新时代的经济合法化：民众对国家所有制和市场监管的态度 (Economic Legitimation in a New Era: Public Attitudes About State Ownership and Market Regulation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English version of this paper can be found at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2984141 Chinese Abstract: 威权政体通常寻求经济发展和再分配政策来获得民众的支持，中国也不例外。经济发展对威权政体合法性的支撑比我们想的要复杂得多。除了物质上的满足，民众也关注国家在经济领域所扮演的其他角色以及国家干预的公平性。在2015年底以及2016年初的一次问卷调查当中，我们搜集了关于中国民众对于政府在经济领域最主要也是目前最热门的两个角色的看法：国家所有制及市场监管。通过这次问卷调查，我们发现民众对政府在这两个领域的表现都比较满意。但是，进一步的分析也发现，民众的满意来源于他们相信政府应该在这两个领域进行干预。但民众对政府实际的表现却褒贬不一。具体来说，城市的年轻人更具有批判性，这也说明中国共产党获得合法性的策略可能会因为代际更替而受到挑战。 English Abstract: Autocrats typically seek public support on the basis of economic growth-promotion and redistribution policies, and China is no exception. As important as these factors are for authoritarian resilience, we argue that economic legitimation is a more complex phenomenon than has previously been acknowledged. Beyond improvements in material well-being, citizens form judgments about the state’s effectiveness in carrying out a variety of economic roles beyond growth-promotion and they also care about the fairness of these market interventions. In this study, we use original survey data collected in late 2015 and early 2016 to evaluate Chinese citizens’ perceptions of two economic roles of the state that have been hotly debated in recent years: state ownership and market regulation. We find that while citizens view the ideas of state ownership and interventionist regulation in a generally positive light — suggesting a broad level of agreement in Chinese society about what economic functions the state ought to perform — perceptions of how the state actually carries out these roles are more mixed. Our results show that the urban young are especially inclined to critical evaluations, raising the question of how the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimation strategy will fare under conditions of inter-generational value change.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".