China's Trapped Transition_ The Limits of Developmental Autocracy - Minxin Pei [118]
A different poll, conducted by a research institute of the State Planning Commission in September 2001, confirmed a similar trend of rising discontent. It concluded that “optimism was not warranted with respect to residents’ level of satisfaction with the country’s social and economic development.” Specifically, the institute’s report cited a decline in the percentage of the respondents who viewed China’s social situation as stable. In the institute’s poll in 2000, 63 percent thought the country’s social situation was stable; in 2001, 56 percent did, while the percentage that believed the situation was unstable rose from 10 to 13 percent.150
Unemployment, corruption, deterioration of SOEs, environmental degradation, and rising inequality appeared to be driving the level of discontent at the end of the 1990s.151 In the annual polls of urban residents conducted by Horizon Research from 1997 to 2001, unemployment was rated the top issue in three years and the number two issue in two years. Corruption was mentioned as the top issue in one year and identified as among the top three issues in another two years. The plight of SOEs was mentioned as the top issue in one year and the number three issue in one year.152 A poll of 2,430 residents conducted by the State Economic System Reform Commission in fifty-three cities in 1998 showed inflation, corruption, and unemployment were the three top social problems the respondents were most concerned about.153 The results of a poll of 1999 people in September 2001 conducted by the State Planning Commission showed that urban residents identified corruption, unemployment, and rising inequality as the three top issues threatening local social stability. In the countryside, the top three issues were excessive taxes and fees, corruption, and rising inequality.154
Capturing a slice of the public mood in urban areas, a poll of 2,359 residents in fifty-five cities conducted by a research group affiliated with the State Council in 2001 revealed the specific causes of discontent. The results of this poll confirmed that socioeconomic frustrations were generating most of the urban discontent. More than 60 percent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with unemployment, unaffordable healthcare, shrinking economic opportunities, and rising crime. Unemployment elicited the highest degree of discontent. Of all the major social groups, workers were the least satisfied, with 75 percent of workers polled expressing discontent, even higher than among those without long-term employment (71 percent). It is worth noting that a large proportion of workers (36 percent) blamed the loss of their jobs on lack of social justice and social connections. Almost 80 percent were dissatisfied with their incomes. Among the reasons cited for not earning a satisfactory income, the most frequently listed was bad luck, followed by lack of social connections and social justice. About 54 percent thought that the principal means of becoming wealthy was by using connections, power, and illegal methods.
Official corruption also appeared to galvanize public ire. An overwhelming majority expressed strong objection to the accumulation of wealth by government officials and SOE managers through power and corrupt means. And 55 percent said they lacked confidence in the govcrnmcnt’s anticorruption efforts; 54 percent thought half to a majority of government officials were corrupt. Close to 80 percent of the residents were dissatisfied with the work of government regulatory and watchdog agencies, such as stock market regulators.155
The rising level of discontent could threaten political stability. Though the percentage of those expressing discontent was relatively small, their absolute number could be very large. Three leading Chinese researchers estimated that, based on survey data, about 22-45 percent of urban residents, or 100 million to 200 million people, were dissatisfied with their conditions. Among them were 32 million