The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China
Abstract
Why would government officials in authoritarian and transitional systems where formal democratic and bureaucratic institutions of accountability are often weak ever provide more than the minimum level of public goods needed to maintain social stability? Findings from a unique combination of in-depth case study research and an original survey of 316 villages in rural China indicate that even when formal accountability is weak, local officials can be subject to unofficial rules and norms that establish and enforce their public obligations. These informal institutions of accountability can be provided by encompassing and embedding solidary groups. Villages where these types of groups exist are more likely to have better local governmental public goods provision than villages without these solidary groups, all other things being equal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,789
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Ostrom, E. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807763 · Cited by 20,653
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Field, B. C., & Ostrom, E. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146384 · Cited by 18,859
Putnam, R. (2000) · doi:10.1145/358916.361990 · Cited by 17,114
Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-6408 · Cited by 14,307
Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition.
Ericson, J. E., & Dahl, R. A. (1972) · American Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2711442 · Cited by 7,203
Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400820740 · Cited by 7,106
Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nonetti, R. Y. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctt7s8r7 · Cited by 5,580
Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation
Evans, P. B. (1995) · doi:10.1515/9781400821723 · Cited by 4,238
Cited by
Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China
Chen, J., Pan, J., & Xu, Y. (2016) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12207 · Cited by 636
Tu, W., & Gong, T. (2022) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1930123 · Cited by 62
Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences
Anderson, C. (2023) · Development Policy Review · doi:10.1111/dpr.12687 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- TSAI, L. L.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 355-372
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2168257305
- Cited by
- 586
- References
- 39
- FWCI
- 56.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055407070153
- The paper
- TSAI, L. L. (2007). Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055407070153
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
