Maintaining policy legitimacy has become increasingly complex amid shifting historical contexts and evolving public perceptions. Drawing on a longitudinal analysis of China’s demolition policy (1991–2021), this study traces its legitimacy trajectory—from limited legitimacy to legitimacy breakdown and, ultimately, to regained legitimacy. Adopting the theoretical framework of institutional work, the study examines how governments engage in maintenance work in response to public feedback to continuously construct policy legitimacy. This study makes three theoretical contributions. First, it identifies the evolutionary mechanisms of policy legitimation through cognitive reconstruction and value co-creation, which reestablish institutionalized negotiation between the state and society. Second, it highlights the role of symbolic strategies in policy re-legitimation, demonstrating how meaning-making processes dynamically align policy objectives with public acceptance. Third, it reveals the strategic reflexivity of institutional work, illustrating the adaptive and agentic capacities of governments in the ongoing reconstruction of legitimacy.
BabaS.SasakiI.VaaraE. (2021). Increasing dispositional legitimacy: Progressive legitimation dynamics in a trajectory of settlements. Academy of Management Journal, 64(6), 1927–1968.
2.
BertzJ.QuinnM.BurnsJ. (2024). Public service management reform: An institutional work and collective framing approach. Public Management Review, 26(11), 3151–3175.
3.
BuneaA.NørbechI. (2025). Does public participation foster stakeholder support for policy proposals? Evidence from the European Union. Policy Studies Journal. Advance online publication.
4.
CaiR.ChenN. (2024). Pursuing urban sustainability through policy experimentations? Insights from the pay-as-you-throw experiment in China. Chinese Public Administration Review, 15(3), 173–182.
5.
CloutierC.DenisJ.-L.LangleyA.LamotheL. (2016). Agency at the managerial interface: Public sector reform as institutional work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 259–276.
6.
de Fine LichtJ.AgerbergM.EsaiassonP. (2022). “It’s not over when it’s over”―Post-decision arrangements and empirical legitimacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(1), 183–199.
7.
DeanR. (2019). Control or influence? Conflict or solidarity? Understanding diversity in preferences for public participation in social policy decision making. Social Policy & Administration, 53(1), 170–187.
8.
DryzekJ. S. (2013). The deliberative democrat’s Idea of Justice. European Journal of Political Theory, 12(4), 329–346.
9.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
10.
FarooqiS.KnoxS. (2025). Maintaining collective legitimacy during crisis: A case of social enterprise intermediaries in Scotland. Public Administration, 103, 874–889.
11.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (p. 870). John Wiley & Sons.
12.
FuC.LiaoL.XieH.ZhouX. (2023). How can we implement targeted policies of rumor governance? An empirical study based on survey experiment of COVID-19. Chinese Public Administration Review, 14(2), 120–131.
13.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
14.
GofenA.LottaG.Marchesini da CostaM. (2021). Working through the fog of a pandemic: Street-level policy entrepreneurship in times of crises. Public Administration, 99(3), 484–499.
15.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Sage Publications Ltd.
HanbergerA. (2003). Public policy and legitimacy: A historical policy analysis of the interplay of public policy and legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 36(3), 257–278.
18.
HeA. J.ZhuL.QianJ. (2025). Policy design and policy feedback in welfare retrenchment: A survey experiment in China. Policy Studies Journal, 53(2), 307–327.
19.
HeaphyE. D. (2013). Repairing breaches with rules: Maintaining institutions in the face of everyday disruptions. Organization Science, 24(5), 1291–1315.
20.
HudsonB. A.OkhuysenG. A. (2014). Taboo topics: Structural barriers to the study of organizational stigma. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 242–253.
21.
LangleyA.SmallmanC.TsoukasH.Van de VenA. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
22.
LangleyA.TsoukasH. (2010). Introducing perspectives on process organization studies. Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing, 1(9), 1–27.
23.
LarsenE. G. (2019). Policy feedback effects on mass publics: A quantitative review. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 372–394.
24.
LawrenceT. B.LecaB.ZilberT. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.
25.
LawrenceT. B.SuddabyR. (2006). 1.6 institutions and institutional work (Vol. 2). The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies.
26.
LiuZ.YangJ.WuC. (2025). Unveiling the development of China’s climate policies based on public administration: A scientometric analysis (2000–2024). Chinese Public Administration Review, 16(2), 134–147.
27.
LouisM. R.BartunekJ. M. (1992). Insider/outsider research teams: Collaboration across diverse perspectives. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(2), 101–110.
