[JCA] Bribery as a Third Path to Power? Political Selection in China Beyond Performance and Patronage
.
Source: Journal of Contemporary Asia | Published: 2026-10-10
Category: 정권·선거 변동 | Keywords: china, election
CLAUDE.md의 "작성 지시 시 스킬 우선" 규칙에 따라 확인한 결과, 이 작업(학술지 논문 기반 분석 기사 작성)은 ODA 제안서/보고서, 발표자료, 회의보고서, 통화기록 인용 중 어디에도 해당하지 않습니다. **맞는 스킬이 없음을 먼저 밝히고** 바로 작성으로 진행합니다.
The question of how authoritarian regimes allocate power among their elites has long occupied students of Chinese politics, and it carries renewed urgency as Beijing enters its fourth decade of reform-era cadre management under conditions of slowing growth, tightening anti-corruption enforcement, and an increasingly personalized center. Against this backdrop, a 2026 article in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, titled "Bribery as a Third Path to Power? Political Selection in China Beyond Performance and Patronage," intervenes in a debate that has structured the field for two decades: whether officials rise through demonstrated economic performance, as the "political selection" literature associated with GDP-based promotion tournaments has long argued, or through patronage ties to powerful patrons, as the factional-politics literature emphasizes. By naming bribery as a candidate "third path," the article signals that neither of the dominant explanatory frameworks is sufficient on its own to account for the empirical variation in who advances within the Chinese Communist Party's cadre system, and that financial transactions between aspiring officials and their superiors deserve treatment as an independent mechanism of elite selection rather than as mere noise or deviance layered on top of performance and patronage.
The analytical stakes of this reframing are considerable. For much of the 2000s and 2010s, China scholars such as Victor Shih, in work including Factions and Finance in China and the co-authored study on "Getting Ahead in the Communist Party," treated factional ties and quantifiable economic output as competing but largely exhaustive explanations for promotion outcomes in provincial and municipal leadership. The Journal of Contemporary Asia article's framing of bribery as a distinct "path to power" pushes against this dichotomy by suggesting that monetary exchange can itself function as a selection mechanism — a market-like channel through which positions are allocated independently of, or in combination with, growth records and patron-client loyalty. This matters analytically because it reclassifies corruption not simply as rent-seeking that distorts an otherwise meritocratic or patronage-based system, but as a structural feature of political selection that can be studied with the same rigor long applied to performance and patronage variables. Read alongside Yuen Yuen Ang's China's Gilded Age, which documented how access-money corruption co-existed with, and in some respects fueled, China's growth miracle, the article's framing invites a research agenda in which bribery is treated as an endogenous input to the cadre promotion system rather than an exogenous pathology.
Placed in comparative regional perspective, the article's keywords — China and election — point to the party's internal selection processes (nominations, local people's congress votes, and intra-party promotion decisions) that substitute for competitive multiparty elections in the Chinese system. This is significant for scholars of civil society and political economy across Asia because China's cadre management model is frequently invoked, whether as inspiration or as cautionary example, in discussions of developmental-state governance elsewhere in the region. Where Southeast Asian and other hybrid regimes have combined patronage networks with selective performance legitimacy to manage elite turnover, the Chinese case examined in the Journal of Contemporary Asia article suggests that the addition of a market for office — in which bribery functions as a selection channel — may be a more generalizable feature of one-party or dominant-party systems than the performance-versus-patronage literature has previously allowed. This has direct relevance for IOCSS's broader mandate of tracking civil society and governance trends, since the mechanisms by which elites are selected shape, in turn, the space available for independent oversight, anti-corruption enforcement, and accountability institutions within these political systems.
The policy and research implications of treating bribery as a formal "third path" are twofold. First, for anti-corruption policy inside China, where Xi Jinping's long-running disciplinary campaign through the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has targeted tens of thousands of officials since 2012, the article's framing implies that campaigns aimed only at punishing individual transactions may leave the underlying selection function of bribery intact unless promotion criteria themselves are restructured. If bribery operates as a parallel selection mechanism alongside performance evaluation and patronage, then disciplinary enforcement that removes corrupt officials without altering the structural incentives of the promotion tournament risks simply reallocating the same channel to new actors. Second, for the comparative study of authoritarian institutions, the article's title and framing suggest a methodological challenge for researchers: distinguishing empirically between promotions driven by patronage (personal loyalty to a patron) and promotions mediated by bribery (a transactional exchange that may or may not track personal loyalty) requires data and proxies that the existing performance-patronage literature was not originally designed to capture, pointing toward a next generation of quantitative and qualitative work on Chinese elite politics.
Looking forward, the Journal of Contemporary Asia article's contribution is best understood as an invitation rather than a closing argument: by posing bribery as a "third path to power" in its very title, the piece sets an agenda for subsequent research to test how far monetary exchange can be isolated as an independent predictor of advancement within China's party-state hierarchy, and under what conditions it substitutes for, complements, or is suppressed by performance metrics and patronage ties. For practitioners in the ODA and governance-assistance community who engage with China-adjacent development partners or study comparable one-party and dominant-party systems elsewhere, the article is a reminder that technocratic performance indicators and visible patron-client networks do not exhaust the channels through which power is allocated in authoritarian settings. For researchers, it reinforces the value of treating corruption not as a residual category but as a variable worthy of its own theoretical standing in the study of political selection — a reframing that is likely to generate renewed debate, and further empirical testing, within Chinese politics scholarship in the years following this 2026 publication.