Zhao Shukai: Pluralism powered China’s rural reform

Zhao Shukai (赵树凯; b. 1959) is a Chinese official of rural policy and governance. From 1982 to 1989, he worked at the Rural Policy Research Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee’s Secretariat (later reorganised as the State Council’s Rural Development Research Centre and subsequently the Research Centre of Rural Economy under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs). Starting in 1990, he served at the Development Research Centre of the State Council, holding roles including Director General of the Rural Department’s Organisation Research Office and Director General of the Information Centre. He also served as Deputy Party Secretary of Zhuolu County, Hebei.

In the following article, Zhao dissects the usual cast of reform heroes—central architects, bold provincial leaders, ingenious farmers, canny think tankers—and finds their starring roles less decisive than legend suggests. What really enabled change, he argues, was a contested apex: leaders who could not impose a single line on one another. That stalemate widened room for manoeuvre, emboldened reformers to act first, and forced Beijing to ratify later. The lesson is clear: China’s rural reform thrived when authority was plural and competitive.

Policymaking of rural reform in the 1980s shows that reform depends on a permissive political environment. Policy innovation requires competitive political conditions and cannot exist under absolute authority. A pluralistic power structure provides the political platform and the historical space for reform and innovation. Reform advanced not simply because reformist actors emerged, but because the political structure itself evolved to create enabling conditions. That transformation produced a favourable climate, providing the political space or the political opportunity for change.

In further terms, reform requires not only reform-minded actors but also an enabling political space. Where such space exists, reformers can exert influence; where it is absent, their efforts rarely succeed. In other words, reform-oriented political forces have always existed, but reform itself does not invariably follow, because staging the “drama” of reform requires the presence of specific political conditions. Chief among these is openness in the political structure, both in top-level power relations and in the ideological sphere. Only such openness can secure political space for reform, allow diverse policy proposals to be aired, give rise to policy competition, mobilise reform actors, and translate reform initiatives into tangible socioeconomic results. Conversely, when the structure is highly rigid, officials can only act under uniform directives, think tanks can advise only within prescribed policy lines,

...