094455251344412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00094455251344412
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00094455251344412?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:chnrpt:v:61:y:2025:i:3:p:374-397. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.