Shifting Openings and Trap Doors in the Maze of China's Hydropower Policy Processes

[ 126 ] asia policy Shifting Openings and Trap Doors in the Maze of China’s Hydropower Policy Processes Anna Brettell In China’s Water Warriors, Andrew Mertha explores the policy development processes in three cases of large hydroelectric development projects in China—the Pubugou, the Yangliuhu (Dujiangyan), and Nu River dams—as a means to assert that “new dynamics have emerged” in Chinese political processes.1 Mertha’s work makes a contribution to the scholarly literature on policy processes in China by suggesting that the model of “fragmented authoritarianism” could be more dynamic by expanding it to include additional actors, sub-provincial officials, the media, NGOs, and individual activists.2 These actors, Mertha declares, “have successfully entered the political process precisely by adopting the strategies necessary to work within the constraints of the FA [fragmented authoritarian] framework” (p. 157). He asserts that in two of his case studies some of these actors became “policy entrepreneurs” and that these policy entrepreneurs were necessary to induce the reversal of two hydroelectric dam project decisions (one temporarily).3 He 1 Mertha omits an explicit explanation for why, out of the universe of possible cases, he chose the three cases of focus. China has built 250–371 hydroelectric dams annually over the last two decades, and there are 23,000 large-scale dams in operation in China. See China’s response to the World Commission on Dam’s 2001 report, February 15, 2001, available at the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) website u http://www.unep.org/dams/documents/default. asp?documentid=464. 2 Fragmented authoritarianism is a model of policymaking useful in analyzing policy development and change in China in the 1980s and 1990s. Kenneth Lieberthal and Michel Oksenberg discuss this model in Policy Making in China: Leaders, Structures, and Processes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). 3 Mertha’s valid assertion is that concepts from the literature typically utilized to understand policy change in democratic countries can be useful in analyzing policy change in China. Mertha borrows John Kingdon’s definition of policy entrepreneurs as entrepreneurs who are “advocates for proposals or for the prominence of an idea….and could be in or out of government, in elected or appointed positions, in interest groups or research organizations.” See John W. Kingdon, Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), 122–23, quoted by Mertha on p. 6. Mertha’s discussion of policy entrepreneurs in China would have been strengthened if he had included an analysis of the conditions conducive to their rise. Readers should keep in mind, however, that when applied to policy processes in the United States, the concepts of policy entrepreneurs, issue framing, and broad support for policy change are parts of more elaborate theories to explain basic, broad policy formation and change. Mertha could make addition contributions in suggesting ways to modify the models and broader theories for application in China. anna brettell is a Research Associate at the University of Maryland and Senior Advisor for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. She has taught at Cornell University and at the University of Vermont, and is the author of several publications on environment issues and activism in China. She can be reached at . [ 127 ] book review roundtable • china’s water warriors further claims that “while policy entrepreneurship appears to be a necessary conditionforpolicychange,italonedoesnotguaranteethatsuchpolicychange will occur” (p. 23). According to Mertha, policy entrepreneurship combined with “issue framing” that links “coalitions and broad-based support” can “overwhelm the official state frame used to legitimize the policy in the first place” and will guarantee that policy change shall occur (p. 23).4 More generally, Mertha maintains his research illustrates that “political pluralism can take place within—indeed, influence—the policy process in single-party, authoritarian China” (p. xv) and that political processes governing hydropower policy in China are becoming more like those in democratic countries (p. 24).5 Finally, in the book’s conclusion, Mertha warns the reader about the international implications of his research findings in relation to global competition over energy resources. Mertha’s overall approach in assessing political reform by examining specific project decisions is refreshing, and our understanding of the complexitiesofpolicyprocessesinChinawouldbenefitif,asthebooksuggests, scholars of Chinese...