Cultural Validity and Reform Routes: A Comparative Study of the Chinese and Russian Reforms in the Light of the Occurrence of the "Ten Thousand Yuan Household"
Journal: Modern Economics & Management Forum DOI: 10.32629/memf.v6i5.4549
Abstract
At the end of the 20th century, both China and Russia began the transformation from a planned economy to a market economy, but the results were completely different. China's reform and opening up have brought about decades of rapid growth and social stability, while Russia's reform has been accompanied by severe economic recession, social unrest and political instability, seriously affecting the living conditions of its residents. This article holds that the reason for the different reform outcomes cannot be merely explained by economic strategies. The more crucial factor lies in whether the reform process has achieved cultural legitimacy. This paper, by examining the symbolic phenomenon of the "ten-thousand-yuan household" in the early stage of China's reform, further explores how the Chinese leadership embedded market reform into traditional cultural narratives, such as Confucian values, family ethics and national rejuvenation, which are related to culture, thereby enabling the reform to gain wide recognition among the general public. In contrast, Russia's "shock therapy" reform is relatively lacking in cultural support, resulting in its loss of moral and emotional legitimacy in the minds of the general public. Through a systematic review of relevant literature, this article mainly expounds the profound connection between cultural narratives, symbolic signs and the path of national reform.
Keywords
cultural validity; reform routes; ten thousand yuan household
Full Text
PDF - Viewed/Downloaded: 2 TimesReferences
[1]Roland, G. (2000) ‘Different paths to economic reform in Russia and China’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 28(3), pp. 422–448. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/jcec.2000.0444 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[2]Holbig, H. and Gilley, B. (2010) ‘Reclaiming legitimacy in China’, Politics & Policy, 38(3), pp. 395–422. Available at: https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/ReclaimingLegitimacyInChina.pdf (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[3]Callahan, W.A. (2023) ‘Socialism, tradition, and nation in China–Russia relations’, International Studies. [Online] Available at: Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/124884/1/Callahan_Chinese_Global_Orders_IS_2023.pdf
(Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[4]Lin, J.Y. (1992) ‘Rural reforms and agricultural growth in China’, American Economic Review, 82(1), pp. 34–51. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117452 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[5]Chen, X., Zhang, L., Li, Y. & Wang, H. (2018) ‘Forty years of rural reform in China: Retrospect and future prospects’, China Agricultural Economic Review, 10(1), pp. 1–21.
[6]Shi, T., Gao, Y. and Fang, C. (2022) Land system reform in rural China: Path and mechanism. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
[7]Zhou, X. (2011) ‘Wanyuanhu and the rise of entrepreneurial culture in post-Mao China’, Journal of Contemporary China, 20(69), pp. 885–902. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2011.555567 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[8]Feklyunina, V. and White, S. (2011) ‘Discourses of “Krizis”: Economic crisis in Russia and regime legitimacy’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 27(3–4), pp. 385–406. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523279.2011.595154 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[9]Burrett, T. (2025) ‘Making Russia great again? Vladimir Putin’s changing sources of legitimacy 2000–2024’, Politics and Governance, 12, Article 9029. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.9029 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[2]Holbig, H. and Gilley, B. (2010) ‘Reclaiming legitimacy in China’, Politics & Policy, 38(3), pp. 395–422. Available at: https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/ReclaimingLegitimacyInChina.pdf (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[3]Callahan, W.A. (2023) ‘Socialism, tradition, and nation in China–Russia relations’, International Studies. [Online] Available at: Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/124884/1/Callahan_Chinese_Global_Orders_IS_2023.pdf
(Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[4]Lin, J.Y. (1992) ‘Rural reforms and agricultural growth in China’, American Economic Review, 82(1), pp. 34–51. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117452 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[5]Chen, X., Zhang, L., Li, Y. & Wang, H. (2018) ‘Forty years of rural reform in China: Retrospect and future prospects’, China Agricultural Economic Review, 10(1), pp. 1–21.
[6]Shi, T., Gao, Y. and Fang, C. (2022) Land system reform in rural China: Path and mechanism. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
[7]Zhou, X. (2011) ‘Wanyuanhu and the rise of entrepreneurial culture in post-Mao China’, Journal of Contemporary China, 20(69), pp. 885–902. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2011.555567 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[8]Feklyunina, V. and White, S. (2011) ‘Discourses of “Krizis”: Economic crisis in Russia and regime legitimacy’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 27(3–4), pp. 385–406. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523279.2011.595154 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
[9]Burrett, T. (2025) ‘Making Russia great again? Vladimir Putin’s changing sources of legitimacy 2000–2024’, Politics and Governance, 12, Article 9029. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.9029 (Accessed: [9 October 2025]).
Copyright © 2025 Xinle Ge
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License