Understanding the interaction of politics, economy and society in China.
Overview
The appearance of a strong, monolithic Chinese state belies considerable variation in economic, cultural, and governance practice across localities, i.e., administrative jurisdictions and regions. These variations create tensions in uneven development that may exert significant impacts on political processes and regime stability, and are also sources of innovation and institutional changes. The political economy of locality sheds light on the sub-national dynamics in local governance, civil society, and the role of local bureaucratic networks and social institutions in economic development. To understand how the Chinese economy functions and evolves, we need to understand how the political economy, in general, and the political economy of locality – the interaction of politics, economy and society – works across localities, how government policies are implemented and derailed at local levels, how local initiatives take place or are suppressed, and how local bureaucrats and citizens respond to top-down mobilization. Our research is organized around two sets of activities: a.) the collection and analysis of micro-level data to systematically examine variations across localities at the intersection of politics and economy; b.) collaboration with local researchers to gain insights into behavioral patterns in local response to government policies and initiatives.
Filter:
Filter resultsClose
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Belize
Brunei
Canada
Caribbean
China
Denmark
Eastern Europe
Northeast Asia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Burma
Central America
Central Europe
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Fiji
Japan
Mexico
Oceania
Portugal
Barbados
Belarus
Bhutan
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Egypt
El Salvador
Finland
France
Germany
Iberian Peninsula
Kiribati
Mongolia
North America
South Asia
Spain
United States
Burkina Faso
Chile
Croatia
Cuba
East Timor
Georgia
Greece
Guatemala
Hungary
India
Iran
Latvia
Marshall Islands
North Korea
Scandinavia and Baltic Rim
South America
Southeast Asia
Burundi
Colombia
Dominica
Honduras
Iceland
Indonesia
Iraq
Kazakhstan
Kosovo
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Maldives
Micronesia
South Korea
Western Europe
Cameroon
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Ireland
Israel
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Macedonia
Nauru
Nepal
Nicaragua
Norway
Poland
Taiwan
Cape Verde
Grenada
Guyana
Italy
Jordan
Malaysia
Moldova
Montenegro
New Zealand
Pakistan
Panama
Slovakia
Sweden
Central African Republic
Haiti
Kuwait
Luxembourg
Palau
Paraguay
Philippines
Romania
Russia
Slovenia
Sri Lanka
Chad
Jamaica
Lebanon
Malta
Papua New Guinea
Peru
Serbia
Singapore
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Comoros
Libya
Monaco
Samoa
St. Kitts & Nevis
Suriname
Thailand
Turkmenistan
D.R. Congo
Morocco
Netherlands
Solomon Islands
St. Lucia
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vietnam
Congo
Oman
San Marino
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Tonga
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Côte d'Ivoire
Qatar
Trinidad & Tobago
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
Djibouti
Saudi Arabia
Vanuatu
Vatican City
Equatorial Guinea
Syria
Eritrea
Tunisia
Ethiopia
Turkey
Gabon
United Arab Emirates
Gambia
Yemen
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Säo Tomé & Príncipe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
The Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Middle East and North Africa
Russia and Eurasia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Aging
Agricultural trade
AHPP Working Paper Series
APARC In-House Series
Arms Control
Biofuels
CDDRL 20th Anniversary
Children's health
Corruption
Courtesy Faculty
Democracy promotion
Early Childhood Development
European Union
Globalization
Health
Health and the Environment
Hypertension
In the Classroom
Inclusion and Exclusion
Inequality
International Law
Migration
Migration and Citizenship
Obesity
Palm Oil
Race
Rule of Law
SAI
Smoking
Staff
Technology
Vision Care
Agriculture
Agriculture policy
Arms Smuggling
Borders
Cap and Trade
Comparative effectiveness research
Culture
Democracy
Disaster response
Health care institutions
HIV/AIDS
Kyoto Protocol
Population health
State-building
Biosecurity
Business
Demographics
Diabetes
Elections
Health policy
Media
World Bank
Aquaculture
Bioterrorism
Cleantech
Coal
Discrimination
Disease
Health Care Reform
Human Rights
Investment
Military
Protectionism
World Trade Organization
Diplomacy
Economic Affairs
Electricity
Global Health
Homeland Security
Information Technology
Intelligence
NATO
Civil Wars
Climate
Education
Energy and Climate Policy
Ethnicity
Foreign Aid
Health Care
Institutions and Organizations
Negotiation
Climate change
Conflict
Energy Infrastructure
Entrepreneurship
Foreign Policy
Gender
Health Outcomes
Peacekeeping
Policy Analysis
Energy Services
Food Markets
History
Migration and Citizenship
Crime
Cybersecurity
Deforestation
Fossil Fuels
Islam
Nutrition
Trade
Fisheries
Food Security
Public Health
Drug trafficking
Hunger
Natural gas
Publication Series
Shorenstein APARC Studies with Stanford University Press
Innovation
