Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Does Workplace Affect Employee Political Efficacy in China?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Workplaces are a primary setting for many people’s political learning and participation. It is, therefore, academically and practically meaningful to assess how workplace experience shapes employees’ political efficacy. This article employs multiple linear regression models to empirically analyse the relationship between perceived workplace autonomy and political efficacy based on representative national survey data from China. It then addresses potential self-selection bias and endogeneity problems through various approaches, including propensity score matching (PSM) and two-stage instrumental variable (IV) estimations. The findings reveal that the extent of perceived workplace autonomy has a significantly positive correlation with both internal and external political efficacy. Moreover, the results demonstrate that under contemporary China’s sociopolitical circumstances, the correlation patterns between perceived workplace autonomy and external political efficacy differ significantly between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors, highlighting the moderation effects of job sectors. However, the moderation effect of job sectors does not apply to the correlation between perceived workplace autonomy and internal political efficacy, indicating that distinctions exist between internal and external political efficacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data of CGSS2010/CGSS2012 are publicly available via application at cnsda.ruc.edu.cn, while the data of CSS2017 can be accessible by application through http://css.cssn.cn/css_sy/zlysj/lnsj/.

Notes

  1. For the examples of similar strategies to measure external political efficacy, interested readers may refer to Campbell et al. [56], Chao et al. [64], Kim [83], and Schneider et al. [84].

  2. Many scholars have used a similar measure for workplace autonomy in their studies. Interested readers may refer to Thompson and Prottas [85] and Morgeson et al. [86] for further examples and discussions.

  3. For details, please refer to Table S2 in the Supplementary Document.

  4. For detailed descriptive statistics for all dependent, independent, and control variables, please refer to Table S1 in the Supplementary Document.

  5. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting us consider such possibilities. Interested readers may refer to Tables S3 and S4 in the Supplementary Document for detailed statistical results.

  6. Interested readers may refer to Section D in the Supplementary Document for detailed statistical results.

  7. Chinese Social Survey (CSS) is a nationwide large-scale successive sampling survey initiated by the Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2005. The survey is a biannual longitudinal survey based on the method of probability sampling, covering 31 provincial-level administrative regions, 151 county-level administrative regions and 604 villages/neighbourhood committees in mainland China. CSS2017 started in March 2017 and completed in December 2018, covering 10,091 households. The data can be publicly applied for and obtained through http://css.cssn.cn/css_sy/zlysj/lnsj/.

  8. ‘Politics and government are too complex for people like me to understand’ for internal political efficacy, and ‘What people like me say has no impact on the government’s actions’ for external political efficacy.

  9. Interested readers may refer to Tables Section E in the Supplementary Document for detailed statistical results.

  10. Interested readers may refer to Section F in the Supplementary Document for detailed statistical results.

  11. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this potential endogeneity problem and suggesting us address it.

  12. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this inspiring hypothesis.

References

  1. Cheney, G. 2009. Democracy in the workplace: Theory and practice from the perspective of communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research 23 (3): 167–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Diefenbach, T., and J.A. Sillince. 2011. Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies 32 (11): 1515–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Varman, R., and M. Chakrabarti. 2004. Contradictions of democracy in a workers’ cooperative. Organization Studies 25 (2): 183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Almond, G.A., and S. Verba. 1989. The Civic Culture. Boston: Little, Brown & Company Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, M.R. 2010. Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology 31 (1): 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter, N. 2006. Political Participation and the Workplace: The Spillover Thesis Revisited. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 8 (3): 410–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Geurkink, B., A. Akkerman, and R. Sluiter. 2022. Political participation and workplace voice: The spillover of suppression by supervisors. Political Studies 70 (2): 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Elden, J. 1981. Political Efficacy at Work: The Connection between More Autonomous Forms of Workplace Organization and a More Participatory Politics. American Political Science Review 75 (1): 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenberg, E., L. Grunberg, and K. Daniel. 1996. Industrial work and political participation: Beyond “simple spillover.” Political Research Quarterly 49 (2): 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis, N.T. 2014. Responsiveness and the rules of the game: How disproportionality structures the effects of winning and losing on external efficacy. Electoral Studies 36: 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Moor, J., Kern, A., Marien, S., & Hooghe, M. 2013. The effect of institutional and electoral structures on external political efficacy. A comparative investigation of 33 countries. the 4th ECPR General Conference Bordeaux.