28.
Lund-TønnesenJ.ChristensenT. (2023). The dynamics of governance capacity and legitimacy: The case of a digital tracing technology during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Public Management Journal, 26(1), 126–144.
29.
MayP. J.JochimA. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.
30.
MicelottaE. R.WashingtonM. (2013). Institutions and maintenance: The repair work of Italian professions. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1137–1170.
31.
MontpetitÉ. (2008). Policy design for legitimacy: Expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom’s biotechnology sector. Public Administration, 86(1), 259–277.
32.
MoynihanD. P.SossJ. (2014). Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 320–332.
33.
PanizzaF.MiorelliR. (2013). Taking discourse seriously: Discursive institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory. Political Studies, 61(2), 301–318.
34.
ParkC.LeeJ. (2020). Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: Anti-smoking policy in South Korea. Policy Sciences, 53(4), 637–665.
35.
ParkC.LeeJ.ChungC. (2015). Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea. Policy Sciences, 48(3), 319–338.
36.
PeckhamS.HudsonB.HunterD.RedgateS. (2022). Policy success: What is the role of implementation support programmes?Social Policy & Administration, 56(3), 378–393.
37.
PiazzaA.PerrettiF. (2015). Categorical stigma and firm disengagement: Nuclear power generation in the United States, 1970–2000. Organization Science, 26(3), 724–742.
38.
QuahS. J.SeahB. (2024). Bread-and-butter politics: Arrested liberalization and hegemonic materialism in Singapore. Critical Asian Studies, 56(4), 515–538.
39.
RaviolaE.NorbäckM. (2013). Bringing technology and meaning into institutional work: Making news at an Italian business newspaper. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1171–1194.
40.
RodnerV.RouletT. J.KerriganF.Vom LehnD. (2020). Making space for art: A spatial perspective of disruptive and defensive institutional work in Venezuela’s art world. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1054–1081.
41.
SchmidtA.BoersmaK.GroenewegenP. (2018). Management strategies in response to an institutional crisis: The case of earthquakes in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 96(3), 513–527.
42.
SchmidtV. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 303–326.
43.
SchmidtV. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25.
44.
SchmidtV. A. (2015). Discursive institutionalism: Understanding policy in context. In FischerF.TorgersonD.DurnováA.OrsiniM. (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 171–189). Edward Elgar Publishing.
45.
ScottW. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, 37(2), 460–484.
46.
SeoB. K.JooY.-M. (2019). Innovation or episodes? Multi-scalar analysis of governance change in urban regeneration policy in South Korea. Cities, 92, 27–35.
47.
SeremaniT.FariasC.CleggS. (2022). New order and old institutions: South Africa and the institutional work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Organization Studies, 43(4), 573–593.
48.
SievertM.BruderJ. (2024). Unpacking the effects of burdensome state actions on citizens’ policy perceptions. Public Administration, 102(3), 915–935.
49.
SmetsM.JarzabkowskiP.BurkeG. T.SpeeP. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.
50.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
51.
SuddabyR.BitektineA.HaackP. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.
52.
SvenssonI.BrorströmS.GluchP. (2024). Introducing strategic measures in public facilities management organizations: External and internal institutional work. Public Management Review, 26(2), 466–487.
53.
TostL. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710.
54.
TsoukasH. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 566–585.
55.
WallnerJ. (2008). Legitimacy and public policy: Seeing beyond effectiveness, efficiency, and performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 421–443.
56.
WilliamsK. (2018). Three strategies for attaining legitimacy in policy knowledge: Coherence in identity, process and outcome. Public Administration, 96(1), 53–69.
57.
YangL.LanG. Z. (2011). The issue of problem formulation in public policy-making: A sandstorm-combating policy case in Northern China. Chinese Public Administration Review, 6(3–4), 47–59.
58.
YangW.ZhaoJ. (2023). Institutions, interests, and policy support: Experimental evidence from China. Public Administration, 101(4), 1309–1325.
59.
ZhengH. (2024). Crisis-driven governance reforms: An analytical framework of institutional capacity, leadership, and collaboration in global governance. Chinese Public Administration Review. Advance online publication.
60.
ZhuX.ZhaoH. (2021). Experimentalist governance with interactive central–local relations: Making new pension policies in China. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 13–36.
61.
ZietsmaC.LawrenceT. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.
62.
ZilberT. B. (2013). Institutional logics and institutional work: Should they be agreed?Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, 77–96.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
