Free China Movement

Evidence · Human Rights · Democratic Future

Take Action

English 简体中文 繁體中文 Français Deutsch Español

🔎

1988–1989 — The Neo-Authoritarianism （新权威主义） Proposal Stream

Family scope. This file covers the late-1988 to mid-1989 intellectual debate over “neo-authoritarianism” （新权威主义）: the proposal that concentrated political authority was needed to drive market reform through first, with political liberalization deferred to a later stage; its named proponents and key texts; its critics and debate venues; official and elite reception; and its later fate after June 1989. It is documented as a proposal stream — a set of overlapping essays, speeches, and press exchanges — not as a single authored document.

Boundaries. The Zhao Ziyang / Bao Tong political-reform research-group drafts and the Fang Lizhi speeches / Liu Xiaobo 1988 interview are separate units, documented elsewhere; they appear here only where they directly intersected this debate. The 1990s “neoconservative” revival of authoritarian-development arguments is recorded here only as later outcome evidence.

Method note. The single most complete secondary account is Lu Yi （卢毅）, 〈回顾一场几乎被遗忘的论争——「新权威主义」之争述评〉, 《二十一世纪》网络版第83期, 2009-02-28 (https://cuhkqa.mirrorweb.com/qa/20260126234936mp_/https://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/21c/media/online/0812009.pdf). Detail taken only from that retrospective is graded STRONG, not VERIFIED, pending retrieval of the original 1988–89 texts. The key primary-source collection is 刘军、李林编，《新权威主义——对改革理论纲领的论争》，北京：北京经济学院出版社，1989 (anthology of the debate’s essays; cited via Lu Yi and via Zheng Yongnian 1994).

