Which Market Economy for China? Decision Making and Bureaucracy in the Guangxi Sugar Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the mid-1990s, prompted by internal problems in its domestic sugar industry and concerns related to negotiations on its entry into the World Trade Organization, China began to progressively introduce reforms aimed at opening its market. These reforms and their impact in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region particularly, China's main sugar producer and one of the world's major sugar-producing areas, are analyzed. Market liberalization hindered by a specific institutional context and the coexistence of a bureaucratic logic and a limited market economy have created economic difficulties for the sugar industry in Guangxi. Overall, the article casts a shadow on the progress of the market economy in China. Résumé Quelle économie de marché pour la Chine? Prise de décision et bureaucratie duns le marché sucrier au Guangxi. Aux prises avec des difficultés récurrentes dans son industrie sucrière et afin de préparer son entrée dans l'organisation Mondiale du Commerce, la Chine a introduit au cours des années 1990 des réformes graduelles visant l'ouverture de ses marchés. L'impact de ces réformes sur la région autonome Zhuang du Guangxi, l'une des plus importantes régions de production sucrière du monde et la plus importante de Chine, est analysé. Au Guangxi, la libéralisation du marché se heurte à un contexte institutionnel spécifique et une logique bureaucratique coexiste avec une économie de marché limitée, le tout entraînant des difficultés économiques pour l'industrie du sucre au Guangxi. De façon générale, l'article jette une ombre sur les progrès de l'économie de marché en Chine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".