  13. Beaumont, E. 2011. Promoting political agency, addressing political inequality: A multilevel model of internal political efficacy. Journal of Politics 73 (1): 216–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nee, V., and Y. Cao. 2005. Market transition and the firm: Institutional change and income inequality in urban china. Management & Organization Review 10 (4): 463–485.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nee, V., and S. Opper. 2010. Political capital in a market economy. Social Forces 88 (5): 2105–2132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu, H. 2019. Reform of state-owned enterprises in china: The Chinese communist party strikes back. Asian Studies Review 43 (1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leutert, W. 2016. Challenges Ahead in China’s Reform of State-Owned Enterprises. Asia Policy 21: 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shih, V. 2007. Factions and Finance in China: Elite Conflict and Inflation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Eaton, S., and G. Kostka. 2017. Central protectionism in China: The “central SOE problem” in environmental governance. The China Quarterly 231: 685–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hu, X. 2000. The state, enterprises, and society in post-Deng china: Impact of the new round of SOE reform. Asian Survey 40 (4): 641–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Leutert, W. 2018. The Political Mobility of China’s Central State-Owned Enterprise Leaders. The China Quarterly 233: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rasmussen, S.H.R., and A.S. Norgaard. 2018. When and why does education matter? Motivation and resource effects in political efficacy. European Journal of Political Research 57 (1): 24–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Balch, G.I. 1974. Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept “sense of political efficacy.” Political Methodology 1 (2): 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Craig, S.C., R.G. Niemi, and G.E. Silver. 1990. Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior 12 (3): 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Niemi, R.G., S.C. Craig, and F. Mattei. 1991. Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1407–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pollock, P.H., III. 1983. The participatory consequences of internal and external political efficacy: A research note. Western Political Quarterly 36 (3): 400–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Clarke, H.D., and A.C. Alan. 1989. National elections and political attitudes: The case of political efficacy. British Journal of Political Science 19 (4): 551–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hayes, B.C., and C.S. Bean. 2010. Political efficacy: A comparative study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia. European Journal of Political Research 23 (3): 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fan, B. N., & Xu, W. 2014. Study on the Factors Affecting Political Efficacy in China. Zhejiang Social Sciences 11:25–30+24+155 (in Chinese).

  30. Hu, R., I.Y. Sun, and Y. Wu. 2015. Chinese trust in the police: The impact of political efficacy and participation. Social Science Quarterly 96 (4): 1012–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pei, Z., Y. Pan, and M. Skitmore. 2018. Political efficacy, social network and involvement in public deliberation in rural China. Social Indicators Research 139 (2): 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Xie, Q., & Chen, S. 2014. Political Efficacy and Contentious Interest Express: An Quantitative Analysis based on CGSS2010. Journal of Gansu Administration Institute 3:88–95+113+127–128 (in Chinese).

  33. Guo, X.A., and W.W. Zhang. 2018. The perception of workplace autonomy and political efficacy among journalists – a survey of northwest China. Shanghai Journalism Review 21 (3): 37–44 ((in Chinese)).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Reichert, F. 2016. How Internal Political Efficacy Translates Political Knowledge Into Political Participation: Evidence From Germany. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 12 (2): 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jennings, M. K., and Stoker, L. 2004. Social Trust and Civic Engagement across Time and Generations Acta Political 39(4): 342-379.

