This article aims to fill the void in the literature regarding the sustainable development of public–private partnerships (PPPs) by answering the following research questions: (1) Between 1980 and 2017, what were the PPP-related policy priorities in the three different historical phases of the Chinese national agenda that we have identified herein? (2) Have the PPP-related policies shown a pattern of moving toward sustainable development, and if so, to what extent? Against a criteria framework of evaluating how PPP-related policies could contribute to sustainable development, this article conducted a quantitative bibliometric analysis of 299 PPP-related policy documents issued by the Chinese central government between 1980 and 2017. By visualizing the networks of policy keywords and policy-issuing departments, this article identified the PPP-related policy priorities in the following three distinct historical phases: Phase I (1980–1997), the encouragement of foreign investment in the public infrastructure; Phase II (1998–2008), the encouragement of the marketization of the urban public utilities; and Phase III (2009–2017), the intensive institutionalization and extensive application of PPPs for solving the local debt problem. Corresponding to the abovementioned policy priorities, this article found that the pattern of PPP-related policies has shifted from the total absence of sustainable development policies in Phase I, to a few sustainable development policy attempts in Phase II, and finally, to a tendency toward policies favoring sustainable development in Phase III.
Pressing new (and old) challenges have put systems of governance and public administration under pressure around the globe. In this era, there is an ever greater need to globalise academic knowledge and learn from divergent systems. China has traditionally been held up as a suis generis exemplar of a particular mode of governance. An updated understanding of modern China and Chinese research on public administration stands to enrich the discipline by challenging old myths and assumptions or by empirically demonstrating some enduring features. G geopolitical significance, it is also an important focus of study. This article outlines the key features of the Chinese system of government, governance and public administration. It maps the contours of the evolution of the study of public administration in China from the start of the twentieth century to a more mature and globally connected discipline in the present day. It also summarises articles in this volume which shed new light on power, governance and public administration in modern China. They also provide new insights into governance and public administration theory. The volume shows that China has seen some localisation and decentralisation, alongside experiments with collaboration and networked based policy making. However, the system of governance and public administration remains innately top-down and centralised with the center holding strong policy levers and control over society. As the pandemic revealed, this statist approach provided both governing opportunities and disadvantages.
This article explores the following question: To what extent are good governance principles being institutionalised in China as a result of public–private partnerships (PPP) policy transfer? Since 2013, China has been pursuing PPP and applying aspects of related good governance drawing from Western experience despite its radically different fragmented authoritarian regime. This makes China a unique case to observe the extent to which good governance principles can be institutionalised in very different contexts. This article assesses the degree of institutionalisation of three good governance principles that guide PPP policy elsewhere: transparency and accountability, willingness to collaborate and equity between partners. It argues that while the PPP policies have been applied extensively in recent years, these good governance principles have been institutionalised to varying degrees as they have had to be adapted and compromised to fit with existing power relations in authoritarian China. The findings aim to add value to the literature regarding PPP policy transfer and good governance, by revealing the challenges of institutionalising good governance principles through PPP policy transfer in an alien context.
Pressing new (and old) challenges have put systems of governance and public administration under pressure around the globe. In this era, there is an ever greater need to globalise academic knowledge and learn from divergent systems. China has traditionally been held up as a suis generis exemplar of a particular mode of governance. An updated understanding of modern China and Chinese research on public administration stands to enrich the discipline by challenging old myths and assumptions or by empirically demonstrating some enduring features. G geopolitical significance, it is also an important focus of study. This article outlines the key features of the Chinese system of government, governance and public administration. It maps the contours of the evolution of the study of public administration in China from the start of the twentieth century to a more mature and globally connected discipline in the present day. It also summarises articles in this volume which shed new light on power, governance and public administration in modern China. They also provide new insights into governance and public administration theory. The volume shows that China has seen some localisation and decentralisation, alongside experiments with collaboration and networked based policy making. However, the system of governance and public administration remains innately top-down and centralised with the center holding strong policy levers and control over society. As the pandemic revealed, this statist approach provided both governing opportunities and disadvantages.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.