Nuclear Energy
Religion
Nuclear policy
Poverty
Natural gas
Natural Resources
Renewable Resources
Science and Technology
Kidnapping
Oil
Water
Sustainable development
Missiles
Nuclear Risk
Nuclear Safety
Terrorism
Torture convention
Violence
Governance
International Relations
Health and Medicine
International Development
Security
Energy
Environment
Society
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Center for Health Policy / Department of Health Policy
Center for International Security and Cooperation
Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
The Europe Center
Center on Food Security and the Environment
Stanford Center at Peking University
Bechtel Conference Center At Encina Hall
Internal Center (Content Staging)
Cyber Center
Center on China’s Economy and Institutions
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development
Korea Program
Southeast Asia Program
Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
China Program
Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education
Global Affiliates Program
Asia Health Policy Program
Program on Human Rights
Rural Education Action Program
Arab Reform and Democracy Program
Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program
Program on Poverty and Governance
Japan Program
Stanford International Crime and Violence Lab
Austrian and Central European Program
European Governance
Europe and the Global Economy
Migration
France and the Francophone World
Iberian Studies Program
Industrial Affiliates Program
Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective
Taiwan Democracy Project
GDPI
Student Programs
Global Populisms
Ford Dorsey Master's Program in International Policy
The International Journal of Press/Politics,
August 8, 2022
Government censorship—internet shutdowns, blockages, firewalls—impose significant barriers to the transnational flow of information despite the connective power of digital technologies. In this paper, we examine whether and how information flows across borders despite government censorship. We develop a semi-automated system that combines deep learning and human annotation to find co-occurring content across different social media platforms and languages. We use this system to detect co-occurring content between Twitter and Sina Weibo as Covid-19 spread globally, and we conduct in-depth investigations of co-occurring content to identify those that constitute an inflow of information from the global information ecosystem into China. We find that approximately one-fourth of content with relevance for China that gains widespread public attention on Twitter makes its way to Weibo. Unsurprisingly, Chinese state-controlled media and commercialized domestic media play a dominant role in facilitating these inflows of information. However, we find that Weibo users without traditional media or government affiliations are also an important mechanism for transmitting information into China. These results imply that while censorship combined with media control provide substantial leeway for the government to set the agenda, social media provides opportunities for non-institutional actors to influence the information environment. Methodologically, the system we develop offers a new approach for the quantitative analysis of cross-platform and cross-lingual communication.
Repression research examines the causes and consequences of actions or policies that are meant to, or actually do, raise the costs of activism, protest, and/or social movement activity. The rise of digital and social media has brought substantial increases in attention to the repression of digital activists and movements and/or to the use of digital tools in repression, which is spread across many disciplines and areas of study. We organize and review this growing welter of research under the concept of digital repression by expanding a typology that distinguishes actions based on actor type, whether actions are overt or covert, and whether behaviors are shaped by coercion or channeling. This delineation between broadly different forms of digital repression allows researchers to develop expectations about digital repression, better understand what is “new” about digital repression in terms of explanatory factors, and better understand the consequences of digital repression.
Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
December 9, 2005
Corporate governance concerns three sets of issues: property rights, relationships between firms and financial markets, and labor relations. Our literature review shows that the system of corporate governance that emerges within a particular country reflects the outcome of political, social, and economic struggles in that country and that it does not reflect efficiency considerations focused on managing agency relations between owners and managers. Despite these facts, much research has been done in recent years attempting to analyze whether a superior matrix of institutional arrangements or a set of best practices of corporate governance exists to produce greater economic growth. Our review shows that there does not appear to be a single set of best practices, but rather that what is important are stable institutions that are legitimate and prevent extreme rent seeking on the part of governments and capitalists.
