Published Works
Brown, Junius F. 2021. “Development and Citizenship in the Chinese ‘Mayor’s Mailbox’ System.” Asian Survey 61(3): 443-472.
Abstract:
This article applies Distelhorst and Fu’s (2019) typology of citizenship performances to an original sample of 200 online Mayor’s Mailbox letters to examine how scripts of citizenship differ between richer and poorer areas of China. Using a mixed-methods approach, I find that letters in more developed areas are significantly less likely to present the writer as a submissive subject, but no more likely to frame complaints in terms of rights and legality. I also find that many letter writers behave as “constructive citizens” by stressing their interest in helping the authorities improve local governance. These findings challenge linear understandings of the value shift that follows development, and suggest that the focus on contention in the literature on citizenship under authoritarianism overlooks other, more cooperative forms of political participation in consolidated autocracies.
Elevator pitch: Citizens in wealthier parts of China are less likely to address local government in a submissive tone, but no more likely to use rights-defense rhetoric.
Brown, Junius F. 2021. “Constructive Citizenship in Urban China.” In The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Citizenship, edited by Zhonghua Guo, 191-205. London: Routledge.
Abstract:
Drawing on a random sample of 200 letters submitted to Mayor’s Mailbox portals across China, this chapter identifies a common but neglected type of citizenship in China. This type is characterized by three key attributes: first, a positive-sum or Pareto-optimizing approach to citizen-state relations; second, a public-spirited concern for local public issues extending beyond the citizen’s immediate well-being; and third, a high sense of political efficacy, implicit in the decision to engage with government officials through rational persuasion rather than legal challenges or self-effacing flattery. Constructive citizenship is less anti-systemic than contention, which has received more attention in the literature. It is also more politically active than subjecthood, and even resembles active citizenship in a liberal democracy. Constructive citizens provide local decision-makers with a relatively low-risk flow of information on public issues, and can assist in the targeting of constituency service in an otherwise low-information environment.
Elevator pitch: Introduces and defines the concept of “constructive citizenship.”
Working Papers
Brown, Junius F. 2024. “Contacting, Petitioning, and Satisfaction with Government Responsiveness: Nationwide Survey Evidence from China.”
Abstract:
Chinese citizens have access to a wide range of institutional channels through which they can contact government officials to request help or make complaints. These institutions serve several functions, including collecting information on public preferences and giving an appearance of responsive governance. Using data from Wave 5 of the Asian Barometer Survey, which allows me to control for self-selection into political participation, I find no evidence that using these input channels improves Chinese citizens’ beliefs about government responsiveness. Petitioning leads to reduced satisfaction with government responsiveness, while contacting civil servants or elected officials has no effect. Beliefs about government responsiveness, however, do strongly influence respondents’ willingness to participate through these channels, irrespective of whether they do so.
Elevator pitch: Citizens who sign petitions end up less satisfied with government responsiveness, while contacting the state in other ways has no significant effect.
Brown, Junius F. 2024. “When Responses Are Not Responsive: Explanatory Responsiveness as Performative Governance.”
Abstract:
Studies of constituency service responsiveness tend to focus on material results: the person soliciting help either gets what they want, or gets turned away. While acknowledging the importance of this substantive responsiveness, I draw attention to the phenomenon of explanatory responses: those in which the government provides a detailed reply explaining why a more complete solution was not possible. Far from merely saying no with many words, these replies represent a channel through which government agencies can assuage disgruntled citizens even when they are unable to solve their problems. By studying the rhetoric which agencies deploy in these replies, we obtain a window into the way a government seeks to legitimize itself under public pressure. Drawing on a sample of 2,003 letter reply pairs on the Message Board for Leaders, I identify three common tactics in China’s explanatory responses: arguing back, providing context, and using the law as a shield. These tactics suggest that institutions like the Message Board for Leaders not only collect information about public preferences and provide stable alternatives to protest. They also serve a pedagogical role, teaching the public what it means to be a good citizen.
Elevator pitch: The excuses which local governments make when unable to solve a problem tell us about the nature of state-society communication in China.
Brown, Junius F. 2024. “Law as a Shield: How Chinese Local Governments Use Legality to Deflect Public Pressure.”
Abstract:
In this paper, I introduce the concept of “law as a shield.” This refers to a way in which state agents invoke laws, rules, and regulations to justify their actions, or to justify their inaction when faced with a problem. I illustrate this concept using quantitative and qualitative data from an original sample of more than 2,000 letters and replies submitted to China’s Message Board for Leaders, an online citizen service portal. The frequency of law as a shield, appearing in one out of seven replies, lends credence to the idea that Chinese state and party agencies increasingly use rule by law, or legality, as a source of legitimacy. This is true even as rule of law, genuine constraints on the central leadership, continues to erode. Though my data come from China, I see law as a shield as a much broader phenomenon, and review other literature which finds similar practices in liberal democracies.
Elevator pitch: Elaborates on the concept of “Law as a Shield” from the “Explanatory Responsiveness” working paper, linking it to legality and rule-by-law.