Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Nu River Campaign and Changes in Governmental Agenda-Setting

The Nu River Campaign and Changes in Governmental Agenda-Setting <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article uses the case of the Nu River campaign, under way from 1999 to the present, to shed light on changing models of government agenda-setting in China. A time serial comparison is employed: the issues that emerged at two different times were the same while the agenda-setting models employed were completely different. In 1999 the issue made its way onto the formal agenda behind closed doors, nontransparently; in 2003, however, the same issue received a high degree of public interest and participation. Comparative analysis yields three conclusions: (1) divergence of the departmental interests may lead to an expansion of the public’s role in agenda-setting; (2) outside groups, like environmental NGOs, are playing a fundamental role in public participation; (3) traditional, elite-centered politics in China are changing slowly but surely.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The China Nonprofit Review Brill

The Nu River Campaign and Changes in Governmental Agenda-Setting

Qi, Zheng
The China Nonprofit Review , Volume 2 (1): 71 – Jan 1, 2010
Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/brill/the-nu-river-campaign-and-changes-in-governmental-agenda-setting-4LCiuYLIYM

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2010 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1876-5092
eISSN
1876-5149
DOI
10.1163/187650910X12605098379058
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article uses the case of the Nu River campaign, under way from 1999 to the present, to shed light on changing models of government agenda-setting in China. A time serial comparison is employed: the issues that emerged at two different times were the same while the agenda-setting models employed were completely different. In 1999 the issue made its way onto the formal agenda behind closed doors, nontransparently; in 2003, however, the same issue received a high degree of public interest and participation. Comparative analysis yields three conclusions: (1) divergence of the departmental interests may lead to an expansion of the public’s role in agenda-setting; (2) outside groups, like environmental NGOs, are playing a fundamental role in public participation; (3) traditional, elite-centered politics in China are changing slowly but surely.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

The China Nonprofit Review – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.