Most studies and research on crisis management and government crises focus on nations that are advanced and democratic. Through the institutionalized mechanism of voting, the public can respond to a government's handling of a crisis without destabilizing the democratic system of government. However, the consequences of crises, particularly governance crises, in authoritarian regimes have not been adequately addressed. Drawing upon different frameworks in the field, this paper proposes a heuristic crisis development ladder and a state–society interactive framework more relevant for studying crisis management in authoritarian nations such as China. By focusing on the catalytic effect of crisis that accelerates reforms and changes, this paper argues that critical crises are politically powerful and decisive in authoritarian systems, especially in the context of an increasingly proactive civil society. This paper illustrates the crisis provoking politics that influences decision‐making under non‐democratic rule.
The extent by which public agenda influences policy agenda indicates the degree of democracy in a regime. However, few researchers have drawn their attention on authoritarian regimes like China. This article investigates how the government addresses the demands of the public during a crisis at the policy agenda level. This paper dissects five patterns of agenda setting, namely, agenda-as-usual, symbolic agenda, conflicting agenda, mass campaign (or competing agenda) and authority domination (or hidden agenda) with real case examples in contemporary China. Ultimately, the evolution of various types of agenda setting provides us with a horizon to understand subtly yet significantly changes in the Chinese policymaking and political system with special focus on competing agenda and hidden agenda because such level of political sensitivity can rarely be found in democratic systems. Meanwhile, the comparison among these agendas would inspire authoritative governments such as China to exploit a crisis.
This article analyzes the collective action frame and its interaction with the sociopolitical context of Hong Kong. By tracing the history of civil disobedience, the authors argues that civil disobedience in Hong Kong has been localized by signifying agents as a spontaneous response to the sociopolitical contexts, rather than a planned action. The rapidly changing political environment and sovereignty issues from 1980 onwards had restricted the favorability for opting a planned civil disobedience movement. Through in-depth interviews with protagonists, major civil disobedience attempts in Hong Kong, including (a) Yau Ma Tei Boat People Incident, (b) Protest regarding 1989 China's June Fourth Incident, (c) Anti-Public Order Ordinance Demonstrations, and (d) Citizens' Radio Incident, are discussed. These four cases would be contrasted with the well-planned Occupy Central Movement in 2014 to explain why the latter failed to materialize, and why future attempts of civil disobedience will become less possible in
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.