What's new

56 Percent of Chinese Say Environment More Important Than Growth

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 29, 2014
Messages
24,960
Reaction score
118
Country
Japan
Location
United States
5602327a05100a9b0667a5dac8271470.jpg



In the past 25 years, China’s citizens have become more liberal, materialistic and wealthy. This change in social and political ideologies is not reflected in the politics of the Chinese Communist Party.

However, an in-depth study of the 6th cohort of the World Values Survey (WVS) via its online analysis tool shows that for the first time Chinese citizens are more liberal than ever before, displaying unprecedented and diverse political values.

Interestingly, the majority of Chinese now prioritize protecting the environment even at the expense of economic growth. They also believe fighting inflation is more important than traditional beliefs on spending for national defense and uninhibited economic competition.

The WVS, originally designed by political scientist and modernization theory pioneer Ronald Inglehart, measures the values and views of citizens in over 200 countries. Released every five years, it comprehensively measures how citizens feel towards socioeconomic and political problems.

This year the survey was released in May. Comparing the 6th cohort’s survey results with the first survey released in 1990 sheds light on how China’s economic growth has affected citizens’ at the individual level.

In 1990, 66 percent of citizens believed that the country’s national priority should be economic growth. Another 19 percent of citizens prioritized strengthening China’s military. By 2014 only 47 percent of citizens put economic growth first, though prioritizing military capabilities had increased three points to 22 percent.

When asked by WVS researchers what their aim for society was, 66 percent of Chinese citizens in 1990 answered that they wanted to “protect social stability and order.” By 2013 that number had fallen to just 27.2 percent.

Instead, 52 percent of Chinese citizens stated that “fighting inflation” was their biggest concern in 2014. These changing values are reflected in other social issues such as pollution, education, economic inequality, and philanthropy as well.

Meanwhile, 56.6 percent of citizens surveyed by the WVS stated that in the next ten years China’s priority should be “protecting the environment, even at the expense of economic growth.”

So, if post-modern, liberal values similar to those that exist in traditionally democratic societies also exist in China, why isn’t there more outrage at the government over existing social issues?

To understand this phenomenon we have to consider respondents’ answers to the World Values Survey, and their sense of individual agency.

While most citizens were willing to sacrifice economic growth to environmental protection, 98 percent of citizens surveyed stated that they were not part of any charitable or philanthropic groups.

Moreover, when asked to pick between NGOs, the government and private enterprise, more than half of the respondents stated that it was the responsibility of the government to fix China’s pollution problem.

Perhaps individual Chinese feel less empowered than their Western counterparts, but it is worth pointing out that the number of protests advocating for improved social conditions has increased dramatically in China over the past ten years.

This fits with Inglehart’s theory that citizen dissatisfaction increases as countries develop. However, Inglehart postulates that as citizens’ values become more liberal as a result of economic growth, they will only press for wide-sweeping political change if healthy social institutions exist.

As the WVS data and countless other reports show, widespread corruption and CCP policy continue to strangle faith in public and social institutions. Scandals such as the one involving the Red Cross Society of China haven’t helped China’s civic institutions either.

Nonetheless, the emerging widespread changes in Chinese citizens’ social, political and economic values are still important. These changes demonstrate the increasing generational diversity in Chinese society, as the educated, middle-class continues to grow.

The Chinese government has taken note of these changes in values. The campaign for a “Chinese Dream” is a response to citizens’ desire for a modern, liberalized lifestyle.

The “Chinese Dream” frames the idea of pursuing an individualistic goal, leading to economic and emotional fulfillment via the Communist Party’s narrative by nationalizing the “dream concept.”

The current campaign ties the dream to an idea of national fulfillment rooted in Chinese history. The original speech by President Xi Jinping legitimizes the dream only insofar as it helps advance national prestige.

Even then citizens have interpreted the dream as a social concept rooted in individual happiness and economic fulfillment. Research from the Civil China project shows that 41 percent of netizens on Sina Weibo that mention the Chinese dream do so in a manner tied to a vision “for the people,” instead of “for the nation.”

This data is important, not because scholars should put China in a box ascribing “Western” or “fixed” values to its society, but rather because understanding how citizens’ values change within the economy sheds light on citizens’ future choices.

Consequently, how Chinese citizens view their role in a society grappling with social and economic problems, and how they address those problems, will continue to evolve.


56 Percent of Chinese Say Environment More Important Than Growth | The Diplomat
 
. .
Another ridiculous article. Correlation does not imply causation. There's some ridiculous conclusions that can be drawn from this article itself if that is followed.

Please, expand on the ridiculous conclusion that you mention. Do contest to the environmental situation in China ? Do you think China should emphasize a policy that favors growth and sacrifice environmental concerns? Do you believe that it is possible to implement a dualist approach, pragmatically adopt growth policies that are considerate of the environmental stresses in China?

Thanks.
 
.
Please, expand on the ridiculous conclusion that you mention. Do contest to the environmental situation in China ? Do you think China should emphasize a policy that favors growth and sacrifice environmental concerns? Do you believe that it is possible to implement a dualist approach, pragmatically adopt growth policies that are considerate of the environmental stresses in China?

Thanks.

I am saying nothing of the survey facts themselves. I am saying that to link this to anything political is ridiculous, such as calling environmentalism a liberal, post-modern value and thus linking it to a certain political viewpoint. Going by the data they have, and using their logic, supporting environmentalism also means supporting the military, since both numbers went up in the same time period.

