Problems and Purpose

In late 2004, local government officials in Zeguo, Wenling City expressed the need to reduce conflicts of interest and perceptions of corruption in selecting priorities for upcoming budgetary projects. Although the 2005 President of China, Hu Jintao, had vowed never to adopt a “Western-style democracy," mounting political unrest meant that discussions to democratize local public policymaking appeared vital to maintain the Communist Party’s authority.^[1] Some of the projects to be considered included new bridges, roads, a new school, and city gardens. In total, the projects were estimated to cost around 136 million yuan (US $17 million), but due to a change in government policy, only an estimated 40 million yuan (US $5 million) could be spent on urban planning and infrastructure.^[2]

A working committee of party officials from both Wenling City and Zeguo district identified deliberative and consultative meetings as a potential channel for citizens and interest groups to express their preferences in prioritizing these proposed development projects. With the technical advice of Professors James Fishkin (Stanford University) and Baogang He (Deakin University), they applied Deliberative Polling in a one-day event as a means of deciding which infrastructure projects could be funded during the upcoming fiscal year.^[3]

Background History and Context

The Wenling City Deliberative Poll of 2005 is one of a number of consultative and deliberative experiments that have taken place across China. Beginning in the mid-1990s, many villages began developing representative meetings in which major decisions on village affairs were discussed and deliberated upon by village representatives.^[4] This local public hearing system has gradually spread into urban communities with residents beginning to voice consultative input in local decision-making processes. In the Shangcheng district of Hangzhou City, for instance, a ‘consensus conference’ or ‘consultative meeting’ is held regularly once a month.^[5]

Before the Deliberative Poll, Wenling City was already known to be another leading example of consultative practices. From 1996 to 2000, Wenling City officials have held more than 1,190 deliberative and consultative meetings at the village level, 190 at the township level, and 150 in governmental organizations, schools, and the business sector.^[6] As a result of its commitment to good governance, the city won the national prize for Innovations and Excellence in Local Chinese Governance in 2004. In this context, the Deliberative Polling project in Zeguo was seen as being the next step in a series of participatory experiments being conducted throughout Wenling City.

Prior to this, most budgeting decisions were bureaucratically dominated by the Chinese Communist Party’s leaders. Even the previous deliberative experiments have been critiqued as allowing for domination by policy elites and potential manipulation of dialogue to support predetermined conclusions in favour of business interests. Moreover, the processes were demonstrably unrepresentative of the Zeguo Township population of 240,000.^[7]

Zeguo gained its rapid economic development through their vibrant private economy, which revolves around a major manufacturing sector to support the construction industry.^[8] Growing local pressures by this wealthy private sector helped lead the local government of Zeguo to require deliberative, consultative budgeting mechanisms to help prioritise the city’s projects.^[9] A more positive motivation for the coming of the First Chinese Deliberative Poll relates to how it would increase the public spiritedness as shared discussions regarding public issues insinuate greater support for projects that would benefit the entire town.^[10]

Most importantly, the idea of the deliberative poll was required because the local government of Zeguo Township had recognised that it would cost RMB 137,000,000 to fund 30 projects for the city which is outside of their budget (RMB 40,000,000) therefore they required the public to decide on which 10 projects they should fund.^[11] To add to this, it was a binding deliberation and so the end goal includes funding provided for the most important projects.^[12] Surprisingly, although this is China’s First Deliberative Poll, they are the first since Ancient Athens to implement governmental policies and decisions with the use of their Deliberative Poll results.^[13]

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

A working committee and expert panel were both formed in December 2004 to undertake the launch of the Deliberative Poll. Notable participants in the working committee included Wenling City’s Deputy Party Secretary Dai Kangnian, Officer Chen Yiming, Zeguo Party Secretary Jiang Zhaohua, and Zeguo Deputy Party Secretary Wang Xiaoyu.^[14] Jiang Zhaohua advocated for the idea as he believed that it would reduce elite dominance as well as the likelihood of social instability by bringing the people and leaders closer together.^[15]

