A mature discipline operates at several theoretical levels, from meta-theory addressing fundamental questions and general theory encompassing a broad range of phenomena to middle-range theory focused on specific mechanisms and descriptive research grounded in concrete experience. These levels cannot substitute for one another.

Viewed in this light, contemporary Chinese political science has produced a relatively active body of macro-level theory, with a steady stream of broad interpretations of the Chinese path, the Chinese model, and the Chinese approach to governance. At the micro level, too, there is no shortage of scholarly work, as case studies, fieldwork accounts, and policy evaluations continue to emerge. Further development of middle-range theory is needed, however, to connect macro-level propositions with empirical evidence and enable micro-level research to yield broader generalizations.

Middle-range theory has at least three inseparable defining characteristics. First, it must consist of testable propositions formulated with sufficient specificity to be verified or falsified through a clearly defined research design. Second, it must comprise a set of interrelated propositions organized around a core concept, offering a shared analytical framework for subsequent research. Third, it must be applicable across contexts, with propositions that can be repeatedly validated in similar settings and thus support generalization within a defined range.

China’s experience offers three distinctive resources for developing middle-range theory: its scale, its political and institutional arrangements, and its historical depth. As a polity of extraordinary size, China science distinctive conditions for social science inquiry. Regional variations in the implementation of the same policy, adaptations of the same institutional arrangement across administrative levels, and changes in how similar problems unfold at different stages of development all provide rich material for the cross-case comparisons needed to develop middle-range theory.

The second resource lies in China’s political and institutional arrangements. The relationship between the CPC’s leadership and government operations, the complex tensions between vertical and territorial administrative structures, the upward ratcheting of policy targets and selective adaptation in policy implementation, and the parallel operation of consultation and decision-making all offer scope for conceptual development. Developing concepts to explain these phenomena can deepen understanding of Chinese politics while enriching the general vocabulary of political science.

When concepts such as “pressure system,” “target responsibility system,” and “administrative subcontract” are adopted and debated by the international academic community, middle-range theory moves from locally grounded conceptual development to a contribution of broader significance.

The third resource is historical depth. China’s governance tradition exhibits remarkable continuity over time. Viewed through China’s historical experience, many institutional premises taken for granted elsewhere become variables open to analysis. Bureaucracy, for example, is treated as a product of modernization in Max Weber’s classical analysis. In Chinese history, however, its evolution spans a much longer period, and its institutional forms are more diverse. Examining bureaucracy anew as a variable can add further dimensions to middle-range theories on bureaucracy. Cao Zhenghan, a professor at Zhejiang University, offers a notable example of this approach in his research on “a governance system characterized by the division of authority between higher and lower levels.”

Taken together, these three dimensions establish the distinctive position of China’s experience in the development of middle-range theory. Recognizing that contribution does not mean excluding dialogue with the international academic community. On the contrary, a broad comparative perspective is essential to revealing the full theoretical significance of propositions derived from China’s experience. Developing middle-range theory in Chinese political science should therefore rest on an explicit methodological commitment both to grounding research in local contexts and to engaging in open international dialogue.

Ren Heng is an associate professor and associate dean of the Marxism College (College of Social Sciences) at Shenzhen University.