  37. Zimmerman, M.A. 1989. The Relationship Between Political Efficacy and Citizen Participation: Construct Validation Studies. Journal of Personality Assessment 53 (3): 554–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tao, Y., and M. Liu. 2013. Intermediate associations, grassroots elites and collective petitioning in rural China. In Elites and Governance in China, ed. X. Zang and C. Kou, 110–135. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Perry, J., and L. Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review 50 (3): 367–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Perry, J.L. 1997. Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7 (2): 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rainey, Hal. 1982. Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers. American Review of Public Administration 16 (4): 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wittmer, Dennis. 1991. Serving the People or Serving for Pay: Reward Preferences among Government, Hybrid Sector, and Business Managers. Public Productivity and Management Review 14 (4): 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wright, B.E. 2011. The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions: Exploring the contributions of person-organisation fit and person-job fit. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (4): 723–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kjeldsen, A.M. 2012. Sector and occupational differences in public service motivation: A qualitative study. International Journal of Public Administration 35 (1): 58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim, M.Y., and A. Torneo. 2020. The Roles of Strategic Human Resource Management and Person-Environment Fit on Nonprofit Public Service Motivation. Public Integrity 1: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2007. Citizens’ perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (2): 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cooke, F. L. 2004. Public-Sector Pay in China: 1949–2001. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15(4–5): 895–916.

  48. Hu, A., & Zhou, Y. 2013. Cross-Sector Differences in Generalized Trust and Mediation Mechanisms: Research Based on CGSS2010. Society: Chinese Journal of Sociology 33(4): 60–82 (in Chinese).

  49. Vandenabeele, W. 2007. Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation: An institutional approach. Public Management Review 9 (4): 545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Moynihan, D.P., and S.K. Pandey. 2007. The role of organisations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review 67 (1): 40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Homberg, F., R. Vogel, and J. Weiherl. 2019. Public service motivation and continuous organisational change: Taking charge behaviour at police services. Public Administration 97 (1): 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Acock, A., H.D. Clarke, and M.C. Stewart. 1985. A new model for old measures: A covariance structure analysis of political efficacy. The Journal of Politics 47 (4): 1062–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Karv, T., M. Lindell, and L. Rapeli. 2022. How context matters: The significance of political homogeneity and language for political efficacy. Scandinavian Political Studies 45 (1): 46–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ma, L., and Y. Zheng. 2019. National e-government performance and citizen satisfaction: A multilevel analysis across European countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85 (3): 506–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Robitzsch, A. 2020. Why ordinal variables can (almost) always be treated as continuous variables: Clarifying assumptions of robust continuous and ordinal factor analysis estimation methods. Frontiers in Education 5: 589965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Campbell, A., G. Gurin, and W.E. Miller. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Deng, Y. H., & Huang, J. 2016. Regional scale and external political efficacy: A study Based on county-level data in China. Public Administration Review 9(5): 145–162+207–208 (in Chinese).

  58. Primo, D.M., and J. Milyo. 2006. Campaign finance laws and political efficacy: Evidence from the states. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 5 (1): 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Clark, S.C. 2001. Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 58 (3): 348–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Meier, K.J., and L.J. O’Toole Jr. 2011. Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21: 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Perry, J.L., and H.G. Rainey. 1988. The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review 13 (2): 182–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Piatak, J.S. 2015. Altruism by job sector: Can public sector employees lead the way in rebuilding social capital? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (3): 877–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Nee, V. 1989. A Theory of Market Transition: From Redistribution to Markets in State Socialism. American Sociological Review 54 (5): 663–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Chao, N., G. Yuan, Y. Li, and Q. Yao. 2017. The internet ecological perception, political trust and political efficacy of Chinese netizens. Telematics and Informatics 34 (3): 715–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Finkel, S.E. 1987. The Effects of Participation on Political Efficacy and Political Support: Evidence from a West German Panel. The Journal of Politics 49 (2): 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ji, C. 2016. Political values of Chinese Netizens and the limits of online protests. Chinese Journal of Sociology 36 (5): 64–87 ((in Chinese)).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Li, L. 2010. Rights Consciousness and Rules Consciousness in Contemporary China. The China Journal 64: 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Belsley, D.A., E. Kuh, and R.E. Welsch. 1980. Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Lin, N., and Y. Bian. 1991. Getting ahead in urban China. American journal of sociology 97 (3): 657–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Caliendo, M., and S. Kopeinig. 2008. Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 22 (1): 31–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Balla, S. J. 2022. Dimitar D. Gueorguiev, retrofitting leninism: participation without democracy in China. Journal of Chinese Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-022-09791-6.

