ABSTRACT

There has been much debate over the philosophical idea of the social contract-a theory that states government is created and legitimized by the will (or coercion) of its citizens for their benefit.1 In the Chinese social formation, the CPC made demands upon its citizens to accept the legitimacy of one party rule and in return promised protection from imperialist forces and social benefits. As Tang and Parish (2000) argue in their work, Urban Reform in China, the Chinese party-state entered into a social contract with the citizenry. Perhaps more to the point, they use the term “socialist” social contract, an expression which seems to be borne of the classical Marxian notion of socialism. It is this “socialist” social contract that is being transformed:

The transformation involves a fundamental redefinition of the social contract the government has with society. The socialist social contract promised an egalitarian, redistributionist order that provided job security, basic living standards, and special opportunities for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In return, the state demanded sacrifices in current consumption, a leveling of individual aspirations, and obedience to all-knowing party redistributors…

The new, post-1978 market social contract makes a different set of demands and promises. In return for abandoning the ideal of communal egalitarianism and security of jobs and other benefits, the market contract promises that giving free reign to individualistic aspirations will produce better jobs and greater consumption. Freedom from communal dictates by all-knowing redistributionist party superiors will allow the economy to adapt readily to changing domestic and international markets. While some may be left behind, the growing economic pie means that the vast majority of people will benefit.