State policies are state efforts to shape its relationship with society and maintain the political order. In this process, the interpretive effect of information is an important mechanism. However, the key question remains: what information is the state communicating through its policies? Previous studies on policy contents and policy discourses have offered valuable insights for this question, but have not fully explored the state’s symbolic logic. Discursive practice theory suggests that policies are state self-presentation actions, through which the state builds its identity and its relationship with society. A critical discourse analysis of China’s anti-corruption policies indicates that the state systematically employs problem-definition, solution-selection, implementation-decision, and outcome-evaluation discourses, to present itself as (1) a tenacious defender of public interests, (2) a rational responder to tough problems, (3) a powerful warrior against stubborn enemies, and (4) a progressive achiever in changing circumstances. Understanding the nature of public policies as state self-presentation action can enhance understanding of the policy-making process and the political effects of public policies. It can also facilitate the practice of policy analysts.
BacchiC (2012) Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible. Open Journal of Political Science2 (1): 1–8.
2.
BacchiCGoodwinS (2016) Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
BacchiCL (1999) Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BruchSKFerreeMMSossJ (2010) From Policy to Polity: Democracy, Paternalism and the Incorporation of Disadvantaged Citizens. American Sociological Review75 (2): 205–226.
5.
BurkePJStetsJE (2009) Identity Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
CampbellAL (2012) Policy Makes Mass Politics. Annual Review of Political Science15: 333–351.
7.
ChenHWangG (2014) The History of CPC’s Efforts to Combat Corruption and Upholding Integrity. Shanghai, China: Shanghai People’s Press.
8.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science10: 103–126.
9.
ChuE (2017) Historical Lessons and Current Implications of Supervision Commission Reforms. Mao Zedong’s Thought and Deng Xiaoping’s Theory4: 22–27.
10.
CollinsNCotteyA (2012) Understanding Chinese Politics: An Introduction to Government in the People’s Republic of China. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
11.
DaviterF (2017) Coping, Taming, or Solving: Alternative Approaches to the Governance of Wicked Problems. Policy Studies38 (6): 571–588.
12.
deHaven-SmithL (1988) Philosophical Critiques of Policy Analysis: Lindblom, Habermas, and the Great Society. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
13.
EastonD (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14.
FaircloughN (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
15.
FaircloughN (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London; New York: Longman.
16.
FaircloughNMulderrigJWodakR (2011) Critical Discourse Analysis. In: van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.357–379.
17.
FischerF (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
FischerFForesterJ (1993) Editors’ Introduction. In: FischerFForesterJ (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press, pp.1017.
19.
FoucaultM (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
20.
GeeJP (2011) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, 3rd edn. New York; London: Routledge.
21.
GoodinREReinMMoranM (2006) The Public and Its Policies. In: MoranMReinMGoodinRE (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.3–35.
22.
HallidayMAK (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. New York: Hodder Arnold.
23.
HeadBW (2008) Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Public Policy3 (2): 101–118.
24.
JacobsLRJacobsSMZhuL (2022) The Pathways of Policy Feedback: How Health Reform Influences Political Efficacy and Participation. Policy Studies Journal50 (3): 483–506.
25.
JacobyWG (2000) Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 750–767.
26.
Jenkins-SmithHCSabatierPA (1994) Evaluating the Coalition Framework. Journal of Public Policy14 (2): 175–203.
27.
JiangL (2017) Lessons from the History of National Supervision System Reform. Guojia Xingzheng Xueyuan Xuebao7: 10–16.
28.
KangSZhuJ (2021) Do People Trust the Government More? Unpacking the Distinct Impacts of Anticorruption Policies on Political Trust. Political Research Quarterly74 (2): 434–449.
29.
KingdonJW (1995) Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd edn. New York: Longman.
30.
KnillCTosunJ (2020) Public Policy: A New Introduction, 2nd edn. London: Red Globe Press.
31.
LarsenEG (2019) Policy Feedback Effects on Mass Publics: A Quantitative Review. Policy Studies Journal47 (2): 372–394.
32.
LevinKCashoreBBernsteinS, et al. (2012) Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining Our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change. Policy Sciences45: 123–152.
33.
LiZManionM (2023) The Decline of Factions: The Impact of a Broad Purge on Political Decision Making in China. British Journal of Political Science53: 815–834.
34.
LindblomCE (1959) The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review19: 79–88.
35.
LindblomCE (1979) Still Muddling: Not Yet Trough. Public Administration Review39: 517–526.
36.
LinguitiP (2023) Rebooting Policy Analysis: Strengthening the Foundation, Expanding the Scope. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
LowiTJ (1972) Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice. Public Administration Review33: 298–310.
38.
