Abstract
Market justice is an important concept in neoliberal discourses legitimating unequal distribution of welfare within societies. This article explores the question of how useful it is for understanding distributive justice attitudes in Russia and China. It is based on a comparative literature review and an analysis of focus group discussions carried out in most provincial cities in both countries in 2012 and 2013. The literature review shows that Russia is closer to a neoliberal state. China, by contrast, has never followed neoliberal prescriptions, either ideologically or as a matter of practical policy, pursuing instead the goal of a ‘socialist market economy’. The focus group discussions show that Chinese tend to view responsibility for welfare as shared between the state and individuals, whereas Russians, depending on their ideology, tend to view welfare as the exclusive responsibility of either the state or the individual. Russians are also more cynical about the way their economy works, suggesting their support for individual responsibility may sometimes shade into social Darwinism.
Highlights
Neoliberalism is about processes of governance rather than relations of production.[1]
It is based on a comparative literature review and an analysis of focus group discussions carried out in most provincial cities in both countries in 2012 and 2013
The focus group discussions show that Chinese tend to view responsibility for welfare as shared between the state and individuals, whereas Russians, depending on their ideology, tend to view welfare as the exclusive responsibility of either the state or the individual
Summary
Neoliberalism is about processes of governance rather than relations of production.[1]. The same analysis showed the ‘double movement’ is not an accurate description of what happened in Chinese public opinion, where support for state involvement/responsibility remained consistently high, and it was not evident in the public opinion of post-Communist countries, including Russia, where support for ‘reembedding’ markets first rose steeply, presumably in reaction to shock therapy, fell somewhat as people got used to the market (see below).[49] In China, new local and state capitalist elites (leaders of both private and public enterprises) have undergone a process of ‘embourgeoisement’, and workers and peasants have been persuaded or coerced into accepting systemic economic change. As Whyte points out, despite being some of the least privileged members of society, Chinese farmers are less concerned about the size, harmful effects, and unfairness of the rich/poor gap.[68] He explains these findings in relation to, first, the fact that the experience of market reform compared to ‘socialist serfdom’ has been generally positive for farmers; and second, by arguing that farmers’ comparator reference groups are likely to be within their own communities. In Irkutsk, Ivan, a soldier of the same age, thought only draconian laws could be effective in Russia, for example introducing severe physical punishments such as amputations to make people honest
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
