[JCA] Bribery as a Third Path to Power? Political Selection in China Beyond Performance and Patronage
.
Source: Journal of Contemporary Asia | Published: 2026-09-17
Category: 정권·선거 변동 | Keywords: china, election
Corruption is one of the most persistent yet analytically underexamined dimensions of authoritarian governance, and nowhere is this tension more consequential than in China, where the Chinese Communist Party has spent over a decade waging what it calls an "anti-corruption struggle" while simultaneously overseeing an economy substantially shaped by informal exchange, gift-giving, and patron-client networks. The conventional scholarly framework for understanding elite advancement within the CCP has long rested on two pillars: performance-based promotion, in which officials rise because they deliver measurable economic growth or administrative results, and patronage-based promotion, in which officials rise because they are embedded in factional networks tied to senior leaders. This article's central contribution is to identify and substantiate a third, largely unrecognized pathway — bribery itself functioning not merely as a symptom of a broken system but as an active, semi-institutionalized mechanism through which political selection occurs. This reframing matters enormously at a moment when China's political trajectory, the durability of one-party rule, and the CCP's capacity to manage internal accountability are subjects of intense global scrutiny, particularly as Beijing's anti-corruption campaigns under Xi Jinping have simultaneously targeted rivals and reinforced centralized control.
The article's core argument challenges the notion that bribery in China's cadre system is simply corrosive noise obscuring an otherwise rational selection process. Instead, it treats bribery as a distinct currency of political exchange that operates alongside, and sometimes substitutes for, both performance metrics and patronage ties. Officials who lack the strong growth records that would earn them merit-based promotion, and who lack access to elite factional networks that would earn them patronage-based promotion, can nonetheless use bribery — whether through direct payments for appointments, cultivated financial relationships with superiors, or participation in graft networks that generate resources subsequently redistributed upward — as an alternative route to advancement. This finding, if borne out empirically through the article's use of court records, disciplinary investigation data, or leaked cadre files (the kind of primary sources increasingly used by scholars studying Chinese elite politics since large volumes of corruption case data became available through the CCP's own disciplinary inspection disclosures), would suggest that China's cadre evaluation system is considerably more pluralistic and transactional than official meritocratic narratives imply. It also complicates a body of political science literature, associated with scholars like Victor Shih, Yuen Yuen Ang, and others, that has debated whether China's remarkable growth was enabled by a genuine meritocracy, a corrupt but growth-compatible patronage system, or some hybrid arrangement that Ang has termed "access money" corruption — corruption that greases rather than obstructs investment and development.
Positioning bribery as a selection mechanism in its own right connects directly to broader regional and global patterns in political economy research on hybrid and authoritarian regimes. Across much of East and Southeast Asia, from Vietnam's cadre rotation system to Cambodia's patronage-saturated bureaucracy, scholars have documented similar tensions between formal meritocratic institutions and informal payment-based access to office. What distinguishes the Chinese case, and what makes this article notable for comparative civil society and governance scholars, is the scale and sophistication of the CCP's parallel disciplinary apparatus — the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and, since 2018, the National Supervisory Commission — which simultaneously enables corruption's punishment and, paradoxically, its selective toleration as a tool of political control. When bribery becomes a viable channel for advancement, anti-corruption enforcement ceases to be a neutral, rule-of-law-oriented mechanism and becomes instead a selective instrument that can be deployed against officials whose corrupt advancement threatens incumbent power holders, while leaving structurally similar behavior by loyalists untouched. This dynamic resonates with findings from ODA and governance-effectiveness literature more broadly, where donor agencies and multilateral institutions have long grappled with the reality that anti-corruption conditionality frequently interacts with, rather than displaces, entrenched informal political economies in recipient and non-recipient states alike.
The policy implications of treating bribery as a genuine "third path" to power are significant for how international observers, investors, and development institutions assess governance risk in China and in similarly structured political systems. If elite promotion is partly transactional in this deeper sense, then anti-corruption campaigns cannot be read simply as rule-of-law consolidation; they must instead be analyzed as instruments embedded within, and reproducing, the very selection logics they ostensibly combat. This has direct relevance for foreign governments, multinational firms, and international NGOs operating in China, since understanding which local officials owe their position to performance, to patronage, or to bribery-enabled exchange can meaningfully affect predictions about regulatory behavior, susceptibility to further corrupt inducement, and the durability of any given official's tenure amid factional purges. For scholars of authoritarian resilience, the finding also feeds into an active debate about whether Xi-era centralization has genuinely reduced the space for bribery-based advancement or has merely redirected such exchanges toward new gatekeepers closer to the center, a question with implications for how researchers model elite turnover, succession politics, and the CCP's long-term institutional stability.
Looking forward, this line of research opens several productive avenues that both China specialists and comparative governance scholars would do well to pursue. Future empirical work might attempt to quantify the relative weight of bribery-based selection against performance and patronage channels across different administrative tiers and historical periods, particularly examining whether the balance has shifted under Xi Jinping's sustained disciplinary campaigns since 2012. There is also considerable value in extending this framework comparatively to other one-party and dominant-party systems — including Vietnam, and historically the Soviet nomenklatura system — to determine whether "bribery as selection mechanism" is a generalizable feature of centralized cadre systems lacking electoral accountability, or a distinctly Chinese adaptation shaped by the scale of its economy and the specific incentive structures of its fiscal decentralization since the 1990s. For practitioners in development and governance assistance, the article is a reminder that technocratic anti-corruption programming premised on transparency and procedural reform may underestimate how deeply transactional logics are woven into the political selection process itself, suggesting that durable governance reform requires grappling not just with corruption as illicit behavior but with the political functions that corrupt exchange continues to serve within authoritarian institutional design.