[JCA] Bribery as a Third Path to Power? Political Selection in China Beyond Performance and Patronage
.
Source: Journal of Contemporary Asia | Published: 2026-09-18
Category: 정권·선거 변동 | Keywords: china, election
Corruption and elite recruitment have long been treated as opposites in the study of authoritarian durability: bribery is the pathology that corrodes a regime, while promotion criteria like economic performance or factional loyalty are the mechanisms that sustain it. A new article in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, "Bribery as a Third Path to Power? Political Selection in China Beyond Performance and Patronage," unsettles this dichotomy by treating bribery itself as a systematic channel of political selection within the Chinese Communist Party's cadre management system. At a moment when China's anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping has entered its second decade, purging well over a million officials while simultaneously consolidating personalist power at the top, the question of how corruption interacts with promotion is no longer a peripheral curiosity of comparative politics — it goes to the heart of how one of the world's most consequential one-party states actually staffs itself and reproduces its authority.
The article's core intervention is to move past the long-standing "performance versus patronage" debate that has structured research on Chinese elite politics since the 2000s. The performance model, associated with work on GDP-based promotion tournaments among provincial and municipal leaders, holds that economic results are the currency of advancement, giving local officials strong incentives to pursue growth even at social or environmental cost. The patronage model counters that factional ties, alma mater networks, and personal loyalty to senior patrons matter more, particularly for the most sensitive appointments. By introducing bribery as a distinct, empirically identifiable "third path," the authors suggest that Chinese officials have historically been able to purchase advancement directly, converting private wealth or the wealth of clients into career capital in a way that is neither reducible to demonstrated competence nor to inherited patron-client loyalty. This reframing matters because it treats corruption not as noise in the selection process but as a structural feature that coexists with, and sometimes substitutes for, the other two pathways — implying that promotion committees, in practice, are pricing multiple currencies simultaneously and that venality can function as a rational strategy for career-minded cadres operating in an opaque bureaucratic hierarchy.
This finding resonates with, and complicates, a broader literature on corruption and governance across Asia and the developing world. In many hybrid and authoritarian systems, corruption is theorized as either "grease" that lubricates otherwise rigid bureaucracies or "sand" that grinds state capacity to a halt; China's case has often been cited as an outlier where corruption and rapid growth coexisted for decades, giving rise to theories of "profit-sharing" corruption that aligned local officials' interests with investment and development. If bribery indeed functions as a selection mechanism rather than merely a byproduct of weak oversight, this has implications well beyond China. It suggests that anti-corruption campaigns in comparable one-party or dominant-party systems — from Vietnam's own disciplinary crackdowns to patronage-heavy political machines in parts of Southeast Asia and Africa — may be targeting not just individual malfeasance but an entrenched, quasi-institutionalized mode of elite circulation that would require far deeper structural reform to dislodge. For civil society organizations and donor institutions engaged in governance and anti-corruption programming, this reframes the problem: technical interventions aimed at improving transparency or auditing controls may do little if bribery is embedded in the very logic of who gets promoted, rather than being a deviation from an otherwise meritocratic or clientelist norm.
The policy and research implications are substantial. For scholars of authoritarian resilience, the article invites a re-examination of how Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign should be interpreted: is it primarily a tool for eliminating a competing selection pathway that threatens centralized control, effectively re-monopolizing promotion decisions in the hands of the top leadership and its loyalists, or is it a genuine effort to restore performance- and integrity-based criteria in cadre evaluation? If bribery has functioned as a "third path" that diffuses promotion power away from any single patron or metric, then a campaign that suppresses it may paradoxically concentrate power further, reinforcing personalist rule rather than institutionalizing meritocracy. This has direct relevance for how research institutes and development agencies assess political risk and governance quality in China-related engagement, since it suggests that formal anti-corruption metrics — conviction rates, disciplinary actions, asset disclosures — may capture shifts in factional competition as much as genuine improvements in institutional integrity. For ODA and civil-society-focused institutions like IOCSS, the finding also underscores a broader methodological lesson: assessments of "good governance" in recipient or partner states should be wary of taking anti-corruption enforcement statistics at face value, since such campaigns can simultaneously serve reformist and power-consolidating functions that are difficult to disentangle from the outside.
Looking forward, this line of research opens several avenues that practitioners and scholars alike should track. Comparative work could test whether "bribery as selection mechanism" operates similarly in other single-party or dominant-party contexts where formal promotion criteria coexist with informal, monetized channels of advancement, potentially reshaping how international observers interpret anti-corruption drives elsewhere in Asia. For China specialists, the natural next step is empirically distinguishing periods and regions where bribery-based selection was more or less prevalent, and examining how its suppression under the current campaign has reshuffled the composition of provincial and ministerial leadership relative to the performance and patronage models. For the broader development and governance community, the article is a reminder that corruption should not always be modeled as a simple market failure to be corrected through transparency reforms alone; in systems where formal accountability mechanisms are weak, it can evolve into a durable, self-reinforcing institution of political selection in its own right — one that shapes not just individual careers but the underlying character of the state itself, with consequences that extend well beyond China's borders into how observers judge political change, elite turnover, and governance reform across the region.