This chapter compares two distinct phases of diaspora engagement in Mainland China. Historically China has encouraged co-ethnics abroad to retain their ties to the ancestral homeland while simultaneously assimilating into their countries of immigration. Nonetheless, during 1949–1979 the Chinese state accepted successive cohorts of co-ethnics fleeing forced migration circumstances in Southeast Asia. Rather than categorizing them as refugees (nanqiao), China considered them returnees (guiqiao) and resettled them in state-owned farms even though many were diasporic descendants that had not lived in the ancestral homeland before. The policy was arguably motivated at that time by what the Chinese state considered its geopolitical claims to ethnic affinity with co-ethnics abroad. In comparison, China’s diaspora engagement today is focused more on the economic benefits to be derived from the human and financial capital represented by its co-ethnics abroad and their potential return migration. This is reflected in the programs developed as part of China’s diaspora strategy to court business and scientific knowledge in the Chinese diaspora. The initiatives today are also more likely to be targeted at highly skilled emigrants that left China after the 1980s. However, the contemporary diaspora strategy neglects other types of returnees, such as the ‘middling’ category that have difficulty finding jobs after spending a period of time abroad. They are referred to derogatorily in Chinese parlance as haidai (seaweed), an extension of an earlier label ‘haigui’ (sea turtles) used to describe returnees. By juxtaposing these two phases of Chinese policy towards diaspora engagement and their outcomes, this chapter thus critically examines the politics of emigration and return migration in China.
Browse by title
Conventional approaches to the relationship between knowledge and policy take indicators as a means of packaging and presenting knowledge in objective and universally valid ways for transparent and democratic policy analysis. This chapter uses the case of ‘responsible soy’ certification standards to analyze the political role of indicators in the knowledge-policy interface, both as technologies of knowledge production and technologies of governance. The chapter concludes that indicators are better understood as a way of disseminating norms and values than as mechanisms of transparent and efficient global governance.
Habermas influenced the field of policy studies indirectly by stimulating critical insights on epistemological and methodological issues and on the relation of theory and practice. His work inspired policy scholars on their way from conventional policy analysis to critical policy studies. To get a sense of the corresponding elements and significance of Habermas for the development of policy studies, the chapter starts with a short recollection of the program for the policy sciences of democracy and its conceptual problems between scientific methods and democracy. Recalling Habermas’s interventions in the positivist dispute, the technocracy debate and the controversy on the relation of hermeneutics and critical theory, the chapter then goes on to explain why policy scholars committed to democratizing policy deliberation found an interest in Habermas and how his theoretical perspectives and concepts played a role in the discussion on policy evaluation. The chapter ends in a self-reflective and self-critical sense, considering some of the problems that have been experienced by those who tried to recommend his concepts to design and implement strategies to democratize processes of policy analysis and policy-making.
Identity and Wellbeing
Edited by Iredale R. Robyn and Guo Fei
Edited by Frank Fischer, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnová and Michael Orsini
Despite the technocratic connotations evoked by the term ‘policy sciences’, Torgerson finds in Harold D. Lasswell’s post-WWII proposal for the ‘policy sciences of democracy’ a precursor to critical policy studies. That is not just because Lasswell favored democracy, but also because he was unsatisfied with established liberal democracy. He advanced, in contrast, an image of the ‘progressive democratization of society’, which included a participatory imperative to advance human freedom and dignity. What we find central to Lasswell’s approach, indeed, is a critical interest in emancipation. Providing not only a precursor, Lasswell also provides a model. In other words, Torgerson argues, Lasswell’s example can help us to more clearly recognize key issues facing critical policy studies. What is the relationship between critical inquiry and democratic commitment? What implications does a commitment to democratization have for advocacy and for intervention into political controversies? How should inquiry deal with contexts of power? What is the role of political judgment? By examining key concepts from Lasswell’s proposal – especially his emphasis on contextual orientation – we enhance our ability to identify such questions and to address them clearly.
Anne Green, Maria de Hoyos, Sally-Anne Barnes, Beate Baldauf and Heike Behle
In the context of developments in information and communications technologies (ICTs) there is growing interest in opportunities for internet-enabled entrepreneurship. As the internet and ICTs have extended their reach in the economic and social spheres, so they have opened new possibilities and practices in the organisation, content and conduct of work and skills development, how work is contracted and where and how it is undertaken. The internet can alter the contours of labour markets and potentially change how individuals interact with them by broadening access to opportunities and enabling remote and mobile working. This chapter explores conceptually what ICT and internet-enabled work means for the location of work at local, national and international levels, drawing on a review of the literature and on findings from case study research with users of selected internet-enabled platforms. It focuses particularly on ‘crowdsourcing’ – defined broadly as an online-mediated exchange that allows users (organisations or individuals) to access other users via the internet to solve specific problems, to undertake specific tasks or to achieve specific aims. It outlines the diversity and key features of internet-enabled working and implications for the location of work and for entrepreneurship. It addresses two important questions: 1) how and whether internet-enabled working enables workers and businesses to operate in global marketplaces, so superseding the confines of neighbourhoods and local labour markets; and 2) how and whether such forms of work can foster local embeddedness by offering opportunities for entrepreneurship from a home location. It is concluded that crowdsourcing has contradictory relationships with space, since it can provide access to global opportunities, while at the same time enabling local work, as well as issues of flexibility and autonomy.
This chapter will begin with a short history of the emergence of the argumentative turn in critical policy studies from the 1970s forward. Beginning with the argumentative turn, it will explain more specifically what the argumentative approach has meant for standard models of policy analysis, and in particular what makes it critical. Along the way it will show how the perspective has evolved over two decades, moving from argumentation to deliberation, discourse, citizens panels, participatory expertise, interpretation, a recognition of the importance of emotions in policy deliberative processes, among others. A four-level model of policy discourse will be presented, with particular reference to the limitations of the advocacy coalition framework. Before concluding, the chapter will briefly discuss the relationship of argumentation and discourse to politics with an emphasis on policy change.