<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>02116pab a2200193 454500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">180718b2000   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Lo, Carlos Wing Hung</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The regulatory style of environmental governance in China: the case of EIA regulation in Shanghai</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.305-18</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="362" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Oct</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The body of literature that examines how institutional contexts affect environmental governance in advanced industrial countries finds that style of environmental regulation is country-specific.  In the pluralist form of democracy like the United States, environmental policy formulation involves bargaining and compromises among interest groups and regulation enforcement through relatively formal and legalistic means.  In the corporatist form of democracy like Sweden and Great Britain, in contrast, environmental policies are more accommodating to divergent societal interests and tend to be less formal in their enforcement.  These variations in regulatory style have been attributed to differences in basic constitutional structures, regime types and cultures.  How do institutional contexts affect the style of environmental regulation in China, which is both a non-democratic and developing country?  This article examines China's regulatory style by focusing on environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulation in Shanghai.  The Shanghai EIA system is analyzed in terms of policy ideology, policy content, regulatory process, public participation and policy consequences.  It is shown that China's being a single-party regime with a `rule of persons' tradition has heavily shaped its environmental governance.  Based on Shanghai experience, China's style can be characterized as formal in requirement, agency-dominated in the regulatory process, legalistic in enforcement, and informal politics as the substance of regulation. - Reproduced</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Environmental policy - China</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Environmental policy</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Cheung, Kai Chee</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Yip, Plato Kwong To</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Public Administration and Development</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">46792</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">46792</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">46792</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">Volume no: 20, Issue no: 4</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR47220</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
