The argument in Authoritarian Environmentalism Undermined? Basically made points to counter those that say authoritarian government is going to be the only method able to effectively address the environmental issue. The main argument to this is that the cadre rotation has a generally negative and unintended consequences. The high cadre turn over rate affects cadre’s incentive and implementation capacities. They need to be able to report accomplishments regularly to their superiors, so they are more likely to choose a policy that is cheap and quick. Also, they prefer something that is short-term highly visible and yield an outcome that can be measured  within their tenure period. Although constantly moving cadre around can allow for new ideas and resources it also could have opposite effect and cadre member could lack the  knowledge and networks essential for drawing local business into greener growth initiatives. In 2006  the central government made it required for government officials to serve their 5 year term at least before being rotated, however it is not clear how close this is being followed and how effective this is. Analysis done in this essay suggested that short time horizon is what put local leaders under pressure to “politically achieve” in a few short years.

The article, “Governing Environmental Conflicts in China…” pairs the above article perfectly. It establishes that laws and policies are drafted in Beijing, but implemented in the local government and this is what local governments are able to change the environmental laws a lot. This article explains in more detail the reasons for  local leaders changing their decisions in governing environmental conflicts. It attributes it to 4 main reasons: 1. the scale of the protest, 2. the form of the protests, more particularly the occurence of violence, 3. the position of the national government, and 4. the costs of meeting demands of the citizens. The bigger the  protest and the more people that there are the more likely the local leader will go with whatever all the citizens want, if violence is present at a protest that  is associated with instability  and the leader will be more likely to change the policy for what  the violent party wants, the position of the national government matters because doing what goes against the national government is a good way to not get re-elected and to get  in trouble by he CCP, and lastly the cost of meeting the demands of  the citizen, if  it is affordable , then maybe the local leader would be more likely to change  the policy. Interesting enough, majority of all the studies have been done by  a Western Democracy and suggest that a win win approach is best. Many local leaders are compromising, or completely abandoning he national governments plans.

The general basis of both these article  is as a local leader with a shirt turn over rate you are going to do whatever you can to make yourself  seem most impressive for your next position to hopefully get a promotion.