‘Representation’ and Dàibiǎo: a comparative study of the notions of political representation in France and China
Open accessAbstract
By scrutinizing the semantics of words and going beyond a nominalist approach, this article compares the theoretical, linguistic and discursive evolution of the notion of representation in France and China, from its ancient origins to its contemporary interpretations. We argue that the word “representation” in English and “dàibiǎo 代表” in Chinese are not interchangeable synonymous, because “representation” includes a symbolic dimension that is absent in dàibiǎo, and because the latter is rarely used when informal representation is concerned. We also argue that both Chinese and Anglo-American political science research overemphasizes mandated representation and underestimates symbolic representation. Furthermore, our empirical research in three provinces of China and two regions of France demonstrates that in both countries, local officials and elected politicians serve a similar role of political intermediaries, who embody state power and respond to citizens’ demands simultaneously, thus enabling a de-facto representative loop. Such argument refutes the current understanding of representation as a “one-way authorization” that is supposed to come either from below (i.e. from the people) in the electoral democracies or from above (i.e. from the state authority) in authoritarian regimes and thus challenges the over-simplistic dichotomy of democratic and authoritarian regimes in representative studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
De facto representative loops that act as key instruments bridging the interests of citizens, representatives, and upper-level authorities can be found in many authoritarian regimes.
“Scholars have consequently refuted the notion that democracy should be the premise of representative studies, as de facto representative loops that act as key instruments bridging the interests of the citizens, representatives, and upper-level authorities can be found in many authoritarian regimes (Sintomer and Zhou 2019).”
From Coalition-Based Gender Lobbying: Revisiting Women's Substantive Representation in China's Authoritarian Governance (2022) · cites this paper as Sintomer and Zhou 2019
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 65 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Sintomer, Y., & Zhou, Y.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris 8 (FR)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zhou, Yunyun
- Venue
- Journal of Chinese Governance
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-10-02
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 362-389
- ISSN
- 2381-2346 (ISSN-L)
- 2381-2354
- OpenAlex
- W2983234316
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 3.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.science
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal of Chinese Governance (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-15-FRAL-0010)
- Academia Sinica
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
- Keywords
- political representation, symbolic representation, political intermediaries, local government officials, elected officials, French politics, Chinese politics, comparative political thought
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