Social Assistance in China, 1993–2002: Institutions, Feedback, and Policy Actors in the Chinese Policy Process

Abstract

From 1993 to 2002, the emergence of the urban resident Minimum Livelihood Guarantee (MLG) system saw a major reconfiguration and expansion of social assistance in the People's Republic of China. The development of the MLG has been a complex process. The initial emergence and design of the MLG reflect space in the Chinese state for innovations and feedback in the social assistance agenda. The expansion and development of the MLG can be explained by the interventions of key policy actors. These actors pushed the MLG for a variety of different reasons. The resources available to these actors and the outcomes of their interventions were a reflection of their institutional position in the bureaucracy. Contributing to existing studies of Chinese social policy reform, this article argues that the emergence, design, and development of the policy reflects institutional space, constraints, and feedback in the Chinese policy process.

Policy Entrepreneurship inChina's Response to Urban Poverty

“…The first to be considered would be Lieberthal and Oksenberg's () FA model. While the description of state structure within which individuals make and implement policy has been, to date, peerless, the articulation of how individuals go about influencing policy is limited to a model of bounded rational decision making which, as I have argued elsewhere (Hammond, , ), does not capture the dynamism of individual behavior especially when a new policy is being pushed. It is for these reasons, as well as additional concerns raised regarding China's modernization (Oksenberg, ), which suggests that alternative frameworks should be sought for describing actors within the bureaucracy.…”

“…Other approaches utilizing policy entrepreneurs mentioned are resource or data intense. Specifically punctuated equilibrium relies first and foremost on extensive statistical data being available in order to identify the punctuations; this is generally not the case in China and absolutely not the case with regard to the MLG (Hammond, , , ). The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) requires an early decision, methodologically, to adopt the tools with which to analyze a particular policy.…”

“…The MLG's development from the local initiative in Shanghai to national implementation is at times presented as part of an overall plan by central government (Leung, ) or as fitting into a neat stages process (Tang, ). As I have argued elsewhere this is not the case, and the MLG was subject to a disjointed development with cities adopting the policy in no clear pattern early on and with no interventions from the State Council until at least 1996 (Hammond, ). The MLG was only adopted by a small number of cities after 1994.…”

“…In 1994 seven cities had adopted the measure, by 1995 this had increased to 12, and by 1996 this had become 101 cities. In 1997, the year that the MLG was implemented nationally through a State Council circular (State‐Council, ), the number of cities with MLG systems was 334 (Hammond, ). This was still substantially short of the 2,310 cities that had implemented the MLG by 1999 (Fan, ).…”

“…This was still substantially short of the 2,310 cities that had implemented the MLG by 1999 (Fan, ). In addition to the slow growth of the MLG the competing models of MLG administration, coverage, and financing also suggest that the idea of a planned implementation from 1993 through to 1997 is misleading (Hammond, ).…”