The “Beijing consensus” as a neopatrimonial political and economic system

To the article aims to substantiate the neopatrimonial approach as a theoretical and methodological paradigm that more precisely reflects the specifics of the political and economic system of modern China, known as the “Beijing Consensus”. As a working hypothesis, the author argues that as a result of the reforms carried out in recent decades, a model of a neopatrimonial “development state” has been implemented in China, organically combining traditional and rational bureaucratic management practices.

The theoretical foundations of this study are M. Weber’s concept of legitimate domination and the theory of neopatrimonialism. The latter focuses on the mechanisms of reproduction of informal socio-cultural practices in the activities of formal institutions of the modern administrative state. The author pays special attention to the state of the value-normative system of modern Chinese society and the principles of legitimization of the ruling elites. Accordingly, the main objectives of the study are: 1) clarification of the content of the term “Beijing Consensus” as a national development model; 2) analysis of the main approaches to the study and interpretation of the “Chinese model”; 3) description of the reform strategy and its results; 4) research of the specifics of the “Chinese model” and the prospects for its further evolution. To solve these problems, the author makes extensive use of methods of comparative historical and neo-institutional analysis, which makes it possible to identify the specifics of the “Chinese model” and compare it with the political and economic systems typical of other countries of the world.

The author concludes that as a result of the reforms implemented at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries, a neopatrimonial meritocratic system was created in China, organically combining various types of management – patrimonial, rationalbureaucratic and modern, market-oriented. All this allows us to consider the Beijing Consensus as an effective system of political and economic governance, capable of becoming an effective alternative to the neoliberal model known as the Washington Consensus.

1. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. New York: Crown Publishers, 2012, 544 p.

2. Bach D. Patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism: comparative trajectories and readings. Commonwealth and comparative politics. 2011, Vol. 49, N 3, P. 275–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2011.582731

3. Bell D.A. Introduction to the China model: political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Journal of Chinese humanities. 2018, N 4, P. 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/23521341-12340054

4. Bell D.A. The China model: political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton: Princeton university press, 2015, 333 p.

5. Bell D. The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic books, 1973, 507 p.

6. Bolesta A. China as a developmental state. Montenegrin journal of economics. 2007, N 5, P. 105–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447321507.003.0002

7. Bratton M., van de Walle N. Neopatrimonial regimes and political transitions in Africa. World politics. 1994, Vol. 46, N 4, P. 453–489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2950715

8. Chubarov I.G. Non-Western political systems in development: the case of whole process people’s democracy in China. Polis. Political studies. 2025, N 3, P. 41–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.03.04 (In Russ.)

9. Clapham C. Third world politics. An introduction. London: Croom Helm, 1985, 191 p.

10. Crook R. Patrimonialism, administrative effectiveness and economic development in Coˆte d’Ivoire. African affairs. 1989, Vol. 88, N 351, P. 205–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a098161

11. Erdmann G., Engel U. Neopatrimonialism reconsidered: critical review and elaboration of an elusive concept. Commonwealth and comparative politics. 2007, Vol. 45, N 1, P. 95–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14662040601135813

12. Hale H.E. Patronal politics: Eurasian regime dynamics in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2014, 538 p.

13. Ivanova M.I., Klepinin A.V. New horizons of the developmental state model. Polis. Political studies. 2025, N 3, P. 96–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.03.07 (In Russ.)

14. Johnson Ch. The developmental state: Odyssey of a concept. In: Woo-Cumings M. (ed.). The developmental state. Ithaca; New York: Cornell university press, 1999, P. 32–61.

15. Kang D. Crony capitalism: corruption and development in South Korea and the Philippines. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2002, 203 p.

16. Kelsall T., Booth D., Cammack D., Golooba-Mutebi F. Developmental patrimonialism? Questioning the orthodoxy on political governance and economic progress in Africa. Africa power and politics. Working paper. 2010, N 9, 33 p.

17. Khan M. Governance, economic growth and development since the 1960s. Background paper for World economic and social survey 2006. New York: UNDESA, 2006, 26 p.

