IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01830-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grassroots governance and social development: theoretical and comparative legal aspects

Author

Listed:
  • Yunyi Qin

    (St. Paul University Philippines)

Abstract

Democracy, as a political regime and a political system in which the people are recognised as the source of power, is now facing new challenges. The expansion of human rights raises important new issues for society, such as who should be held accountable for decisions. In contrast to traditional representative democracy, grassroots democracy expands civil rights and liberties and holds citizens more accountable at the local level. Concurrently, it generates some potential benefits for social development, both for the individuals who take part in it and for society as a whole. This study examines the experience of nations worldwide in implementing grassroots democracy and grassroots governance mechanisms. It makes an effort to evaluate the potential and prospects of legal conceptualisation of the concept of grassroots governance and adaptation of personal self-governance systems in terms of the social growth of communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Yunyi Qin, 2023. "Grassroots governance and social development: theoretical and comparative legal aspects," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01830-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01830-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01830-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01830-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivan Turok & Andreas Scheba, 2020. "Grassroots democracy and development: Learning from the Philippines," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 35(3), pages 179-185, May.
    2. Hibbing, John R., 2001. "Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 145-153, March.
    3. Joan Font & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Clemente J. Navarro, 2015. "Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 153-172, April.
    4. Wang, Shuna & Yao, Yang, 2007. "Grassroots Democracy and Local Governance: Evidence from Rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1635-1649, October.
    5. Min Xia, 2011. "Social Capital and Rural Grassroots Governance in China," Journal of Current Chinese Affairs - China aktuell, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 40(2), pages 135-163.
    6. Neblo, Michael A. & Esterling, Kevin M. & Kennedy, Ryan P. & Lazer, David M.J. & Sokhey, Anand E., 2010. "Who Wants To Deliberate—And Why?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 566-583, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reinhard Heinisch & Carsten Wegscheider, 2020. "Disentangling How Populism and Radical Host Ideologies Shape Citizens’ Conceptions of Democratic Decision-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 32-44.
    2. Jinrui Xi & Feng Wen, 2019. "Sustainable Rural Governance: How Rural Elections in China Lead to Long-Term Social Stability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr & Maximilian Lutz & Markus Tepe, 2020. "Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental vs. intrinsic motives," Working Papers 2018, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    4. Lu, Jie, 2015. "Varieties of Governance in China: Migration and Institutional Change in Chinese Villages," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199378746.
    5. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    7. Ali Abdelzadeh, 2014. "The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or Losing and Political Dissatisfaction," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, May.
    8. He, Quqiong & Pan, Ying & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2018. "Lineage-based heterogeneity and cooperative behavior in rural China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 248-269.
    9. Xu, Xiaoliang & Xu, Xuefen & Chen, Qian & Che, Ying, 2015. "The impact on regional “resource curse” by coal resource tax reform in China—A dynamic CGE appraisal," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 277-289.
    10. van der Kamp, Denise & Lorentzen, Peter & Mattingly, Daniel, 2017. "Racing to the Bottom or to the Top? Decentralization, Revenue Pressures, and Governance Reform in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 164-176.
    11. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    12. Stutzer, Alois & Baltensperger, Michael & Meier, Armando N., 2018. "Overstrained Citizens?," Working papers 2018/25, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    13. Louis-Gaëtan Giraudet & Bénédicte Apouey & Hazem Arab & Simon Baeckelandt & Philippe Bégout & Nicolas Berghmans & Nathalie Blanc & Jean-Yves Boulin & Eric Buge & Dimitri Courant & Amy Dahan & Adrien F, 2022. "“Co-construction” in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Louis Fucilla, 2021. "Does the Bureaucracy Affect Trust in Government? Evidence from Aggregate Public Opinion," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 69-82, January.
    15. Stefan Voigt & Lorenz Blume, 2015. "Does direct democracy make for better citizens? A cautionary warning based on cross-country evidence," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 391-420, December.
    16. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    17. Anna Kern, 2017. "The Effect of Direct Democratic Participation on Citizens’ Political Attitudes in Switzerland: The Difference between Availability and Use," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 16-26.
    18. Claudia Landwehr & Armin Schäfer, 2024. "Who wants descriptive representation, and why?," Working Papers 2407, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    19. Li, Yuan, 2013. "Downward Accountability in Response to Collective Actions: The Political Economy of Public Goods Provision in China," Stockholm School of Economics Asia Working Paper Series 2013-26, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm China Economic Research Institute.
    20. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2019. "How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis," SocArXiv 5t72a, Center for Open Science.

    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:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01830-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.