Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. Human Actor Dimension
3.2. Non-Human Actor Dimension
3.3. Governance Effectiveness
4. Research Design
4.1. Research Method
4.2. Data Source
4.3. Variable Assignment
4.4. Constructing the Truth Table
5. Qualitative Comparative Results and Analysis
5.1. Necessity and Sufficiency Analysis of Single Factors
5.2. Analysis of the Combination of Conditional Variables
5.3. Robustness Test
5.4. Drive Path
5.4.1. Sparse Linkage Type
5.4.2. Closely Linked Types
- The “closely linked non-human actor resource type” includes configurations 4 and 6 (outcome = village autonomy ∗ synergistic economy ∗ resource advantage ∗ new technology, elite participation ∗ synergistic economy ∗ local culture ∗ resource advantage ∗ new technology). This pathway suggests that the resource advantage of rural areas and the efficiency of other technologies play an essential role in effective governance. The cases this pathway covers are “hard resources” in the countryside, i.e., physical resources that go hand in hand with developing rural infrastructure. This suggests the activation of rustic material resources such as rural location advantages and the basis for multi-industry development, the introduction of foreign investment, and the involvement of governance actors familiar with rural development, such as “consolidating and improving the basic rural management system”, “strengthening new types of agricultural business entities”, “developing a new type of rural collective economy”, and “developing a new type of rural economy”. The actual practice of rural cases, such as “developing a new type of rural collective economy”, will achieve effective governance.
- The “closely linked human actor resources” path includes configuration 5 (outcome = village autonomy ∗ elite participation ∗synergistic economy∗resource advantages), which is “soft resources”, i.e., villagers, elites, and other human resources. It indicates that such people in rural areas contribute to rural governance, discovering rural strengths, and enhancing the linkages between rural human and non-human resources, such as “cultivating new types of professional farmers”, “strengthening the construction of a team of rural professionals”, and “encouraging social talents to join rural construction”, “encouraging social talents to join rural construction”, etc., thus realizing the effectiveness of rural governance.
6. Discussion
6.1. Activating Human Actors in Rural Effective Governance
6.2. Enhancing Non-Human Actors
6.3. Choosing the Driving Pathways for Effective Rural Governance
7. Conclusions
- (i)
- Cooperative-based collective economics as a necessary condition for effective governance. Cooperative-based collective economics are vital for effective governance in rural areas. It emphasizes the importance of an objective economic entity that is firmly rooted in local conditions. By operating through cooperative groups composed of individuals, rural residents can actively engage in economic decision-making, resource management, and community planning. This participatory approach facilitates democratic decision-making, decentralization, and ensures the adequate representation and defense of the interests of rural residents, thereby enhancing community cohesiveness.
- (ii)
- Resource advantage as a core condition. Possessing a resource advantage plays a significant role in rural effective governance. Rural areas must develop a modern industrial system that revolves around their available resources. Integration and value addition of these resources are crucial for promoting rural development. The coordination of human capital, geographical advantages, and available resources should be effectively managed to facilitate holistic rural development.
- (iii)
- Villager autonomy, local culture, and new technologies as marginal conditions. The importance of village autonomy, local culture, and new technologies in effective governance is relatively small. However, it emphasizes that these factors still hold indispensable roles in achieving effective rural governance. Attention should be given to preserving and promoting local culture, empowering villagers with decision-making autonomy, and incorporating new technologies to enhance governance processes.
- (iv)
- Elite participation as a key element. The study underscores the necessity of elite participation for effective rural governance. The limited rate of elite participation poses a hindrance to achieving effective governance. By leveraging their expertise, leadership, and social influence, the involvement of elites introduces new dynamics and opportunities for rural community development.
- (v)
- Identification of configurations of effective governance. Through the examination of various conditional factors, the study identifies six configurations of effective governance. It reveals three multi-factor combinations of driving pathways: “human actor–resource tight linkages”, “non-human actor–resource tight linkages”, and “human actor–non-human actor resource sparse linkages”. These pathways highlight the critical nature of the interconnectedness of elements within the governance process. By employing scientifically informed policy formulation, planning, and management, the rational allocation and equitable distribution of human and non-human resources can be promoted, ensuring effective equity and sustainability in rural governance. Attention should be given to the unique needs of rural areas, and targeted policies should be formulated to promote the realization of rural revitalization.