Personally, I am extremely concerned about the environment. But this means just that: concern about the environment, without political bias. Unlike some people, I recognize that environmental problems are scientific, technological and economic, rather than political, and the facts of global warming, ocean acidification, water shortages, etc. will neither go away nor become more serious, simply because of your political beliefs.
 
.
I am saying nothing of the survey facts themselves. I am saying that to link this to anything political is ridiculous, such as calling environmentalism a liberal, post-modern value and thus linking it to a certain political viewpoint. Going by the data they have, and using their logic, supporting environmentalism also means supporting the military, since both numbers went up in the same time period.

Personally, I am extremely concerned about the environment. But this means just that: concern about the environment, without political bias. Unlike some people, I recognize that environmental problems are scientific, technological and economic, rather than political, and the facts of global warming, ocean acidification, water shortages, etc. will neither go away nor become more serious, simply because of your political beliefs.

Thank You for elaborating your position. I do agree with you that environmental problems are more so scientific, technological and have economic effects and is an issue that should be assessed. But at the same time, it takes prudence on Government's initiatives towards issue of water shortages, ocean acidification, global warming -- which requires political will. China, as the 2nd largest economic machine in the world and the world's largest industrial and manufacturing base (bar none) is at the crux of sacrificing environmental concerns for continued growth; or adopt completely environmentalist policies that would hamper economic growth.

Objectively, in trying to understand and appreciate the Chinese perspective on these issues, I think it is important for Government (CPC) to bolster its economic growth to above 7.5% level, distribute wealth from urban to rural areas and at the same time enforce environmental protection edicts. China has the benefit of history in seeing the effects of unabated and unhindered industrial revolution --- be it Prussian industrial revolution, American Industrial revolution, Japanese industrial revolution -- and the effects these had on the lakes, rivers, -- eutrophication being a prime example. The CPC has the Mandate and thus must deliver in helping raise the livelihoods of the millions of rural Chinese, but at the same-time, needs to protect the environment for the benefit of the millions of Chinese in future generations.

I do truly wish the best of luck to the Chinese Government's vision to attain these goals, for the good of the people and the nation.


Kind Regards,
I Remain,
@Nihonjin1051
 
. .
We will take care of our environment, but it doesn't mean that we are going to stall our growth.

There is no conflict about that.
 
.
We will take care of our environment, but it doesn't mean that we are going to stall our growth.

There is no conflict about that.

I'm glad to hear you share the same vision and concern. I've always been a fan of a sustainable dualist approach.

Its a win win scenario.
 
. .
they said ? ok but tommoow all of them will go and work in that polluted companies .

Let's not tilt to any forgone conclusion, dear. I'm quite optimistic that the Xi Administration will be effective in handling these exigencies. Long term growth sustainability is now in the front burner.
 
.
Thank You for elaborating your position. I do agree with you that environmental problems are more so scientific, technological and have economic effects and is an issue that should be assessed. But at the same time, it takes prudence on Government's initiatives towards issue of water shortages, ocean acidification, global warming -- which requires political will. China, as the 2nd largest economic machine in the world and the world's largest industrial and manufacturing base (bar none) is at the crux of sacrificing environmental concerns for continued growth; or adopt completely environmentalist policies that would hamper economic growth.

Objectively, in trying to understand and appreciate the Chinese perspective on these issues, I think it is important for Government (CPC) to bolster its economic growth to above 7.5% level, distribute wealth from urban to rural areas and at the same time enforce environmental protection edicts. China has the benefit of history in seeing the effects of unabated and unhindered industrial revolution --- be it Prussian industrial revolution, American Industrial revolution, Japanese industrial revolution -- and the effects these had on the lakes, rivers, -- eutrophication being a prime example. The CPC has the Mandate and thus must deliver in helping raise the livelihoods of the millions of rural Chinese, but at the same-time, needs to protect the environment for the benefit of the millions of Chinese in future generations.

All of these problems do not have to do with a specific type of value system or government system! They are examples of problems that can be addressed by specific policies enacted by governments, regardless of what that government is.

Also, do note that China is the #1 investor in renewable energy and grid efficiency, and leads the science in research on renewable energy. I know this because that is my field of study. I don't have concrete numbers but something like 1/3 of all research in materials science, physical chemistry and condensed matter physics goes towards energy.
 
.
All of these problems do not have to do with a specific type of value system or government system! They are examples of problems that can be addressed by specific policies enacted by governments, regardless of what that government is.

I agree with you and that is why I am actually optimistic that the Government (CPC) can easily implement policies faster than say in some democracies.


Also, do note that China is the #1 investor in renewable energy and grid efficiency, and leads the science in research on renewable energy. I know this because that is my field of study. I don't have concrete numbers but something like 1/3 of all research in materials science, physical chemistry and condensed matter physics goes towards energy.

Absolutely, that is true one thing that I have followed in earnest these past years were research in renewable energy sources. China has been leading in a diversified platform ranging from nuclear energy, solar energy, wind energy. There are obvious benefits to these over non-renewable energy forms which devastate the environment in the form of blast mining, oil spills, gas explosions, not to mention the nitrogen and phosphorus exudates that flows out from large energy plants (natural gas, mining, et al) into rivers, streams, lakes and ponds which result in eutrophication of said niches. Let's hope for continued good news in these areas.
 
.
I think the ratio should be higher for environment side.
Ruining is easier than improving.
 
. .
air pollution is becoming worse. really need to consider this now. what the people really needs
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom