- Browse/Search the Program
Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Area of Study
Browse By Session Type
- Information Menu
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
- Navigation and Settings Menu
Personal Schedule
Sign In
The Tripartite Interaction among State, Society, and International Sector and its outcome in China’s AIDS Governance
Sat, June 25, 1:00 to 2:50pm, Shikokan (SK), Floor: 1F, 102Abstract
In the first decade of this century, China’s AIDS governance emerges huge transition. In 2000, AIDS epidemic in rural central china have became serious public health crisis; however China government not only didn’t recognize the existence of AIDS disease, but suppressed activists who try to publicize these problems. Late 2002 was the turning point. Since then, China government has begun to respond this issue positively. In the next few years, international sectors’ involvement decreased rapidly in AIDS governance, and it affected China government to adopt international advocacy in wild dimensions. On the other hand, social sectors had obvious growth in their organizational capacity and their space of action and participation. In brief, AIDS governance has become an issue domain with highly openness in China. How did these changes happen in an authoritarianism state like China?
This paper examines the tripartite interaction among state, society, and international sectors and their strategies in different phases of the transitional process of AIDS governance in China. The China government accepted international involvement to improve their capacity to fight against HIV/AIDS and enhance their international recognition. As for the international sectors, they increase their influence to the China government by bringing in enormous financial and technical support. At the same time, they also improve the development of civil society in AIDS governance. In this context, social actors like AIDS NGOs utilized international support to change their relation with state and to obtain opportunities to participate in policy process. This case is essential to understand the flexibility and limitation of resilience authoritarianism in China.