The working committee was tasked with acting as liaisons with selected participants, undertaking the logistics of the Poll itself, and selecting the panel of experts who would carry out preliminary studies of all the proposed infrastructure projects. The information provided by the expert panel formed the bulk of the briefing information provided to each participant prior to the start of the poll. In addition, Professors James Fishkin (Stanford University) and Baogang He (Deakin University) were asked to assist local officials in preparing the questionnaires, briefing materials, and ensure that both were unbiased, accessible, and balanced. Significant revisions to both the materials and questionnaires were made throughout March 2005 under Fishkin and He’s guidance.^[16]

The Deliberative Poll was funded by the Zeguo Township local government, totalling the cost of RMB 100,000^[17] which effectively helped them to focus on 10 well-deliberated projects for urban planning, environmental and infrastructure construction with the use of their RMB 40,000,000 budget.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Zeguo Township in Wenling City has a permanent population of around 119,200 and a migrant population estimated at 120,000. Of this entire population, 275 people were selected to participate. Selection of potential participants for the Deliberative Poll was done through a process of random sampling from a household registration list.The participants were incentivised to attend the Deliberation Day including RMB 50, free lunch and travel.^[18] Official channels of newspapers and notice boards were used to further widen participation.^[19] It was hoped that, by using random sampling, the Poll would include a diverse and fairly representative microcosm of the views of the general population – both those who are active in politics and disengaged from the process.^[20] This feature was also a core element to achieve the experiment's aim of preventing elites from dominating.^[21]

Methods and Tools Used

This event used participatory budgeting as its main methodology although this was executed using the Deliberative Polling method. Deliberative Polling involves various tools of engagement including surveys (before and after), question and answer periods with experts, small group deliberation, and plenary discussion.

Overall, the process enabled participants to witness competing opinions and become better informed about policies to help formulate and express an opinion in their final confidential questionnaire.^[22]

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Deliberative Polling is intended to create a representative sample of what public opinion might be if all citizens were given the chance to become more informed. In March 2005, selected participants were asked to complete a questionnaire before any briefing information was distributed to them. In the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate the thirty proposed infrastructure projects on a 0 to 10 scale (where 0 is unimportant and 10 is very important).^[23] There were also 4 questions to interpret the participants’ general knowledge of the Zeguo Township policy context, such as what the floating population count was (by which the questions answered correctly increased by 11% in the final questionnaire).^[24] Once all questionnaires had been returned, the participants were given both information about each project and a chance to deliberate their preferences with one another. Of the 275 people initially selected in the random sample, 269 completed the first questionnaire and 235 showed up on the day of deliberations to complete the poll.^[25]

On April 9, 2005, the participants were given balanced briefing documents and divided randomly into sixteen discussion groups of sixteen participants, each of which was facilitated by a trained moderator. Whereas in previous consultative meetings local party officials had chaired deliberative meetings, the moderators were schoolteachers; they were selected from Zeguo Number Two High School and trained by Fishkin and He in the month leading up to the meetings on how to hide their personal opinions, foster equal, civil discussion and facilitate the process of forming questions.

The day alternated small group discussions and plenary sessions in which questions from the small groups were answered from competing perspectives. In their groups, participants were asked to carefully examine the thirty proposed infrastructure projects, discuss merits and drawbacks, and identify key questions that they wished to pose to competing panels of 12 experts during a plenary session. At the end of the day, the participants were then asked to complete an identical questionnaire to the one they had filled out previously: ranking the thirty proposed projects and commenting on the quality of information provided to them.^[26]

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Following the day of deliberation, the ranked preferences of participants changed significantly from the initial questionnaires. Among the highest rated projects, support from participants increased markedly for three sewage treatment plants, producing a plan for the overall city design, extensive repairs to the village’s principal road, and the construction of a ‘Citizen’s Park’. Support decreased for a number of other projects, including a number of minor roads and maintenance to an already existing public park. In addition to their options on policy choices, the participants had also been asked a series of questions about Zeguo and its economic situation to assess their general knowledge of public issues. Over the course of deliberations, responses on the four knowledge questions posed showed an average increase of 8.9% (excluding one question – deemed confusing – that asked respondents to identify a product not produced in Zeguo).^[27]

