From Compensation Disputes to Persistent Petitioning: Institutional Interaction and Grievance Transformation in China’s Three Gorges Resettlement

• In Event: Resettlement, Integration, and Labor Market Adaptation

Abstract

Development-induced displacement and resettlement often generates disputes over compensation, livelihood reconstruction, and post-resettlement adaptation. Although compensation and resettlement policies are intended to address these concerns, some disputes persist long after formal policy responses have been provided. This study asks why initially bounded compensation claims develop into prolonged and increasingly complex forms of petitioning, and how repeated interactions between affected residents and administrative institutions shape this process over time.

The study examines Three Gorges Dam migrants resettled in a major resettlement destination in eastern China. Persistent petitioning (xinfang) is analyzed as a dynamic process in which the content, justification, and boundaries of claims may change through successive rounds of institutional interaction. The analysis therefore moves beyond the initial adequacy of compensation to examine how administrative responses, procedural experiences, changing livelihood conditions, and evolving expectations influence the long-term development of grievances.

The research combines three sources of evidence. First, central and local policy documents are analyzed to reconstruct the institutional context of compensation, resettlement, and post-resettlement support. Second, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 15 officials from multiple government departments provide evidence on policy implementation, administrative procedures, interdepartmental coordination, and the handling of resettlement-related petitions. Third, longitudinal process tracing of two petitioning cases extending over more than a decade documents how individual claims changed across successive rounds of administrative response. Together, these materials connect policy implementation and institutional responses with the temporal evolution of individual grievances.

The findings show that persistent petitioning is not always a simple continuation of the original compensation dispute. Instead, grievances may change in both substance and justification over time. Two distinct trajectories emerge. In procedure-driven petitioning, substantive compensation issues have largely been addressed, but disputes subsequently shift toward administrative procedures, decision-making processes, and perceived fairness or legitimacy. In claim-expansion petitioning, changing livelihood conditions, family circumstances, and expectations lead residents to broaden the range of losses and entitlements associated with the original resettlement.

Across both trajectories, institutional responses do more than resolve, reject, or redirect existing claims. They also influence how residents interpret previous decisions, assess their entitlements, and formulate subsequent demands. Persistent petitioning therefore develops through an iterative process in which administrative responses and changing claimant expectations continually reshape one another.

The study contributes to research on development-induced resettlement by shifting attention from compensation adequacy at the time of relocation to the longer-term evolution of grievances after resettlement. The findings suggest that resolving substantive compensation claims alone may be insufficient when procedural concerns, livelihood pressures, inconsistent policy interpretation, and fragmented administrative responses remain unresolved. Clearer procedures, consistent policy communication, sustained livelihood support, and stronger interdepartmental coordination can reduce the likelihood that ordinary resettlement disputes develop into persistent governance challenges.

Authors

• Yutong Chen, Zhejiang University
  Presenting Author

• FENG CAO, Tsinghua University
  Non-Presenting Co-Author