Mass political interest (or apathy) in urban China

Abstract

Based on our reassessment of existing studies on political interest and apathy in various societies, we argue the urgent need for a more systematic and focused examination of mass political interest—as psychological involvement in politics—in China. Utilizing data collected from a public opinion survey conducted in Beijing, China in late 1995, we intend to shed some light on the level and sources of political interest in contemporary China. Contrary to the prevalent argument that most Chinese are politically apathetic, we have found that there was a rather high level of political interest within our sample. We have also found that both conventional variables (i.e. age, gender, education, income, political efficacy, and dissatisfaction with government performance) and variables unique to the Chinese setting (i.e. being a farmer, becoming a private entrepreneur, joining the Chinese Communist Party and holding leading position in the party/government) have significant effects on the levels of political interest.

The Impact of Economic Development on Political Interest Across Social Classes in China: Turning the Chinese Dream into a Chinese Reality?

“…Controlling for Beijing is important as it is the political capital of China and, as Chen and Zhong [5], Shi [22] and Zhong et al [32] suggested, may have higher levels of political interest than other regions. I use ordered logistical regression because the number of categories on the dependent variable are less than the minimum required for a test of ordinary least squares and the categories hold a natural order.…”

“…Chen and Zhong [5], Shi [22], Zhong et al [32] and Zhu et al [33] focused primarily on the middle class in Beijing while Zhong [30] and Zhong and Kim [31] concerned their studies mostly with the working class in rural districts of Jiangsu province. Overall, the findings offered severely limited comparability, though Chen and Zhong [5], Shi [22] and Zhong et al [32] found evidence in Beijing that socioeconomic status (SES) provided insight into political interest. While Shi [22] found a positive correlation between both education and income and interest in politics, Zhong et al [32] found that only education was important while Chen and Zhong [5] found support for income, but not education.…”

“…Overall, the findings offered severely limited comparability, though Chen and Zhong [5], Shi [22] and Zhong et al [32] found evidence in Beijing that socioeconomic status (SES) provided insight into political interest. While Shi [22] found a positive correlation between both education and income and interest in politics, Zhong et al [32] found that only education was important while Chen and Zhong [5] found support for income, but not education. The findings across the Jiangsu studies were somewhat contradictory, though Zhong and Kim [31] concluded that education mattered for the development of political attitudes.…”

“…Some, including Chen and Zhong [5], Shi [22] and Zhong et al [32], have found the socioeconomic resources of education and income offer insight into political attitudes. Individuals with higher education tend to be exposed to differing perspectives and have the ability to process large amounts of information; this typically results in an overall increase in an individual's political interest [10,14,31].…”

“…Individuals with higher education tend to be exposed to differing perspectives and have the ability to process large amounts of information; this typically results in an overall increase in an individual's political interest [10,14,31]. Individuals with higher income tend to have a greater stake in the political system and larger networks to discuss politics, hence the greater interest in politics [5,8,26,29]. This survey measures how people report their SES on a major public opinion survey by asking the respondents to state their current education and income levels.…”