Public satisfaction in government increasing in China - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues in the People's Republic of China.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15106840
I don't think anyone has talked about this yet.
https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files ... 6.2020.pdf

Recent Trends in Citizen Satisfaction

The most striking feature of our survey’s data since 2003 is the near-universal increase in Chinese citizens’ average satisfaction toward all four levels of government. To gauge satisfaction, respondents were asked to evaluate government performance on a scale of 1-4: 1 indicating “very dissatisfied”; 2 “fairly dissatisfied”; 3 “fairly satisfied”; and 4 “very satisfied.” In all iterations of the survey, satisfaction declines as the government gets closer to the people, with local county and township governments consistently generating lower satisfaction from citizens than the central or provincial governments. This “hierarchical satisfaction” is particularly noteworthy because it is the opposite of what researchers observe in the United States and many other democracies, where local political leaders tend to be far more popular than state or federal leaders. Nevertheless, recent increases in public approval have begun to narrow this “hierarchical satisfaction” gap in China (Table 1). Even in 2003, the central government received a strong level of satisfaction, with 86.1% expressing approval and 8.9% disapproving. This high level of satisfaction increased even further by 2016, but such increases were minimal because public satisfaction was already high to begin with. By contrast, in 2003, township-level governments had quite negative satisfaction rates, with 44% expressing approval and 52% disapproving. However, by 2016, these numbers had flipped, with 70% approving and only 26% disapproving.

These increases in satisfaction are not just limited to overall assessments of government performance. When asked about the specific conduct and attributes of local government officials, increasing numbers of Chinese citizens view them as kind, knowledgeable, and effective. For example, in 2003, more than half of respondents felt that local officials were “talk only” and were not practical problem solvers. However, by 2016, 55% felt that officials were practical problem solvers, while only 36% disagreed. Similarly, in 2003, the proportion of respondents who felt that local officials were “beholden to the interests of the wealthy” was nearly double the proportion who felt that they were “concerned about the difficulties of ordinary people.” By 2016, this situation had reversed, with 52% agreeing that local officials prioritized the needs of ordinary people and only 40% agreeing that they prioritized those of the wealthy.

Beginning in 2004, the survey asked about respondents’ personal interactions with local government officials and their impression of those interactions. In each survey iteration, roughly 15% of the sample reported interactions with government officials during the previous 12 months. However, while the interaction rate stayed relatively constant, citizen impressions of government response did not. The percentage who claimed that their situation was “not resolved at all” shrunk from 28% in 2004 to just 7.6% in 2016. By contrast, the percentage who claimed that their situation was “completely resolved” rose from 19.3% in 2004 to 55.9% in 2016. Notably, in 2004, the rate of citizens who were satisfied with the eventual outcome of their interactions was less than half the rate of those who were dissatisfied; while in 2016 the rate of satisfaction was more than triple the rate of dissatisfaction.

Although it is clear that overall satisfaction with government performance increased significantly between 2003 and 2016, it is less obvious why these trends have occurred and whether or not they are sustainable.


Thoughts?
#15106843
What good is a democracy if that democracy is hijacked by a narrow group with no loyalty to the well-being of the society at large? This has become a central question for our age, and is a major reason why western democracies are fracturing, and developing nations are drifting into fascism.

China, for all its larger-than-life faults, has been far better than the west at addressing the problems of ordinary people.
#15106849
Actually we can have a lot of interpretations here. Below are just some examples, and are by no means complete.

1. The figures are just up to 2016. Some of the more serious issues about China has been around only after 2016. It would be interesting to see how the numbers do in more recent periods.

2. This probably explains why some Taiwanese and Hongkongers called for independence rather than democratising China in recent years. They possibly found the Mainland Chinese unwilling to listen to their plights, disrespecting them or, in the worst case, became bullies and oppressors themselves.