8. Limitations and Perspectives
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhao, S. What Is “Rural Governance”? In The Politics of Peasants; Zhao, S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 109–115. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Zhou, Q. Evaluation of Development of Agricultural Modernization in Central China. IERI Procedia 2013, 4, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huhe, N.; Chen, J.; Tang, M. Social trust and grassroots governance in rural China. Soc. Sci. Res. 2015, 53, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.; Li, Z. (Eds.) Rural Governance in China: Review and Outlooks. In China’s Rural Development Road; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 167–179. [Google Scholar]
- Keping, Y. Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis. Fudan J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2018, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yan, X. Political Leadership and Power Redistribution. Chin. J. Int. Politics 2016, 9, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ktistakis, G.; Akoumianakis, D.; Bessis, N.; George, K. Sociomaterial Configurations of Human and Non-Human Actors: Re-inventing Family Trip Planning through Imbrication of Services. In Proceedings of the 2015 Science and Information Conference (SAI), London, UK, 28–30 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, D.L.; Schafft, K.A. Rural People and Communities in the 21st Century: Resilience and Transformation; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Scoones, I. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J. Peasant. Stud. 2009, 36, 171–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Wu, B. Revitalizing traditional villages through rural tourism: A case study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, H.W.; Tam, O.K.; Tan, M.G.-S. Internal governance mechanisms and firm performance in China. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2010, 27, 727–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triste, L.; Debruyne, L.; Vandenabeele, J.; Marchand, F.; Lauwers, L. Communities of practice for knowledge co-creation on sustainable dairy farming: Features for value creation for farmers. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1427–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrelli, I.P. Territorial Sustainability and Multifunctional Agriculture: A Case Study. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maruyama, S.; Shebl, S.M.M.; Abdel-Gawad, K.I.; Kubota, A.; Shimizu, K.; Ishikawa, N.; Mohamed, A.E.D.H. Agricultural Production—Cultivation Techniques and Farming. In Irrigated Agriculture in Egypt: Past, Present and Future; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 225–254. [Google Scholar]
- Gaur, A.S.; Kumar, V.; Singh, D. Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. J. World Bus. 2014, 49, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leeuwis, C. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, K.-W.; Huang, K.-P. Moral judgment and ethical leadership in Chinese management: The role of Confucianism and collectivism. Qual. Quant. 2014, 48, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, L.; Wang, W.; Xie, N. A Study of the Application of Big Data in a Rural Comprehensive Information Service. Data Sci. J. 2015, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clark, D.; Southern, R.; Beer, J. Rural governance, community empowerment and the new institutionalism: A case study of the Isle of Wight. J. Rural. Stud. 2007, 23, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilodeau, A.; Chabot, C.; Martin, N.; Di Sante, M.; Bertrand, L.; Potvin, L. A midrange theory of local cross-sector action based on the actor-network theory. SSM-Qual. Res. Health 2022, 2, 100199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watts, N.; Scales, I.R. Seeds, Agricultural Systems and Socio-natures: Towards an Actor-Network Theory Informed Political Ecology of Agriculture. Geogr. Compass 2015, 9, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elder-Vass, D. Searching for realism, structure and agency in Actor Network Theory 1. Br. J. Sociol. 2008, 3, 455–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Liu, J.; Pavlićević, D. Democratic Localism: The Case of Grassroots Self-Governance in Urban China. Chin. Political Sci. Rev. 2018, 3, 129–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nederhand, J.; Klijn, E.H.; Van der Steen, M.; Van Twist, M. The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer? Policy Sci. 2019, 52, 233–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lang, W.; Chen, T.; Li, X. A new style of urbanization in China: Transformation of urban rural communities. Habitat Int. 2016, 55, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cresswell, K.M.; Worth, A.; Sheikh, A. Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2010, 10, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kneafsey, M. Rural cultural economy: Tourism and Social Relations. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001, 28, 762–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, X. Publicness in Rural Governance and Effective Grassroots Governance. J. Wuhan Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2023, 76, 166–174. [Google Scholar]
- Central Document No. 1 of 2023 was Published, Proposing to do a Good Job in Promoting Rural Revitalisation in all Aspects in 2023. Available online: http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/xinwen/2023-02/13/content_273655.shtml (accessed on 13 February 2023).
