The potential political role of private entrepreneurs in China has been a salient issue in recent scholarship on China. Some see private entrepreneurs as potential agents of political change; others see them as apolitical and even supporters of the current political system. Although the political implications of China’s rapid economic development have not yet been fully realized, many scholars, politicians, and journalists anticipate not only that economic development is leading toward democratization in China but also that private entrepreneurs are likely to be key players in that process. They point to China’s growing numbers of entrepreneurs and “middle class” as potential supporters or even advocates of democratization (Parris, 1993; White, Howell, and Shang, 1996; Zheng, 2004). Others see private entrepreneurs as the leading edge of an emerging civil society that will eventually transform China’s political system (Gold, 1998; He, 1997; Pei, 1998). These views were most prominent in the 1990s, when economic privatization began in earnest. In contrast, empirically based studies of the political interests and behavior of China’s capitalists reveal most of them to be politically tied to the state or apolitical: very few exhibit strong democratic beliefs, and few of them engage in political activities designed to promote political reform (Chen, 2004; Chen and Dickson, 2010; Dickson, 2008; K. Tsai, 2007). These studies see China’s capitalists not as agents of democratization but as key beneficiaries and supporters of the status quo.

Although much of the speculation about the potential role of privatization in general and private entrepreneurs in particular in fostering democratization in China is based on modernization theory, the comparative literature on the role of capitalists shows that they are very ambivalent about political change. They are rarely the leading edge of opposition to the authoritarian state, but their support can tip the balance between whether the state can withstand the challenge from democratic challengers or whether it will succumb to pressure for regime change (Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens, 1992). In Eva Bellin’s apt phrase, they are “contingent democrats”: to the extent that their economic interests are dependent on the survival of the regime, they remain supportive of the status quo (Bellin, 2000: 175–205).