Suchergebnisse

The Chinese diaspora, consisting of both Chinese living overseas who are citizens of China (huaqiao), and people of Chinese descent who are citizens of foreign countries (huaren), have significantly shaped the making of modern China. China's policy towards its diaspora is primarily governed by its national interests and foreign policy imperatives. However, the Chinese government has been careful to ensure that the huaqiao and the huaren fall into different policy domains: Chinese citizens living overseas are subject to China's domestic policies, while Chinese descendants who are citizens of other countries come under China's foreign affairs. Nevertheless, from the beginning, the latter continue to be regarded as kinsfolk distinct from other foreign nationals. The huaqiao-huaren distinction is often blurred in ordinary discourse and this has been a source of much misunderstanding. However, it has not been the policy of the Chinese government to blur this distinction, and it is acutely aware of the complexity of the issue and is therefore very cautious about implying any change. As such, when terms such as huaqiao-huaren are introduced in the official lexicon, they are meant to acknowledge certain historical and contemporary realities, and not to deliberately obfuscate the two categories. The use of the combined term is in fact a recognition of the clear-cut distinction between the two groups, and is meant to convey a semantic balance in which neither category is emphasized at the expense of the other. In general, since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese government has treated the diaspora as an asset, rather than a liability. The sole exception was during the Cultural Revolution when returnees, or the guiqiao, were condemned as reactionary and bourgeois elements. There is therefore a fundamental continuity in China's diaspora policy: namely, that China embraces both groups as part of a global Chinese community. Some policy shifts can be expected in future as China becomes more proactive in reaching out to its diaspora while balancing the needs and interests of Chinese abroad with the needs and interests of the Mainland.

The Chinese diaspora, consisting of both Chinese living overseas who are citizens of China (huaqiao), and people of Chinese descent who are citizens of foreign countries (huaren), have significantly shaped the making of modern China. China's policy towards its diaspora is primarily governed by its national interests and foreign policy imperatives. However, the Chinese government has been careful to ensure that the huaqiao and the huaren fall into different policy domains: Chinese citizens living overseas are subject to China's domestic policies, while Chinese descendants who are citizens of other countries come under China's foreign affairs. Nevertheless, from the beginning, the latter continue to be regarded as kinsfolk distinct from other foreign nationals. The huaqiao-huaren distinction is often blurred in ordinary discourse and this has been a source of much misunderstanding. However, it has not been the policy of the Chinese government to blur this distinction, and it is acutely aware of the complexity of the issue and is therefore very cautious about implying any change. As such, when terms such as huaqiao-huaren are introduced in the official lexicon, they are meant to acknowledge certain historical and contemporary realities, and not to deliberately obfuscate the two categories. The use of the combined term is in fact a recognition of the clear-cut distinction between the two groups, and is meant to convey a semantic balance in which neither category is emphasized at the expense of the other. In general, since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese government has treated the diaspora as an asset, rather than a liability. The sole exception was during the Cultural Revolution when returnees, or the guiqiao, were condemned as reactionary and bourgeois elements. There is therefore a fundamental continuity in China's diaspora policy: namely, that China embraces both groups as part of a global Chinese community. Some policy shifts can be expected in future as China becomes more proactive in reaching out to its diaspora while balancing the needs and interests of Chinese abroad with the needs and interests of the Mainland.

Abstract
This article considers the pathbreaking developments that are quickly changing the field of Chinese diaspora studies. China's rise and its ongoing integration in the world and the concomitantly changing international position of Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan launched a wave of Chinese elite students studying abroad, of nouveau riche emigrating to the West, and of returning Chinese recent emigrants. This brought forth a new discourse on the Chineseness and the Sinophone world that reshaped the meaning of how an ancestral hometown and host countries connect, and of the imagery and meaning of being Chinese, including being Chinese Overseas. Ironically, the new discourse, however sophisticated, global, and multidisciplinary, is primarily produced by non-Chinese and expatriate Chinese scholars. The challenge here is that, for many decades, political and ideological considerations worldwide have motivated the scholarship on Chinese diaspora, by both Chinese and non-Chinese scholars. A holistic approach, which frames Chinese diaspora as an integral part of world history, may help to meet this challenge.

Intro -- Foreword -- Preface -- Contents -- Authors and Contributors -- About the Authors -- Contributors -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Research Background -- 1.1.1 Diversified Transformations: Emergence of and Changes in Special Groups in Urban Areas -- 1.1.2 Housing Selection and Agglomeration: Emergence and Reconstruction of Settlement Space for Special Groups -- 1.1.3 Integration and Response: Survival and Evolution of Settlement Space for Special Communities from the Perspective of Community -- 1.2 Significance of the Study -- 1.3 Research Progress -- 1.3.1 Progress of Related Research Abroad -- 1.3.2 Progress of Related Research in China -- 1.3.3 General Review -- 1.4 Object and Scope of Study -- 1.5 Research Content and Methodology -- 1.5.1 Research Content -- 1.5.2 Research Methodology -- 1.6 Innovation and Characteristics of Research -- References -- 2 Community Sample I: Life Space and Community Response: A Study of International Student Settlements -- 2.1 Definition of the Research Object -- 2.1.1 Definition of International Students -- 2.1.2 Definition of International Student Settlements -- 2.1.3 Definition of Everyday Life Space -- 2.1.4 Defining Community Response -- 2.2 Description of International Students and Their Everyday Lifestyles -- 2.2.1 An Overview of International Students in Nanjing -- 2.2.2 Overview of the Everyday Life of International Students in Nanjing -- 2.2.3 Determining the Overall Study Trajectory -- 2.3 Everyday Life Space in International Student Settlements -- 2.3.1 Overview of Individuals in the International Student Settlements -- 2.3.2 Residential Spaces at International Student Settlements -- 2.3.3 Learning Spaces at International Student Settlements -- 2.3.4 Shopping Spaces at the International Student Settlements -- 2.3.5 Recreation Spaces at International Student Settlements.

In the last three decades, China has experienced dual decentralization in transforming its economy, resulting in decentralization and deconcentration in public administration and social service delivery. Under the policy framework of decentralization, particularly when welfare financing has been decentralized to local governments, the emergence of welfare regionalism is evident in China. This paper sets out against this policy context to examine how three local governments in eastern coastal areas in China handle changing labour welfare needs by institutionalizing social and labour protection measures to meet the local needs instead of implementing central policy. With particular reference to examine why regional variations exist in welfare provision even though the socio-economic development status is similar in these areas, this paper shows how different forms of capitals, government's governance style and diversity of industries have affected welfare arrangements for labour in China.

Interest in cybernetics declined in North America from the mid 1970s to 2010, as measured by the number of journal articles by North American authors, but increased in Europe and Asia. Since 2010 the number of books on cybernetics in English has increased significantly. Whereas the social science disciplines create descriptions based on either ideas, groups, events or variables, cybernetics provides a multi-disciplinary theory of social change that uses all four types of descriptions. Cyberneticians use models with three structures – regulation, self-organization and reflexivity. These models can be used to describe any systemic problem. Furthermore, cybernetics adds a third approach to philosophy of science. In addition to a normative or a sociological approach to knowledge, cybernetics adds a biological approach. One implication of the biological approach is additional emphasis on ethics.