IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v42y2022i1p43-62_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accountability through public participation? Experiences from the ten-thousand-citizen review in Nanjing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Yanwei
  • Qin, Xiaolei
  • Koppenjan, Joop

Abstract

In this contribution, we report on an in-depth case study of the ten-thousand-citizen review in Nanjing, an initiative to deal with the accountability deficit with which many Chinese governments have to cope. Nanjing Municipality invited citizens to evaluate officials’ performance, and their reviews influenced the scores of officials’ remunerations and even their careers. On the basis of theory, in this study, we develop a typology that is used to analyse how the introduction of this new horizontal practice of “letting citizens judge” influenced the existing accountability relations and how these relationships evolved over time. Our findings show that citizens’ involvement initially resulted in a practice in which types of accountability were mixed and resulted in a situation of multiple accountabilities disorder. Only gradually were accountability characteristics aligned and the accountability deficit and overload reduced. This demonstrates the difficulties and challenges of introducing horizontal accountability arrangements in existing accountability systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Yanwei & Qin, Xiaolei & Koppenjan, Joop, 2022. "Accountability through public participation? Experiences from the ten-thousand-citizen review in Nanjing, China," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 43-62, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:43-62_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X21000027/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:43-62_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.