[JCA] Bribery as a Third Path to Power? Political Selection in China Beyond Performance and Patronage
.
Source: Journal of Contemporary Asia | Published: 2026-10-12
Category: 정권·선거 변동 | Keywords: china, election
No skill in my available list matches this task — it isn't an ODA proposal, PPT, meeting report, or call-record citation, so I'm proceeding without one, per the instruction to flag that first.
Political selection inside China's one-party system remains one of the most consequential puzzles in comparative political economy, because the mechanisms that decide who rises through the Chinese Communist Party's cadre ranks shape everything from provincial growth strategies to the credibility of anti-corruption campaigns that Beijing has run continuously since Xi Jinping took power in 2012. A forthcoming article in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, "Bribery as a Third Path to Power? Political Selection in China Beyond Performance and Patronage," enters this debate at a moment when the Party's own disciplinary apparatus, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, has spent over a decade publicizing cases in which cadres were found to have purchased offices, suggesting that the formal meritocratic narrative long associated with Chinese governance coexists with a parallel, transactional market for advancement. The very framing of the title signals that the article is positioning itself against two dominant explanatory traditions in the China politics literature and proposing that monetary exchange, not just competence or factional loyalty, helps determine who gets promoted.
The first of those traditions treats promotion as a tournament keyed to economic performance, an argument most closely associated with the "GDP tournament" model in which local officials compete on growth statistics to earn the attention of superiors. The second treats promotion as patronage, in which factional ties, mentor-protégé bonds, and shared provincial or educational backgrounds determine who advances regardless of economic record, a line of analysis closely tied to scholarship on factionalism within the Party elite. By explicitly asking whether bribery constitutes a "third path," the Journal of Contemporary Asia article implies that neither performance metrics nor patronage networks fully account for observed promotion outcomes in China, and that a residual category, direct or indirect payment for office, deserves systematic treatment as an independent causal channel rather than as noise or as a corrupt byproduct of the other two mechanisms. This is a meaningful theoretical move because it reframes corruption not as a pathology layered on top of political selection but as a selection mechanism in its own right, with its own logic of who pays, who is paid, and what buyers receive in return.
This reframing resonates with broader regional and global trends in how scholars and development institutions think about governance in authoritarian and hybrid political systems. Across much of East and Southeast Asia, researchers studying Vietnam's Communist Party, Cambodia's patronage-based state, and Indonesia's decentralized local politics have documented markets for office in which positions as province chiefs, customs officials, or judges carry implicit prices, and donors including the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have incorporated "state capture" and "position-buying" indicators into governance diagnostics precisely because formal anti-corruption legislation often coexists with informal payment-for-appointment systems. China's case is distinctive because of the scale and sophistication of its cadre evaluation system, administered historically through the Organization Department, which in principle screens candidates on measurable performance criteria; a finding that bribery operates as a parallel channel within such an institutionally dense system would be more theoretically significant than a similar finding in a weaker state, because it would show that even elaborate formal evaluation architecture does not foreclose informal monetary selection.
The policy implications extend well beyond China studies into the broader field of ODA and governance-focused development assistance. Institutions such as KOICA and the broader donor community routinely fund public administration reform, civil service meritocracy programs, and anti-corruption capacity building on the premise that strengthening formal performance evaluation will crowd out informal and corrupt selection practices. If a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Contemporary Asia demonstrates that bribery functions as a distinct and durable path to power alongside, rather than merely despite, performance-based evaluation, that finding complicates the assumption underlying many civil service reform projects: that better metrics alone can displace monetary selection. For researchers working on political economy of development, the article's framing also invites comparative work asking whether similar "third path" dynamics are measurable in other large bureaucracies undergoing performance-based reform, including contexts relevant to Korean development cooperation partners in Southeast Asia and Africa where civil service modernization is a recurring program component.
Looking forward, the significance of this article will depend on how convincingly it operationalizes bribery as a measurable, independent variable in Chinese political selection, since corruption cases are by nature undersampled relative to their true incidence and most available evidence comes from post hoc disciplinary investigations rather than the universe of actual promotion decisions. Practitioners designing anti-corruption or civil service reform programming should treat the "third path" framing as a prompt to examine whether their own monitoring indicators capture informal payment channels, rather than relying solely on growth statistics or network-mapping of elite ties. For researchers, the next empirical task is to test whether the bribery pathway identified in the Chinese case generalizes to other single-party or dominant-party systems, and whether anti-corruption campaigns of the kind China has pursued since 2012 have measurably narrowed this third path or merely altered its price and visibility. Either way, the article's central contribution is to insist that political selection in China, and by extension in comparable systems, cannot be fully understood through the performance-versus-patronage dichotomy that has structured much of the field for the past two decades.