Authoritarian Co-optation in the Age of Globalisation: Evidence from Hong Kong

The existing literature on authoritarian survival, implicitly or explicitly, assumes that political challenges faced by authoritarian regimes are all domestic. I argue that globalisation exposes authoritarian regimes to new sources of threat. In particular, capital mobility forces authoritarian regimes to deal with not only those who dare to voice out dissatisfaction, but also those who exit. While repression may be the best strategy to silence the vocal, co-optation would be a more effective tool to retain the runaway. It is, however, often impossible to co-opt all the capital owners. As such, authoritarian regimes have to be selective when choosing co-optation targets. I argue that authoritarian regimes would co-opt renowned firms because these firms yield the greatest demonstration effect. Hong Kong provides an interesting case to illustrate my arguments. Beijing strategically co-opted the stakeholders of renowned firms in Hong Kong in order to solve the city's pervasive confidence crisis prior to 1997. I test my arguments with data on firms listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. I find that firms owned by well-known and prestigious elite families were more likely to build political connections with Beijing. To test the causal linkage more rigorously, I use both the genetic matching and instrumental variable approaches. The empirical results provide strong support to my arguments.     

Poderes fácticos,comunicación y gobernabilidad: un acercamiento conceptual

The category of factual powers has become a fashionable term. Beyond observable differences in the journalistic, academic or political interests of the scholarly approaches to the topic, the author considers that it is possible to affirm that this question is inextricably related to the issue of democracy, and specifically its viability and governability. This article is framed within this analytic and contextual perspective -factual powers, democracy and governability. Given that the category has not a univocal meaning, after drawing basic differences among the various interest groups, pressure groups and factual powers, it characterizes those emerging social actors capable to dispute the power of formal institutions and analyzes the particular composition of the mass media.     

公益法律援助的职业理性——对话丹宁勋爵对法律援助的诟病

法律援助作为制度福利的一种,对其有着多种不同声音的评价。丹宁勋爵对法律援助的批评具有代表性。只有将具体的法律援助行为纳入公益法律进程中去才能对回应各种批评意见。文章从社会保障思潮的演变、法律职业主义理论与律师职业伦理的张力三个方面理性分析了公益法律援助的价值、根源与运作模式。     

社会转型期群体性事件的特点、成因及对策

我国正处于社会转型的关键时期,近年来,全国范围内的群体性事件剧增,对社会安定造成影响。要减少群体性事件的发生,就必须从其自身具备的特点、发生的原因、以及防控对策入手进行分析。本文就分别从群体性事件的特点、成因及对策三个方面对群体性事件进行分析阐述。论文主要采用调查法,例证法,统计法等研究方法,从而得出结论,进而有利于决策部门从实质上认识和把握群体性事件,有利于有效预防和处置群体性事件,维持社会的安定和谐。     

集体建设用地使用制度改革的价值取向研究

计划经济体制下集体建设用地使用制度价值取向单一,造成了诸多问题。市场化改革进程中,集体建设用地使用制度改革应采取多元化的价值取向,坚持效率优先原则,实现城乡建设用地的平等,在此基础上化解各种土地利益冲突,促使各种土地价值的充分实现,实现公私利益的平衡。     

我国行政管理体制改革中的“部门利益”问题

部门利益是深化行政管理体制改革的瓶颈,它的存在阻滞政府职能转变,破坏法制统一,滋生寻租腐败,使改革与初衷发生偏离,成为建立现代公共行政体制的器质性障碍。因此,必须通过深化体制改革,强化制度建设,从体制和制度上有效治理部门利益,才能推进从部门行政向公共行政的根本转型。     

民生时代我国公共政策的价值选择

公共政策作为对全社会价值资源最有权威的分配工具,有责任和义务通过政治过程所作出的选择和分配办法的制定来解决公共问题,以实现公共利益的最大化。进入民生发展新时代以后,社会公共政策的公共性与社会发展的公共利益最大化就历史地逻辑地统一在发展好、维护好、实现好广大人民群众根本利益基础之上,社会公共利益的最大化实现就是要保证不断改善民生、不断提高民生质量,实现人的全面发展,这就成了现代公共政策的基本价值目标。     

法与伦理的交织:婚生否认之诉中适格原告分析

婚生否认之诉是人事诉讼程序中的重要组成部分。与我国大陆社会伦理观念较为相近的台湾地区,其民法亲属编经过十余次修正,其亲属法日益与世界亲属法的潮流相融合。反观我国亲属法和民事诉讼法,仅就婚生否认之诉中适格原告问题仍无法达成一致。而适格原告是成功构建婚生否认之诉的前提。借鉴德国及我国台湾地区等成功立法经验和结合我国现状,论证我国婚生否认之诉的诉讼主体不仅限于夫、妻及子女,还应有条件的包括第三人。     

四川少数民族同胞利益诉求差异研究

四川少数民族同胞最强烈的利益诉求是增加家庭收入,而不是改善居住和生活条件。不仅不同性别、不同民族少数民族同胞存在同一利益诉求和不同利益诉求强烈程度差异,而且不同年龄、不同地区、接受不同教育程度的少数民族同胞也存在同一利益诉求和不同利益诉求强烈程度差异。政府应大力改善基础设施、交通条件,发展民族经济;大力提高少数民族同胞教育水平,促进民族地区经济发展;通过基础设施和交通条件的改善、民族经济的发展,提高少数民族同胞的生活水平、改善民族地区的基础设施和交通条件,促进民族地区经济的发展和少数民族同胞生活水平的提高。     

Interest group–party linkage in the twenty‐first century: Evidence from Denmark,the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

This article systematically investigates interest group–party interactions in the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom based on cross‐national surveys with responses from 1,225 interest groups. The findings show that interest groups and parties still interact in the beginning of the twenty‐first century, but that the vast majority of their interaction involves a low degree of institutionalisation. Using fractional logit analysis, it is demonstrated that the strength of interest group–party linkage is primarily affected by systematic differences in state–society structures and organisational group characteristics. Moreover, differences are found in what conditions different types of interaction. Whereas historical legacies and partisan origin influence an interest group's structural party links, group resources make interactions of a less institutionalised, ad hoc nature more likely.