18. Korolev A. De-ideologized mass line, regime responsiveness, and state-society relations. China review. 2017, Vol. 17, N 2, P.7–36.

19. Lariaux M. The French developmental state as myth and moral ambition. In: Woo-Cumings M. (ed.). The Developmental State. Ithaca; New York: Cornell university press, 1999, P. 235–275.

20. Leib E.J., He B. The search for deliberative democracy in China. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, 288 p.

21. Lin Ch. The transformation of Chinese socialism. Durham: Duke university press, 2006, 370 p.

22. Lomanov A.V. Innovation and tradition in the interpretation of democracy in the modern CCP ideology. Polis. Political studies. 2023, N 5, P. 88–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.05.06 (In Russ.)

23. Medard J.F. Patrimonialism, patrimonialization, neo-patrimonialism and the study of the post-colonial state in Subsaharian Africa. In: Marcussen H.S. (ed.). Improved natural resources management: the role of formal organizations and informal net-works and institutions. Occasional paper, 17. Denmark: Roskilde university, 1996, P. 76–97.

24. Mikheev V., Lukonin S. China: bitter dish with complex garnish. World eсonomy and international relations. 2025, Vol. 69, N 4, P. 57–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2025-69-4-57-69 (In Russ.)

25. Nathan A.J. China’s changing of the guard: authoritarian resilience. Journal of democracy. 2003, Vol. 14, N 1, P. 6–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2003.0019

26. Ostrovskii A.V. The PRC economy: prospects of its development in the period of the 14th five year plan (2021-2025). Far Eastern studies. 2025, N 4, P. 45–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0131281225040048. (In Russ.)

27. Petrykina N.I., Tyurina D.D. An unconventional model of administrative autonomy of the PRC – Hong Kong. The view of Russian researchers. Administrative law and process. 2019, N 3, P. 50–55. (In Russ.)

28. Potapov M.A. On the factors of growth and the model of economic development of China. Far Eastern studies. 2023, N 2, P. 55–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S013128120024900-1 (In Russ.)

29. Ramo J.C. The Beijing consensus. London: Foreign policy center, 2004, 74 p.

30. Ren H. The neoliberal state and risk society: the Chinese state and the middle class. Telos. 2010, N 151, P. 105–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3817/0610151105

31. Robinson N. Economic and political hybridity: Patrimonial capitalism in the post-Soviet sphere. Journal of Eurasian studies. 2013, Vol. 4, N 2, P. 136–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2013.03.003

32. Schlumberger O. Structural reform, economic order, and development: patrimonial capitalism. Review of international political economy. 2008, Vol. 15, N 4, P. 622–649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290802260670

33. Semenov A. China’s prospects for political system reform. Society and the state in China. 2017, Vol. 47, N 1, P. 482–489. (In Russ.)

34. Troshchinskiy P.V. Constitutional development of new China: on the 70th anniversary of the first Constitution of the PRC. Statute. 2024, N 9, P. 189–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2024-21-9-189-199. (In Russ.)

35. Vinogradov A.V., Ryabov A.V. Political systems of Post-Soviet states and China in the process of inter-system transformation. Polis. Political studies. 2019, N 3, P. 69–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.03.05 (In Russ.)

36. Webber D.A Consolidated patrimonial democracy? Democratization in Post-Suharto Indonesia. Democratization. 2006, Vol. 13, N 3, P. 396–420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340600579284

37. Weber M. Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster press incorporated, 1968, 1469 p.

38. Williamson J. Is the «Beijing consensus» now dominant? Asia policy. 2012, N 13 (1), P. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2012.0012

39. Young M. The Rise of the meritocracy, 1870–2033. London: Thames and Hudson, 1958, 180 p.

40. Zuenko I.Y. Evolution of center-regional relations in China: from decentralization to recentralization. Bulletin of Tomsk state university. History. 2023, N 83, P. 87–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/19988613/83/12 (In Russ.)