- Fiss, P.C.; Sharapov, D.; Cronqvist, L. Opposites attract? Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N QCA and econometric analysis. Political Res. Q. 2013, 66, 191–198. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, L.; Zhao, H.; Chernova, V.; Strielkowski, W.; Chen, G. Research on Rural Revitalization and Governance from the Perspective of Sustainable Development. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsden, T. Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and its Regulation. Sociol. Rural. 1999, 39, 501–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertin, T.; Zacharie, T.; Ann, D.; Ebenezar, A.; Alain, T. Scaling-up Sustainable Land Management Practices through the Concept of the Rural Resource Centre: Reconciling Farmers’ Interests with Research Agendas. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2014, 20, 463–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gichoya, D. Factors affecting the successful implementation of ICT projects in government. Electron. J. E-Gov. 2005, 3, 175–184. [Google Scholar]
- Shulman, S. Nationalist Sources of International Economic Integration. Int. Stud. Q. 2000, 44, 365–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Serial Number | Case Name | Serial Number | Case Name |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Shunyi District, Beijing | 11 | Yujiang District, Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province |
2 | Baodi District, Tianjin | 12 | Yishui County, Linyi City, Shandong Province |
3 | Handan City, Hebei Province, Feixiang District | 13 | Daye City, Huangshi City, Hubei Province |
4 | Baoshan District, Shanghai | 14 | Zigui County, Yichang City, Hubei Province |
5 | Guotang Village, Caojing Town, Jinshan District, Shanghai | 15 | Yaoxiqiao Village, Jiqing Town, Xinhua County, Hunan Province |
6 | Tongxiang City, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang | 16 | Huizhou City, Guangdong Province |
7 | Ninghai County, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province | 17 | Nanhai District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province |
8 | Xiangshan County, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province | 18 | War Flag Village, Tangchang Street, Pidu District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province |
9 | Chuzhou City, Anhui Province, Tianchang City | 19 | Hanyin County, Ankang City, Shaanxi Province |
10 | Luoxi Town, Luojiang District, Quanzhou City, Fujian Province | 20 | Wuzhong Hongsibao District, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region |
Variables | Variable Name | Metrics | Assignment Rules |
---|---|---|---|
Resulting Variables | Rural Governance Effectiveness | Get media coverage | 0 for neither, 0.33 for media coverage but no replication, 0.67 for no media coverage but replication, 1 for both |
Attracting them to follow suit | |||
Conditional Variables | Villagers’ Self-governance | Participation in self-government or not | with a participation code of 1, otherwise 0 |
Elite participation | Village officials | 0.33 if one of these is met, 0.67 if two of these are met, and 1 if all three are met | |
New villagers | |||
Returning entrepreneurs | |||
Collective Economics | Presence or absence | Presence coded 1, absence coded 0 | |
Local Culture | Systematic rural indigenous culture | with a systematic indigenous village culture coded as 1, otherwise 0 | |
Resource Advantages | Location advantages | With one coded as 0.33, with two coded as 0.67 and all three coded as 1 | |
Foreign investment capital | |||
Industrial integration | |||
New Technologies | Does it exist | Yes is coded as 1, otherwise coded as 0 |
Villagers’ Self-Governance | Elite Participation | Collective Economics | Local Culture | Resource Advantages | New Technologies | Number of Cases |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Dimensionality | Conditional Variables | Resulting Variables | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effective Rural Governance | Ineffective Rural Governance | ||||
Consistency | Coverage | Consistency | Coverage | ||
Human Actor Dimension | Villagers’ Self-governance | 0.6355 | 0.7775 | 0.5018 | 0.2225 |
~Villagers’ Self-governance | 0.3644 | 0.6687 | 0.4981 | 0.3312 | |
Elite Participation | 0.3392 | 1 | 0.3721 | 0.3975 | |
~Elite Participation | 0.7956 | 0.7776 | 1 | 0.3541 | |
Collective Economics | 0.9094 | 0.7416 | 0.8740 | 0.2583 | |
~Collective Economics | 0.0905 | 0.6650 | 0.1259 | 0.3350 | |
Non-human Actor Dimension | Local Culture | 0.5905 | 0.7225 | 0.6259 | 0.2775 |
~Local Culture | 0.4094 | 0.7512 | 0.3740 | 0.2487 | |
Resource Advantages | 0.8194 | 0.8183 | 0.8740 | 0.3163 | |
~Resource Advantage | 0.3153 | 0.8735 | 0.4981 | 0.5 | |
New Technologies | 0.5 | 0.734 | 0.5 | 0.266 | |
~New Technology | 0.5 | 0.734 | 0.5 | 0.266 |
Dimensional Divisions | Conditional Variables | Sparse Linkage Type | Close-Linked | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | ||
Human Actor Dimension | Villagers’ self-governance | ⊗ | ● | ● | ● | ⊗ | |
Elite participation | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⬤ | ⬤ | |
Managing collections | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
Non-human Actor Dimension | Local culture | ● | ⊗ | ⬤ | ⊗ | ● | |
Resource advantages | ● | ● | ⬤ | ● | ⬤ | ||
New technologies | ⊗ | ⬤ | ⊗ | ⬤ | |||
Consistency | 0.8589 | 1 | 1 | 0.9154 | 1 | 1 | |
Original coverage | 0.1369 | 0.0912 | 0.0456 | 0.2506 | 0.04564 | 0.09128 | |
Net coverage | 0.1369 | 0.0912 | 0.0456 | 0.2506 | 0.04564 | 0.09128 | |
Consistency of overall solution = 0.935453 | |||||||
Overall solution coverage = 0.661444 | |||||||
Case frequency threshold = 1 Consistency threshold = 0.8 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Peng, Y.; Peng, X.; Li, X.; Lu, M.; Yin, M. Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China. Land 2023, 12, 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071452
Peng Y, Peng X, Li X, Lu M, Yin M. Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China. Land. 2023; 12(7):1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071452
Chicago/Turabian StylePeng, Yu, Xiaobing Peng, Xu Li, Mingyue Lu, and Mingze Yin. 2023. "Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China" Land 12, no. 7: 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071452
APA StylePeng, Y., Peng, X., Li, X., Lu, M., & Yin, M. (2023). Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China. Land, 12(7), 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071452