Advocating for better legal protection against domestic violence in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), 1995–2012 A case study of the Center for Women’s Law Studies and Legal Services at Peking University Von der Fakultät für Gesellschaftswissenschaften der Universität Duisburg-Essen zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Dr. rer. pol genehmigte Dissertation von Bräuer, Marion Stephanie aus München 1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Thomas Heberer 2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Bettina Gransow Tag der Disputation: 04.02.2019 Outline Outline ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 4 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 6 1. Introduction: Bottom-up advocacy for a better legal protection against domestic violence in China ....................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Domestic violence in the PRC: An urgent problem ......................................................... 8 1.2. DV as an indicator of gender equality ............................................................................. 8 1.3. Gender equality in the PRC ............................................................................................. 9 1.4. The Chinese party-state’s stance on DV.......................................................................... 9 1.5. Bottom-up social advocates for better legal protection against DV ............................ 10 1.6. Bottom-up social advocates in an authoritarian context ............................................. 11 1.7. Navigating difficult context conditions effectively? Bottom-up organized social advocacy for better legal protection against DV ................................................................. 11 1.8. Inquiry alongside five dimensions: Overarching research interests and questions ..... 12 1.9. Outline of the study....................................................................................................... 14 2. Theoretical framework ......................................................................................................... 16 2.1. Relevant theoretical debates ........................................................................................ 16 2.2. Underlying theoretical paradigms: Institutional change and the agent–structure problem ................................................................................................................................ 27 2.3. Synthesized concept: Opportunity structure framework substantiated with an organizational analysis ......................................................................................................... 30 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 60 3.1. Case study design .......................................................................................................... 60 3.2. Research instruments .................................................................................................... 64 3.3. Problems regarding field research and interview conduct ........................................... 68 3.4. Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 71 4. Advocacy in a double-adverse context ................................................................................ 75 4.1. Institutional arrangements for bottom-up social organizing: both conducive and restrictive .............................................................................................................................. 75 4.2. An ambiguous institutional arrangement governing gender relations ........................ 90 4.3. Domestic violence and institutional arrangements regulating it ............................... 106 4.4. A double-adverse institutional context for the Center’s advocacy for better legal protection against DV? ....................................................................................................... 120 2 5. The Center and its development within a subjective opportunity structure .................... 124 5.1. Overview of the Center: A legal advocacy organization protecting women’s rights and enhancing gender equality ................................................................................................. 124 5.2. The Center’s opportunity structure and development during the startup phase (1995– 2001) ................................................................................................................................... 128 5.3. The Center’s opportunity structure and development during its stabilization and expansion phase (2000–2010) ........................................................................................... 136 5.4. The Center’s deterioration and reorientation since 2010 .......................................... 149 5.5. Conclusions: advocacy for better legal protection in an ambiguous institutional context? .............................................................................................................................. 160 6. The Center and its advocacy for better legal protection against DV ................................. 164 6.1. The Center and its environment: organizational identity ........................................... 164 6.2. The Center’s structure and organization .................................................................... 174 6.3. The Center’s members and their interaction .............................................................. 203 6.4. The Center and its output: its advocacy ...................................................................... 238 6.5. The Center’s gender regime ........................................................................................ 255 6.6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 262 7. Findings: Effective advocacy for better legal protection against domestic violence? ....... 265 7.1. Not so different: External and internal challenges for institutional change advocated by bottom-up social organizing .......................................................................................... 267 7.2. Gender arrangements: An underestimated challenge to gender equality advocacy . 276 7.3. Connecting the case study to current developments in state-society relations: Gender rights advocacy under Xi Jinping ........................................................................................ 283 7.4. Limitations of the opportunity structure framework and possible solutions ............. 292 8. Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 295 8.1. Table of cited interviews ............................................................................................. 295 8.2. Dimensions of the interview guide ............................................................................. 298 8.3. Participant observation ............................................................................................... 300 8.4. Schedule and participation list of the research conference on Women Worker's Labor Rights Protection, December 4, 2011 ................................................................................ 301 8.5. Legal recommendation basing on the DV death case of Dong Shanshan .................. 304 8.6. Transcripts of the cited interviews .............................................................................. 309 Publication bibliography ......................................................................................................... 310 3 Table of Figures Figure 2.1: The Center’s advocacy process for better legal protection against DV…………......56 Figure 3.1: Analytical categories substantiating the conceptual framework………………………..72 Figure 3.2: Analytical process………………………………………………………………………………………………73 Figure 4.1: Conduciveness and restrictiveness of the institutional arrangements governing bottom-up social organizing (political dimension)……………………………………………………………….88 Figure 4.2: Conduciveness and restrictiveness of the institutional arrangement regarding improvements for gender equality…………………………………………………………………………………….105 Table 4.1: Chronology of institutional protection against DV, 2000–2016…………………………115 Figure 4.3: Conduciveness and restrictiveness of the institutional arrangements for improvements of the legal protection against DV……………………………………………………………..119 Figure 4.4: Conduciveness and restrictiveness of the institutional arrangements for bottom- up social organizing, gender equality and legal protection against DV improvements……….121 Figure 5.1: Conduciveness and restrictiveness of the subjective institutional arrangements regulating bottom-up social organizing (blue line), and gender relations and DV (red line), between 1995 and 2000……………………………………………………………………………………………………135 Figure 5.2: Conduciveness and restrictiveness of the subjective institutional arrangements regulating bottom-up social organizing (blue line), and gender relations and DV (red line),