The economic success of East Asia has motivated a vast and ever-expanding literature on the role of the state in development. However, this literature focuses mainly on the urban and industrial sectors, leaving the countryside much less systematically explored. In Mobilizing for Development, Kristen Looney fills in this gap with a comparative study of Taiwan, South Korea and mainland China, highlighting the pivotal role the state plays in rural development. Focusing on state-orchestrated campaigns, the author seeks to explain both the achievements in the region and variations across individual countries.
The book conceptualizes the common approach adopted by the East Asian states in rural development as campaigns, defined as “policies that aim to transform the countryside through the intensive use of bureaucratic and popular mobilization” (p. 5). As an ideal-type concept, campaigns rely on bureaucratic and popular mobilization and are distinct from institutions. While institutions represent routinized, rational and stable governance, campaigns are more uncertain, more radical and more volatile, and yet are more effective in generating rapid and transformative changes (pp. 31–32). The book further proposes that rural development campaigns are more likely to work “when the state's goal is rural development rather than extraction, when the central government can control local authorities, and when the campaign is carried out in partnership with rural citizens” (p. 33). Comparing the three cases, the author argues that rural development campaigns were more successful in Taiwan because the government there was more development-oriented, central control over local authorities was stronger, and peasants could influence policy processes through organized channels. By contrast, in China, where these three conditions were weak or absent, campaigns often led to undesirable outcomes, such as forced demolition and land grabs. The situation of South Korea lies between the two extremes.
The author tests the argument through an admirably executed comparative historical analysis that draws on both archive data and original fieldwork (in the case of China). Each empirical chapter offers a well-structured and yet information-rich narrative about one case, introducing the broader political context, tracing the evolution of rural development policies, and detailing the goals and implementation of the campaigns. The narratives are highly coherent but also guided by a clear comparative perspective. For example, the chapter on Taiwan offers a comprehensive picture of Farmers’ Associations and their unique roles in the Community Development Campaign, ranging from applying political pressure to influence policymaking at the higher levels to contributing to the design and implementation of individual projects at the local level. This picture represents a sharp contrast with what happened in China: in the absence of effectively organized interests of peasants, the state dominated every stage of the New Socialist Countryside Campaign, leaving little room for public consultation.
The author deserves praise for taking up two challenges at the same time and addressing both adequately. One challenge is to establish campaigns as a rigorous social science concept. As someone who has also thought and written about campaigns, I am fully aware of how difficult it is to define the concept clearly and carve out its boundaries accurately. The existing literature correctly identifies some distinctive features of campaigns, such as ambitious policy goals, massive input, intensive propaganda, models, inter-jurisdictional competition and so on. But as far as concept development is concerned, it is still unclear whether all these features have to be present for a policy process to be called a campaign, or whether some features are more important than others. Looney's definition highlights the use of mobilization as a critical feature of campaigns, an approach that I find quite promising, especially if mobilization is understood as the antithesis of the Weberian legal-bureaucratic model of governance.
The other challenge arises from the cross-national comparison. While all are located in East Asia, the three cases are different in substantial ways. For example, land ownership in Taiwan and South Korea is private and arguably more secure than in China, where rural land is collectively owned and always subject to expropriation by the state. Moreover, to harness such a comparison undoubtedly requires deep knowledge of all the cases. Despite the challenges, the author has demonstrated a model of comparative historical analysis in terms of both theory-building and case studies. The quality of the data and analysis about China, for example, lives up to the expectation and scrutiny of experts in this area.
Notwithstanding the merits, some arguments in the book are debatable and can stimulate further research. First, the reason given for the policy drift observed in China's rural development campaign, such as house demolition and land grabs, is that the central government has relatively weak control over local authorities, which is further justified using the fact that China is highly decentralized in fiscal expenditure. True. But China is also highly centralized politically and in terms of fiscal revenue, both of which, as scholars have repeatedly argued, provide substantial leverage for the central government to control local officials. Could it be the case that, instead of the lack of control, policy drift occurs because the central government itself, for whatever reasons, is reluctant to specify policies clearly and to promote institutionalization for their implementation?
Second, I also find that the way of measuring the dependent variable – the success of rural development campaigns – could be more convincingly justified. Looney argues that China's campaigns were less successful than in Taiwan and South Korea. The reason given is that the undesirable outcomes of demolition and expropriation occurred in China but not so much in the other two cases. However, policy drift is one of many possible dimensions that can be assessed. How about other dimensions? Considering that China's rural development campaigns did achieve an impressive record of infrastructure provision (e.g. Anna Ahlers's Rural Policy Implementation in Contemporary China: New Socialist Countryside, Routledge, 2014), it would help to evaluate the three cases in this dimension too.
In sum, the book combines an original theoretical framework, rich knowledge and profound insight about all three cases, and an exemplary comparative historical analysis. It should be treated seriously by those interested in developmental states, rural studies and East Asia, and will definitely trigger more discussions. For China scholars, the book's conceptualization and analysis of campaigns also advance our understanding of this policy tool that is so commonly pursued in the country.
