Abstract
ABSTRACTThe conventional wisdom in the period following Tiananmen was that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would fall victim to domestic pressures and international economic forces and follow the Soviet Union and other socialist systems onto the ‘dustbin of history.’ But it did not happen. In 2003, Andrew Nathan offered an explanation. The factionalism of the past was weakening in the face of growing professionalism and functional specialization. Political succession was increasingly bound by widely accepted norms, and the regime, though still authoritarian, was the beneficiary of feedback mechanisms that allowed a degree of political participation and provided information on contentious issues. In short, institutions were being created that strengthened the regime and extended its longevity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
