MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W97615614

Understanding China's Administrative Reform

2001· article· en· W97615614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhiyong Lan

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Administration Quarterly · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaBureaucracyPresidencyContext (archaeology)Political scienceChampionReform movementPacePublic administrationGovernment (linguistics)Political economyPoliticsSociologyLawHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article discusses China's current administrative reform in its historical context. By relating the present to the past, some seemingly paradoxical questions become answerable. Through a review of the impetus, constraints, and measures of China's reform efforts during the Different periods of time, the author concludes that the depth, pace, and prospects of China's reform hinge upon China's governing system's ability to smoothly, effectively, and timely rejuvenate its bureaucracy as well as its paramount leadership. INTRODUCTION Reform is a catchword that has swept through the world in the past two decades. Governments and businesses alike have all been under heavy pressure for reform and reinvention. This worldwide movement started with Margaret Thatcher's privatization initiative in 1979, was expanded by Reagan's small drive during his years of presidency between 1981 and 1989, and was reoriented by Clinton's reinventing the government in 1993. Reforms of various types have also found their way into Canada, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and many European countries. During this period of time, the world has witnessed many events of global significance such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the election of black activist Nelson Mandela as president in South Africa, and the Asian economy crisis. These events triggered further reform in these regions. China's recent administrative reform coincided with, and has been reinvigorated by the world's reform movement. Since 1978, when Deng Ziaoping, China's reform champion, initiated his massive project of economic reform, China's administrative apparatus has been under constant pressure for reform. A series of reform efforts have been initiated, the most notable of which include the 1982-1983 administrative reform, the 1988 administrative reform, the 1993 administrative reform, and the 1998 administrative reform. Many welcomed China's leap onto the bandwagon of reform and cheered for its initiatives. This attitude was apparent on the major western magazines and newspapers prior to the year of 1989. However, after the 1989 Tiananmen Student Movement, views about the prospects of China's reform started to diverge. While there is no denying that China's economic reform has brought about fast economic growth and plenty of social changes, diverging views exist as to whether China's reform will lead it into an era of sustained development, prosperity, and friendly partner in international affairs. Some see on the horizon a rising economic power dominated by authoritarian rule growing into a new threat to international peace (Roy, 19941 Bernstein and Rose, 1997). Others simply doubt whether China has the ability to reinvent itself and see China as being trapped in a hopeless system of the dominance of one party organized on Marxist-Leninist principles. They believe that China's leaders have never been fully committed to the level of change necessary for making a difference and argue that, unless there is a much more fundamental social changeone that is typically characterized as a revolution-China is de facto the ir-reformable (Lingle, 1997). Conversations with many of China's senior intellectuals, however, have revealed a wait-and-see attitude and are hopeful of a positive reform outcome but want to wait until they see the results before getting excited about it. Indeed, in spite of the series of administrative reform efforts in recent decades, many old problems still linger and new problems emerge. Hope, disappointment, and doubt coexist while the world watches the giant country making its twist for modernization. How are these divergent views justified? Has China made good progress in its reforms? If yes, why had additional reform been necessary at such short intervals? If not, why have efforts been continuously made for reforming the irreformable? …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Administration QuarterlySame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207