3. I agree with the last sentence of the report, i.e. the figures just showed a trend, but drilled into neither the cause nor the development afterwards.
#15106861
quetzalcoatl wrote:China, for all its larger-than-life faults, has been far better than the west at addressing the problems of ordinary people.


That remains to be seen.

Anyways, I have always regretted that people are incapable or unwilling to take off their ideological blinkers so as to rationally discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of government.

It's tempting to believe that dictatorships or autocracies are more efficient at dealing with problems than democracies. That ignores the fact that NK is a general failure and that Russia despite Putin's strongman rule is failing at its Covid-19 response.

Thus, what makes China different? I think we ought to look at the difference between collective-type Asian societies and individualistic Western societies. Clearly, excessive insistence on individual rights at the expense of the collective or Western consumer society driven by individual greed are a problem.

But I don't believe that invariably has to doom Western democracy. Let's not forget, the corruption inherent in dictatorships as in autocracies will invariably result in problems that can be avoided by democracy.

Having said this, it is obvious that the US plutocracy does more harm to democracy than China.
#15106863
quetzalcoatl wrote:What good is a democracy if that democracy is hijacked by a narrow group with no loyalty to the well-being of the society at large? This has become a central question for our age, and is a major reason why western democracies are fracturing, and developing nations are drifting into fascism.

China, for all its larger-than-life faults, has been far better than the west at addressing the problems of ordinary people.

According to neo-liberalism (the dominant ideological current in the West since the 1980s), there is no such thing as the public good. Thatcher even went so far as to deny that there is even such a thing as society. Lol. The effect of this ideological mind-set has been increasingly obvious over the past few decades - rampant individualism (of which the rise of the SJWs and 'woke' culture has been just one example), an increasing divide between the wealthy hereditary elite and the vast majority of the population, and a series of increasingly devastating financial crises. Things are drifting dangerously (or promisingly, depending on one's point of view) out of control in the West....
#15106864
Atlantis wrote:That remains to be seen.

Anyways, I have always regretted that people are incapable or unwilling to take off their ideological blinkers so as to rationally discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of government.

It's tempting to believe that dictatorships or autocracies are more efficient at dealing with problems than democracies. That ignores the fact that NK is a general failure and that Russia despite Putin's strongman rule is failing at its Covid-19 response.

Thus, what makes China different? I think we ought to look at the difference between collective-type Asian societies and individualistic Western societies. Clearly, excessive insistence on individual rights at the expense of the collective or Western consumer society driven by individual greed are a problem.

But I don't believe that invariably has to doom Western democracy. Let's not forget, the corruption inherent in dictatorships as in autocracies will invariably result in problems that can be avoided by democracy.

Having said this, it is obvious that the US plutocracy does more harm to democracy than China.



I have to say that I agree with the above post except the last sentence.
#15106869
Rugoz wrote:Straight-up bullshit on every level.

Do you deny that Thatcher asserted that "there is no such thing as society"? And what do you think the implications of that assertion are? :eh:
#15106874
Rugoz wrote:How about the world doesn't revolve around a statement a UK prime minister made 40 years ago. Like wtf? :lol:

Her ideology is still the dominant one in the UK and in most of the Western nations, @Rugoz. Do you deny this? :eh:
#15106882
@Rugoz

Interpretation of the chart you posted is not straightforward, as it includes many components. The composition of social spending since the Thatcher era needs to be factored in. Specifically, demographic change as the population grows older. There are more elders today. They live longer, and draw retirement for a longer period of time. They require more healthcare and personal assistance. All this is incredibly expensive.

It's likely some significant percentage of the increase in social spending is down to demographic changes. As such it doesn't necessarily reflect any increased generosity of welfare on an individual basis.

One might add that the influence of neoliberalism is hardly limited to the size of public spending.
#15106885
quetzalcoatl wrote:@Rugoz

Interpretation of the chart you posted is not straightforward, as it includes many components. The composition of social spending since the Thatcher era needs to be factored in. Specifically, demographic change as the population grows older. There are more elders today. They live longer, and draw retirement for a longer period of time. They require more healthcare and personal assistance. All this is incredibly expensive.

