Anything Goes? Reconsidering the Role of Ideas and Evidence in China's Rural Policy Change in Early 1980s

Decollectivization in 1980s is the start of China’s marketization reform. In retrospect, not only this policy change has reshuffled China’s rural economy, interpretation on how and why this policy change was possible and... [ view full abstract ]

Decollectivization in 1980s is the start of China’s marketization reform. In retrospect, not only this policy change has reshuffled China’s rural economy, interpretation on how and why this policy change was possible and successful has also heavily influenced the mindset of decision makers introducing policy changes into other policy arenas. A standard interpretation on this policy change refers to its experimental nature, that is, success of experiments featuring decollectivization at a few localities provides evidence to prove its correctness of and hence provide a rational basis for its adoption at the national level. Following such interpretation, an emerging literature has begun to relate China’s policy change to the evidence-seeking local policy experimentation.

This paper casts doubts on this evidence-centered interpretation on China’s policy innovation and policy change. Specifically for China’s rural economic policy, decollectivization is neither a new nor a novel solution during China’s collectivization era from 1956. Different subnational governments has experimented various decollectivizing measures mostly as alleviating efforts during famines. Despite its apparent ameliorative effects, the central government has never considered it as a policy option at national level until 1982. Other factors, like ideational change raised in this paper, must have contributed to the policy change observed in early 1980s.

This paper draws an analogy between policy change and scientific revolution by bringing in an epidemiological debate on the role of ideas and evidences, respectively, in pushing forward major change on a policy or a science program. Borrowing from Feyerabend’s anarchic argument of “anything goes” in describing science revolution, I maintain that ideational change instead of evidence plays a more important role in China’s policy innovation. Historical archival research on major central documents and newspaper, together with interviews with then policy makers, will be used to trace the process of this policy change and support my argument.