Explaining Policy Failure in China

1Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Why do policy experimentation regimes breakdown? And, if there are recognizable patterns of experimental failure, what might explain the variation? Focusing on aviation, finance and food safety, this article considers why a policy style that has been credited with China’s successes in the past is failing to address governance challenges in these sectors at present. The article moves beyond discussions of policy mis-implementation by reframing experimental failure as a case of policy maladaptation under conditions of complexity and ambiguity. Maladaptation describes how approaches used in previous periods to foster adaptation can inadvertently make a system less resilient in the future. The analysis shows how the degree of consolidation of previously successful experimental regimes lends itself to certain types of maladaptation in the present: consolidated regimes are unable to generate policy alternatives (aviation), moderately consolidated regimes are maladapted for selection (finance), and unconsolidated regimes impede niche creation (food safety).

References Powered by Scopus

The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research

1296Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Maladaptation

898Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Policy experimentation in China's economic rise

514Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Policy Learning in Governing Complex Technologies: The Pendulum Swing of China’s Central Government

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yasuda, J. K. (2024). Explaining Policy Failure in China. China Quarterly, 257, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741023000711

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

63%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

25%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 3

43%

Business, Management and Accounting 2

29%

Psychology 1

14%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1

14%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free