| The study employs the multiple case-study approach to explore policy formulation and implementation in China during the Great Leap Forward (GLF) of 1958. It focuses on two "vertical" and two "horizontal" political actors (the central ministries and the provinces) and their involvement in two policy areas, industrialization, and rural and agricultural changes. Such a research design provides the opportunity to examine central-provincial relationships in a concrete policy context, and the linkages and variations between different policy types. Furthermore, since the analysis of the policy processes is intertwined with the study of political behaviour, the thesis explores the range of behaviour exhibited by the the ministries and the provinces, especially under conditions of extreme stress.;In accordance with the policy types chosen, the Ministry of Metallurgy and the Ministry of Agriculture and their roles in conducting the GLF campaigns are examined in detail. The thesis argues that the physical, social, and economic environment, presenting both constraints and opportunities, has an effect on policy-making. Therefore, two provinces (Guangdong and Liaoning) with almost totally different physical attributes are selected to determine if their dissimilarities made a difference in the way they implemented central policies.;One major conclusion of the thesis is that policy-making in China in 1958 remained hierarchical, centralized, authoritarian, and uniform. In fact, the more intense the campaign, the more the leadership relied on administrative fiat to implement policies.;Equally important, although the GLF displayed some unique features, it also shared certain regularities with policy-making in both the industrialized and the Third World countries. The thesis adopts a comparative perspective by utilizing the concepts and hypotheses of public policy, public administration, and foreign-policy decision-making to describe and explain policy-making and bureaucratic behaviour during the GLF. These include the notions of "groupthink," crisis decision-making, goal conflict and displacement, hyperactivity, overinstrumenting, and the general "pathologies" of public policy. Finally, the study emphasizes the "limits to control," and this contrasts with studies of China which adopt either a centralist (centre-dominant) and decentralist (constituency-dominant) perspective. |