MajoneG (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
MayPJJochimAE (2013) Policy Regime Perspectives: Policies, Politics, and Governing. The Policy Studies Journal41(3): 426–452.
40.
MettlerSSossJ (2004) The Consequences of Public Policy for Democratic Citizenship: Bridging Policy Studies and Mass Politics. Perspectives on Politics2 (1): 55–73.
41.
MettlerSStonecashJM (2008) Government Program Usage and Political Voice. Social Science Quarterly89 (2): 274–293.
MulletDR (2018) A General Critical Discourse Analysis Framework for Educational Research. Journal of Advanced Academics29 (2): 116–142.
44.
NiXSunZ (2015) The Impact of AntiCorruption on the Public’s Corruption Perception: An Empirical Analysis of G Province. CASS Journal of Political Science1: 71–85.
45.
O’ConnorMKNettingFE (2011) Analyzing Social Policy: Multiple Perspectives for Critically Understanding and Evaluating Policy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
46.
OlkenBA (2009) Corruption Perception Vs. Corruption Reality. Journal of Public Economics93 (7): 950–964.
47.
PengJ (2011) The Ideological Work of the Communist Party of China: 1949-2009. Changsha: Human University Press.
48.
PiersonP (1993) When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change. World Politics45 (4): 595–628.
49.
SaichT (2001) Governance and Politics of China. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
SainsburyD (2006) Immigrants’ Social Rights in Comparative Perspective: Welfare Regimes, Forms in Immigration and Immigration Policy Regimes. Journal of European Social Policy16 (3): 229–244.
51.
SchneiderALIngramH (1993) Social Constructions of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review87 (2): 334–347.
52.
SchneiderALIngramH (1997) Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
53.
SkillingtonT (1997) Politics and the Struggle to Define: A Discourse Analysis of the Framing Strategies of Competing Actors in a “New” Participatory Forum. The British Journal of Sociology48 (3): 493–513.
54.
SkocpolT (1985) Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research. In: PeterBERueschemeyerDSkocpolT (eds) Bringing the State Back. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3–38.
55.
SkocpolT (1991) Targeting within Universalism: Politically Viable Policies to Combat Poverty in the United States. In: JencksCPetersonPE (eds) The Urban Underclass. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp.411–436.
56.
SmithKBLarimerCW (2017) The Public Policy Theory Primer. New York: Routledge.
57.
StoneD (2002) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.
58.
SunZYangL (2016) How Do AntiCorruption Efforts Affect Public Perception of Corruption?Journal of Public Administration3: 89–107.
59.
SunZZhuLNiX (2022) How Does Anti-Corruption Information Affect Public Perceptions of Corruption in China?China Review22 (2): 113–143.
60.
van DijkTA (1993) Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Society4 (2): 249–283.
61.
van DijkTA (2008) Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
62.
van DijkTA (2011) Discourse and Ideology. In: van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.379–407.
63.
VedungE (2006) Evaluation Research. In: PetersBGPierreJ (eds) Handbook of Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.397–416.
64.
WangYDicksonBJ (2021) How Corruption Investigations Undermine Regime Support: Evidence from China. Political Science Research and Methods10 (1): 1–16.
65.
WedemanA (2017) Xi Jinping’s Tiger Hunt: Anticorruption Campaign or Factional Purge?Modern China Studies24 (2): 35–94.
66.
WetherellM (1998) Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and post- Structuralism in Dialogue. Discourse and Society9: 387–412.
67.
WodakR (2001a) What CDA Is about—A Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.1–13.
68.
WodakR (2001b) The Discourse-Historical Approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.63–94.
69.
XiaoHGongTYuC, et al. (2020) Citizen’s Confidence in Government Control of Corruption: An Empirical Analysis. Social Indicators Research152 (3): 877–897.
70.
XuF (2018) Institution Merger and Platform Coordination: Integration Path of Supervision Function in the State Supervision System Reform. Henan Social Sciences7: 7–13.
71.
XuF (2022) Public Corruption Cognition and Corruption Perception: An SEM Analysis from Formative Framing Theory. CASS Journal of Political Science3: 49–60.
72.
ZhangYKimM (2018) Do Public Corruption Convictions Influence Citizens’ Trust in Government? The Answer Might Not Be a Simple Yes or No. The American Review of Public Administration48 (7): 685–698.
73.
ZhuJZhangD (2017) Weapons of the Powerful: Authoritarian Elite Competition and Politicized Anticorruption in China. Comparative Political Studies50 (9): 1186–1220.
74.
ZhuJLuJShiT (2013) When Grapevine News Meets Mass Media: Different Information Sources and Popular Perception of Government Corruption in Mainland China. Comparative Political Studies46 (8): 920–946.