Crucial to the success of the Wenling Deliberative Poll was whether or not the ranked preferences of participants would have any impact on the policymaking process. The results of the Poll were officially presented to Zeguo’s local People’s Congress on April 30, 2005 by Professor Fishkin and Jiang Zhaohua for further debate and deliberation.^[28] In Congress, a majority of the people’s deputies voted for the Democratic Poll’s top twelve projects and the Zeguo town government implemented this decision.^[29] The chosen projects were more environmental-related after deliberation (such as sewage treatment and road construction which affects everyone’s daily lives)^[30] rather than ‘flashy’ prestige projects like building parks or bridges.^[31]

Moreover, since the experimental project, it has influenced other local governments in Beijing to discuss in their public hearing meetings to see whether deliberative polling would work in their bigger cities which had a larger majority of the Chinese middle class.^[32] As a result, China has had 4 deliberative polls since the Zeguo Township for other infrastructure projects and the entire town’s budgeting plans.^[33]

Analysis and Lessons Learned

This experiment revealed that a balance of power between the local government and its citizens is possible, and that citizens should play a key role in important decision-making.^[34] The process also involved a formal evaluation of the entire process to which the participants’ key feedback included how they felt that the time spent was valuable, how everyone’s views were considered equally, and that the moderator made no attempt to influence others with their views.^[35] Although well received by both local officials and participating citizens, the use of Deliberative Polling techniques did meet with some obstacles during the experiment. First, the cost is a significant issue for other municipalities in China to consider in trying to replicate the event. Zeguo spent over 100, 000 yuan (US $12,000) on the event – something that may be beyond poorer areas of the country.^[36] In addition, selected participants were given a heavy workload, which when combined with the time needed for citizens to participate may deter officials from using Polling techniques on anything but the most important of public issues. Finally, local practitioners tended to use simplified and informal methods, skip over required procedures, and cut short the time given to deliberative sessions.

In comparison to previous public consultations in Wenling, the Deliberative Poll was seen as a significant improvement on past consultative meetings and a viable template for future deliberations. In the past, the sample size necessary to create an accurate representation of the public was thought to need the support and participation of local elites such as people’s deputies, village committee members, and village representatives. Not only did heavy involvement from an elite few render the sample of the population questionable, but it also raised the possibility of manipulating public deliberation and the mobilization of participants chosen exclusively by officials. The random selection method utilized in Zeguo was intended to overcome perceptions of manipulation and allow for an accurate sample of the views of the entire local community.

However, this experiment has been criticized as not being as representative as it seems because 130,000 migrant workers in Zeguo Township were excluded.^[37] In addition, the random selection process has been deemed inadequate as there was a systematic overrepresentation of men resulting from a failure to implement one important customary element of Deliberative Polling - random selection within the household.^[38] But since then, Chinese Deliberative Polls have corrected this mistake and replaced it with sampling individuals from the electoral list instead.^[39]

Previous consultative meetings also did not provide enough background information to participants prior to deliberation. In contrast, a team of twelve experts specifically designed the briefing materials used in the Zeguo Poll. Fishkin and He helped them revise these materials so that they were well balanced and accessible, and clearly communicated the pros and cons for each proposed infrastructure project.^[40] This allowed participants to accurately convey their views to party officials and also allowed officials greater confidence in ‘representativeness’ of the views being conveyed. While officials had previously used anecdotal evidence to praise the success of past consultative meetings, there was no way of ascertaining the actual impact they had upon participant preferences. By allowing for a comparison of participants’ questionnaires from before and after partaking in deliberations, an accurate set of statistical figures was generated. For policymakers going forward with the Poll’s recommendations, this gave the twelve projects selected by participants sound empirical support for reflecting the informed preferences of the community.

Several structural features of the Poll were also singled out for praise.^[41] In particular, the Poll was able to balance the trade-offs between having a higher number of participants and a lower quality of deliberation at a single event. By alternating between small meetings and plenary sessions, the benefits of small group discussions were spread out over a relatively large body of participants. In the meetings themselves, the use of trained moderators was also beneficial. Moderators were advised on how to ensure an equal opportunity for each participant to articulate their preferences and on how to prevent domination of the discussion by a few. Having the moderators be selected from the local high school also ensured that officials attending the Poll were not allowed to overhear deliberations or speak out to influence the choices of citizens participating.

Despite recognizing some problems many scholars – most notably Fishkin and He – have not hesitated in labeling the Poll a success and framing it as an important step on the path to institutional reform in China. Having seen several benefits from the process, Zeguo officials have scheduled a similar Deliberative Poll for subsequent fiscal years. In 2008, a greater range of budgetary issues were added to the agenda for deliberation.^[42]

See Also

Deliberative Polling

Center for Deliberative Democracy

References

^[1] Jakes, S. (2005). Dabbling in Democracy: No one knew what to expect when a Chinese town tried listening to its people. Available at https://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2005/timeasia-dabbling.pdf. Last accessed 05/12/2018.

^[2] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll. In: Leib, E.J., He B. The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 235.

^[3] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll. In: Leib, E.J., He B. The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 219-244.

^[4] He, B. (2003). 'The Theory and Practice of Chinese Grassroots Governance: Five Models'. Japanese Journal of Political Science 4(2): 293-6.

^[5] Pan, W. (2003). 'Toward a Consultative Rule of Law Regime in China.' Journal of Contemporary China 12(34): 3-8.

^[6] Dong Xuebing and Shi Jinchuan. 'The Reconstruction of Local Power: Wenling City's 'Democratic Talk in All Sincerity' in Ethan Leib and Baogang He (eds.) The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. pp 218-221.

^{[7] [8]} Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China. British Journal of Political Science. 40 (2), pp. 435-448.

^[9] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll

^{[10] [11] [12]} Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.

^[13] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll

^[14] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). p. 233

^[15] Jakes, S. (2005). Dabbling in Democracy: No one knew what to expect when a Chinese town tried listening to its people.

^{[16] [17]} Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.

^{[18] [19]} Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll

^[20] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll, p. 233-5.

^[21] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll

^[22] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.

^[23] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll, p. 236

^[24] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.

^[25] Center for Deliberative Democracy. (2008). Results of Deliberative Polling® in Zeguo township, China. Available at https://cdd.stanford.edu/2008/results-of-deliberative-polling-in-zeguo-township-china/

^[26] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll, p. 238-239.

^[27] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). p.236

^[28] Yang, J. (2005). Deliberative polling experiment produces lively debate on local democracy. Available: https://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2005/cdb-lively.pdf. Last accessed 05/12/2018.

^[29] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll p. 241.

^[30] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.

^[31] Jakes, S. (2005). Dabbling in Democracy: No one knew what to expect when a Chinese town tried listening to its people.

^[32] China Economic Review. (2005). Power to the People. Available: https://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2005/cer-power-to-the-people.pdf. Last accessed 05/12/2018.

^{[33] [34]} Yang, J. (2005). Deliberative polling experiment produces lively debate on local democracy. Available: https://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2005/cdb-lively.pdf. Last accessed 05/12/2018.

^[35] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll

^[36] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll p. 238.

^[37] Yang, J. (2005). Deliberative polling experiment produces lively debate on local democracy. Available: https://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2005/cdb-lively.pdf. Last accessed 05/12/2018.

^{[38] [39]} Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.

^[40] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). Public Consultation Through Deliberation in China: The First Chinese Deliberative Poll p. 240-241.

^[41] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. (2006). p. 241-242.

^[42] Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A. p. 243.

He, Baogang and Stig Thogersen. 2010. 'Giving the people a voice? Experiments with consultative authoritarian institutions in China,' in Journal of Contemporary China 19(66): 675-692.

Peng Zhongzhao, Xue Lan and Kan Ke. 2004. The Public Hearing System in China. Beijing: Qinghua University Press.

Pauler, Laura. 2005. 'China's Legislation and the Making of a More Orderly and Representative Legislative System.' China Quarterly 182(2): 301-318.

Saich, Anthony. 2004. Governance and Politics of China. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Wang, Zhengxu. 2005. 'Before the Emergence of Critical Citizens: Economic Development and Political Trust in China.' International Review of Sociology 15(1): 155-171.

External Links

Centre for Deliberative Democracy - Deliberative Polls: China

Notes

An alternate version of this case was originally submitted to Vitalizing Democracy as a contestant for the 2011 Reinhard Mohn Prize.