Leninism and Local Interests: How Cities in China Benefit from Concurrent Leadership Appointments

Abstract

The practice in Leninist political systems of assigning local leaders concurrent seats on higher-level leadership bodies presents a puzzle. In China, for example, a subset of provincial leaders hold seats in the central Politburo, while some city-level leaders hold seats in provincial party standing committees (PPSCs). While some scholars view these concurrent appointments as a form of top-down control or co-optation, others see these arrangements as a reflection of local power and a channel for the assertion of local interests. In this paper, we attempt to adjudicate between these different views empirically by analyzing the patterns and consequences of concurrent appointments of city leaders to China’s PPSCs. We introduce a new typology that distinguishes between the political and economic functions of concurrent appointments to differentiate four possible intergovernmental dynamics of control, co-optation, compromise, and concession. Through analysis of an original dataset on PPSC appointments and case studies of three Chinese cities, we show that concurrent appointments in China’s provinces can function as a means of concession, compromise, or co-optation, but we find little evidence that concurrent appointments allow higher-level authorities to firmly control or economically exploit localities.