Track records of how legacy political science frameworks are applied to China

Question

There is some scholarly research on this, but it seems a bit dated. I would like to know if there are any updated research opinions on this, be they from academia or industry.

Walder (1986) and Oi (1989) seem to have argued along similar lines to Fukuyama in more recent years, that Chinese politics can be described as clientelism: factory managers and village leaders have a monopoly on distributing career and livelihood benefits. However, earlier research by Nathan (1973) and Pye (1981) emphasize that clientalistic dynamics are just a means to an end. Such ties are transformed into political factions as officials create networks for political support, thus resembling more of a bureaucratic interest group framework.

Question

Given the limited transparency into the matter (informally referred to as "crypto-politics"), what can we empirically conclude about what theory has been saying for the past few decades in terms of how events actually unfolded in China over the past 10 years? In other words, what has held water and what seems debunked?

For the uninitiated:

• Walder
• Jean Oi
• Nathan: A factionalism model for CCP politics
• Pye: Dynamics of Chinese Politics

Note: I don't need answerers to read all of that. I have already given a sufficient summary. It is basically clientalism versus bureaucratic interest group politics, which are common concepts in political science. It would be enough to use these concepts to evaluate what has been happening in China recently and say "Yay" or "Nay".

Answer 1

China is an old nation. In its long, long history it goes through period outbreaks of widescale unrest which can last for many decades - China is a big country. One can say the modern era with the nationalist faction under Chiang Kai-Shek against the communist forces under Mao Zedong was one of these periods.

The nationalists were defeated and abandoned mainland China for Taiwan under the security umbrella offered by the USA forces and Mao secured mainland China for itself. (One can tell an imperial power by which side they chose. The Republic of America always unfailingly, it seems, always chose the imperial power. Some radical republic they turned out to be).

This is a similar assessment to the liberal economist, Jeffrey Sachs going on frim his tecent comments about cutrent relations about USA-China relations.

I only recall Fukuyama from his 'End of History' thesis stating that liberal democracy was the political end of all states. On that basis he is a right Hegelian. This was liberal trimumphalism at its worst and a bad misreading of Hegel's Philosophy of History - never mind Marx's.