(iPoster) When Responsiveness Limits Deliberation: Chinese Government's Response Policy

• In Event: Poster Sessions: Information Technology and Politics & Political Networks
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Information Technology and Politics

Abstract

Institutionalized responsiveness has become a core feature of contemporary governance in China, particularly with the expansion of digital participation. A growing literature shows that online feedback mechanisms can improve information flows and enhance government responsiveness under authoritarian rule (Chen, Pan, & Xu, 2015; Distelhorst & Hou, 2017; Cai & Zhou, 2019). Yet whether such mechanisms genuinely expand deliberative space remains an open empirical question. Building on the debate of deliberative authoritarianism and responsive governance (He & Thøgersen, 2010; He & Warren, 2011, 2017), this study asks how Chinese government response styles evolve once responsiveness becomes institutionalized.
The study adopts a communication-power perspective that conceptualizes government responses as a communication process along two dimensions: internal and external power (Pellizzoni, 2001). Internal power-dependent communication refers to the extent to which government responses rely on reasoning, justification, and knowledge-based argumentation. External power-dependent communication captures discursive control, including agenda-setting, framing, and the ability to delimit or ignore citizen claims. Different combinations of these two dimensions generate distinct response styles: (1) Responses high in external power but low in internal power are strategic, prioritizing control and risk management; (2) Responses high in both dimensions are technocratic, relying on expertise and authority; (3) Responses high in internal power but low in external power are deliberative, emphasizing reason-giving and the possibility of mutual understanding.
To describe and explain the stylistic changes in the Chinese government's responses over the past decade, while avoiding potential interference from different issue areas, the study empirically examines 6,574 government responses to citizen messages concerning new energy vehicle issues posted on China’s Local Leader Message Board between 2011 and 2022. Using manual content analysis, each response is coded for levels of internal and external power. The analysis combines descriptive trend analysis with local regression discontinuity designs to identify structural changes in response styles over time, particularly around key institutional reforms.
The results reveal three main patterns. First, strategic responses dominate throughout the entire period, indicating that local governments consistently prioritize discursive control over reasoned engagement. Second, deliberative responses show a temporary increase during earlier phases but decline sharply after October 2021, when the central government issued formal guidelines to further standardize online responsiveness. Regression discontinuity analyses confirm that this decline is statistically significant and remains robust after controlling for response pressure, measured by the volume of incoming messages. Third, higher response pressure is systematically associated with a lower likelihood of deliberative replies, suggesting that under heavy workload and performance evaluation, governments favor standardized and controllable response strategies rather than pursuing deliberation.
These findings indicate that the expansion of digital feedback channels does not necessarily translate into greater deliberative engagement. Instead, institutionalized responsiveness tends to reinforce procedural and performative logics of legitimacy maintenance (Ding, 2020; Distelhorst, 2017). This study contributes to research on authoritarian responsiveness and technology-enabled participation (Balla et al., 2025), shows that under hierarchical and performance-driven governance structures, digital platforms may compress rather than expand deliberative space. This tension highlights the limits of using digital responsiveness as a substitute for democratic deliberation.

Author

• Boying Chen, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics (SWUFE)