It's likely some significant percentage of the increase in social spending is down to demographic changes. As such it doesn't necessarily reflect any increased generosity of welfare on an individual basis.

One might add that the influence of neoliberalism is hardly limited to the size of public spending.


Well given that they live longer, they could also work longer. And who said they should get expensive government-financed health care?

Point is, I don't see any "neo-liberalism" (whatever that means) in actual politics. Even Reagan barely managed to keep social expenditures constant.
#15106898
Rugoz doesn't see the system of neoliberal capitalism that we've been living under for the last 4 decades, therefore it doesn't exist. :lol:

quetzalcoatl wrote:China, for all its larger-than-life faults, has been far better than the west at addressing the problems of ordinary people.


Indeed, lifting 900 million people out of poverty is quite the feat. And they have plans to abolish poverty by 2050 I believe, which again is incredible when you consider the population size of China.

The standard of living is improving too and wages are increasing for ordinary workers. This is why multinational companies are at war with China and why this new cold war against it will only increase, in large part because these companies thought their paying pitiful wages thing to Chinese workers was going to last forever.
#15106915
skinster wrote:The standard of living is improving too and wages are increasing for ordinary workers. This is why multinational companies are at war with China and why this new cold war against it will only increase, in large part because these companies thought their paying pitiful wages thing to Chinese workers was going to last forever.


The problem is whether the pursuit of better lives of such a vast population is sustainable.

A country with 4 times the population of the United States would take up double as much resource as the United States even if all of them only have the living standard half as much as an American individual. Can our Earth take it?
#15106919
Patrickov wrote:The problem is whether the pursuit of better lives of such a vast population is sustainable.


Well, it seems to be since China appears to be on its way to reaching its target of abolishing poverty. :)

A country with 4 times the population of the United States would take up double as much resource as the United States even if all of them only have the living standard half as much as an American individual. Can our Earth take it?


Not everyone is as wasteful as Americans.
#15107084
Patrickov wrote:Many of them want more than that.


What does that have to do with my excellent point about China being on its way to abolish poverty? :D You completely missed my point and you missed it because you're a one trick pony bore who can't stop crying about how much you hate China. I mean, I get it. I'm sure everyone gets it since all your posts are about very bad monster China, including on topics completely unrelated. If the country I was born or raised in was proactive about abolishing poverty, I'd be proud about that, you brat.

Anyway, this thread is about how there's a lot of public satisfaction with Chinese people and their government. :D
#15107112
skinster wrote:What does that have to do with my excellent point about China being on its way to abolish poverty? :D You completely missed my point and you missed it because you're a one trick pony bore who can't stop crying about how much you hate China. I mean, I get it. I'm sure everyone gets it since all your posts are about very bad monster China, including on topics completely unrelated. If the country I was born or raised in was proactive about abolishing poverty, I'd be proud about that, you brat.

Anyway, this thread is about how there's a lot of public satisfaction with Chinese people and their government. :D


#15107116
skinster wrote:What does that have to do with my excellent point about China being on its way to abolish poverty?


It is natural that everybody would want more when they are out of simple "poverty".

Despite your alleged love of China (in reality just Chinese Communists), you seem not very clear on how keen the Chinese are after wealth. They actually are very keen to "overtake the United States" (as said by Mao Zedong), and that includes level of living.

I am a Chinese, most who I know are Chinese. China did not become one of the largest Empires in history for no reason, and it's no coincidence that many Chinese actually dominate the economy in South East Asia (e.g. Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia) or even beyond.

Therefore, my stand has no relation to that statement. That statement was merely my observation as a Chinese.

No, you didn't. You just tried to take the conver[…]

To find genuinely critical analysis of COVID-19 o[…]

any word yet on a trump plan to provide affordabl[…]

So, are you saying you are a dispensationalist - […]