  72. Nagao, H., and J.J. Kennedy. 2021. The Rite to Vote: Community Interactions and Grassroots Voter Participation in China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 26: 613–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Tang, L., X. Luo, W. Yu, et al. 2020. The Effect of Political Participation and Village Support on Farmers Happiness. Journal of Chinese Political Scinece 25: 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Yi, C., Hu, S. & Zeng, R. 2021. The Influence of Religious Belief on Political Voting Behaviour of Urban Residents: Empirical Analysis Based on China's Survey Data. Chinese Political Science review.

  75. Wang, J. 2014. The political logic of corporate governance in china’s state-owned enterprises. Cornell International Law Journal 47 (3): 631–670.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Wang, A.C., and B.S. Cheng. 2010. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organisational Behavior 31 (1): 106–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Feinstein, B.D. 2010. The Dynasty Advantage: Family Ties in Congressional Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35 (4): 571–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Hutchcroft, P. D., & Rocamora, J. 2003. Strong Demands and Weak Institutions: The Origins and Evolution of the Democratic Deficit in the Philippines Journal of East Asian Studies 3(2): 259–292.

  79. Mendoza, R.U., E.L. Beja, V.S. Venida, and D.B. Yap. 2012. Inequality in democracy: Insights from an empirical analysis of political dynasties in the 15th Philippine Congress. Philippine Political Science Journal 33 (2): 132–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Chan, W.K., and J. Zhang. 2021. Can university qualification promote social mobility? A review of higher education expansion and graduate employment in China. International Journal of Educational Development 84: 102423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Burns, J.P., and X.Q. Wang. 2010. Civil Service Reform in China: Impacts on Civil Servants’ Behaviour. The China Quarterly 201: 58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Yi, C., and S. Hu. 2022. Does internet access increase the perception of corruption? Crime, Law and Social Change 77 (3): 275–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Kim, B.J. 2015. Political efficacy, community collective efficacy, trust and extroversion in the information society: Differences between online and offline civic/political activities. Government Information Quarterly 32 (1): 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Schneider, F.M., L. Otto, D. Alings, and M. Schmitt. 2014. Measuring Traits and States in Public Opinion Research: A Latent State-Trait Analysis of Political Efficacy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26 (2): 202–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Thompson, C.A., and D.J. Prottas. 2006. Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11 (1): 100–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Morgeson, F.P., K. Delaney-Klinger, and M.A. Hemingway. 2005. The Importance of Job Autonomy, Cognitive Ability, and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (2): 399–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The data of CGSS2010/CGSS2012 used in this article are from the Chinese General Social Survey collected by the China Research and Data Centre at Renmin University of China, and the data of CSS2017 are from the Chinese Social Survey initiated by the Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. We are grateful to the above institutions for providing data assistance, but are responsible for the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Government, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

    Caiyun Liu

  2. School of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Yu Tao

  3. School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Xinjian Building, Huashan Road 1954, Shanghai, 200030, China

    Chengzhi Yi

Authors
  1. Caiyun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chengzhi Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengzhi Yi.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 91 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, C., Tao, Y. & Yi, C. How Does Workplace Affect Employee Political Efficacy in China?. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 28, 301–329 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-022-09826-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-022-09826-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation