首页> 外文学位 >The politics of lawmaking in post-Mao China. (Volumes I and II).
【24h】

The politics of lawmaking in post-Mao China. (Volumes I and II).

机译:后毛泽东时代的立法政治。 (第一和第二卷)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Since 1979, the process of lawmaking has become an increasingly important--and surprisingly contentious--part of the overall Chinese "policy-making" process requiring serious scholarly attention. Taking as its inspiration classic American politics studies of lawmaking, this study asks "How does a bill become a law in Post-Mao China?" and "What impact do the politics of the lawmaking process have on the substance of Chinese law?" At the core of this dissertation is an in-depth comparative case study of two major laws: one on enterprise bankruptcy, one on state factory management. Data are drawn from interviews with Chinese officials and scholars involved in the lawmaking process, as well as Chinese and English language documentary and press sources. The study also seeks to illuminate the roles and power sources of the various Communist Party, State Council, and National People's Congress (NPC) organs involved in drafting major pieces of legislation.; The study analyzes the lawmaking process through four theoretical models of the policy-making process. Rejecting the traditional "command model" of lawmaking politics--that "the Party controls the legislature"--the study argues that the Party leadership is no longer sufficiently unified to reach lawmaking decisions within Party fora, and increasing resorts to the lawmaking system as an important adjunct political battleground. Chinese lawmaking politics are, instead, better understood through three other policy-process models: those emphasizing "leadership struggle" and "organizational politics"; as well as Cohen, March, and Olsen's "garbage can model" of organizational choice. The lawmaking process interweaves three major policy-making "arenas"--the Party Center, State Council, and the NPC--each incorporating distinctive political processes and unique, though overlapping, constellations of political actors.; The study closes by questioning whether or not the Chinese lawmaking system is too fragmented and conservative to meet its major current task: developing the legal infrastructure essential to China's economic structural reform.
机译:自1979年以来,立法过程已成为整个中国“政策制定”过程中日益重要且令人吃惊的一部分,需要学术界的高度重视。以美国经典的立法政治研究为灵感,该研究提出“法案在后毛中国如何成为法律?”以及“立法过程的政治对中国法律的实质有何影响?”本文的核心是对两个主要法律的深入比较案例研究:一个涉及企业破产,一个涉及国家工厂管理。数据来自对参与立法过程的中国官员和学者的采访,以及中英文纪录片和新闻来源。该研究还试图阐明参与起草主要立法的各个共产党,国务院和全国人民代表大会(NPC)机构的作用和权力来源。该研究通过决策过程的四个理论模型来分析立法过程。研究驳斥了传统的立法政治“命令模型”(即“党控制立法机关”),该研究认为,党的领导不再足够统一,无法在党的论坛内做出立法决定,并且越来越多地诉诸于立法制度。一个重要的辅助政治战场。相反,可以通过其他三个政策过程模型更好地理解中国立法政治:强调“领导权斗争”和“组织政治”的模型;以及Cohen,March和Olsen的“垃圾桶模型”组织选择。立法过程交织了三个主要的决策“领域”,即党中央,国务院和全国人民代表大会,每个领域都包含了独特的政治过程和独特但相互重叠的政治角色群。该研究以质疑中国立法制度是否过于分散和过于保守以至于无法完成其当前的主要任务:发展对中国经济结构改革至关重要的法律基础设施而结束。

著录项

  • 作者

    Tanner, Murray Scot.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Michigan.;

  • 授予单位 University of Michigan.;
  • 学科 History Asia Australia and Oceania.; Law.; Political Science General.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1991
  • 页码 350 p.
  • 总页数 350
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 世界史;法律;政治理论;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号