(a) Canonical facts

  1. STRONG. The term 新权威主义 entered public debate in China in July 1988, when 萧功秦 (Xiao Gongqin) first used it at an intellectuals’ symposium at Beidaihe （知识份子问题学术讨论会， 北戴河）. Exact sponsor and date within July 1988 are unresolved. Source: Lu Yi 2009 retrospective.
  1. VERIFIED (venue and date); STRONG (essay content detail). The debate’s first public newspaper confrontation was 1989-01-16 in the Shanghai 《世界经济导报》 (World Economic Herald), which simultaneously published 吴稼祥’s 〈新权威主义述评〉 and 荣剑’s rebuttal 〈”新权威主义”在中国是否可行？〉. Source: Lu Yi 2009; The China Story’s Wu Jiaxiang profile confirms the essay title, date, and venue (https://www.thechinastory.org/key-intellectual/wu-jiaxiang-%e5%90%b4%e7%a8%bc%e7%a5%a5-2/?-2%2f).
  1. STRONG. The proposal stream’s core argument, as stated by its proponents: (i) a new authoritarianism distinct from the old — authority used to secure individual liberty and market order rather than to expropriate it (“剥夺还是保障个人自由，是新旧权威主义的分水岭”, Wu Jiaxiang, 〈新权威主义述评〉); (ii) an explicit sequence: marketization first, political liberalization later — 「新权威是避免弯路，迅速通过市场化开往民主化的特别快车」 (“the new authority is an express train that avoids detours, speeding through marketization toward democratization”, Wu, 〈新权威：通过市场化开往民主化的特别快车〉); (iii) premature democratization would produce fragmentation and instability — China’s own modern history showed political pluralism arriving before marketization yielded only fragmentation, guild politics, and warlordism; (iv) the East Asian “four tigers” （东亚四小龙） as practical corroboration that authority-heavy politics could deliver market takeoff; (v) the safeguards: Xiao Gongqin’s insistence that the authoritarianism was transitional （过渡性） and a 「必要的祸害」 (“necessary evil”), with middle-class supervision as the anti-degeneration mechanism, and Wu’s requirement of continuous democratic pressure on the authority (democratic activity, property-owner pressure, fiscal pressure, external social pressure) plus the market-enforced separation of politics and economy （政经分离 / 政治和经济的二元化）.
  1. VERIFIED (proponent citation of Huntington). Proponents drew on Huntington’s Political Order in Changing Societies (1968; Chinese translation 王冠华等译， 三联书店 1989), quoting 「首要的问题不是自由，而是建立一个合法的公共秩序」 (“the first problem is not liberty but the creation of a legitimate public order”) and 「人当然可以有秩序而无自由，但不能有自由而无秩序」. Source: Lu Yi 2009; corroborated by Sautman 1992 and Moody 2007 per zh.wiki’s 新权威主义 entry (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E6%9D%83%E5%A8%81%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89).
  1. STRONG. Debate-event chronology, 1988–89 (per Lu Yi 2009 unless noted): (i) June 1988 — 张炳九 (Zhang Bingjiu) restated his 1986 “semi-centralized system” （半集权制） thesis at a symposium convened by the Propaganda Department Research Office （中宣部研究室座谈会）; (ii) July 1988 — Beidaihe, Xiao Gongqin introduces the term; (iii) September 1988 — 纪念百日维新失败90周年座谈会， 戴晴 (Dai Qing) advocates a political strongman for reform; (iv) November 1988 — 首届全国现代化理论研讨会 (Beijing), the emerging idea publicly attacked; (v) 1989-01-16 — 《世界经济导报》 paired articles (see fact 2); (vi) February 1989 — 《理论信息报》 + 北京社会与科技发展研究所 symposium 「当代政治思潮中的新权威主义」, Wu defending market-first sequencing; (vii) 1989-03-10 — 《人民日报》 publishes 刘东华 (Liu Donghua), 〈”新权威”不可少〉, calling the new authority 「中华民族无以回避非过不可的桥」 (a bridge the nation could not avoid crossing) toward democratic politics; (viii) 1989-03-24 — 《光明日报》 publishes 刘在平’s discussion review 〈新权威主义讨论综述〉. A March 1989 《中国研究》 (Guoqingyanjiu) issue carried many debate essays (per Zheng 1994).
  1. ATTRIBUTED. A “改革十年：中青年理论与实践研讨会” at the Jingfeng Hotel （京丰宾馆）, Beijing, 1989-04-05 to 1989-04-08, reportedly drew 400+ participants with a relatively extensive neo-authoritarianism debate. The source chain is weak (zh.wiki relay only); no independent non-wiki source located. Likewise ATTRIBUTED: a major debate in the Renmin University 800-seat auditorium (reported by Xie Zhihao via zh.wiki), date unresolved.
  1. STRONG. The debate fell silent in the second half of 1989 “for well-known reasons” (Lu Yi). Dingxin Zhao (1994, on “defensive authoritarianism”): the controversy culminated in 1988–early 1989 and “was ended by the collapse of the new authoritarian school” when the crackdown scattered the intellectual elite. Exact full citation of Zhao’s 1994 article remains unresolved (argument verified from retrieved text).
  1. CONFLICTING (post-1989 fate of Wu Jiaxiang). The China Story records that Wu was detained in 1989 for denouncing martial law and freed in 1992; Human Rights Watch’s 1993 world report records that on 1992-08-25 Wu received a three-year prison term. These are compatible if the 1992 sentence counted detention served since 1989 — but that reconciliation is an inference, not a verified fact. Exact arrest, conviction, sentence-calculation, and release dates are unresolved. Wu later published 《公天下》 (Gong Tianxia, 2013), proposing “polycentric governance” （多中心治理）; The China Story reports it reflects his continued belief in the benefits of neo-authoritarianism and was popular among leading Party officials (attributed).
  1. VERIFIED (correction). The 1994 revival essay by Xiao Gongqin is 〈东亚威权政治与现代化〉 (“East Asian Authoritarian Politics and Modernization”), 《战略与管理》 1994年第3期, pp. 28–32 — cited in Feng Chen 1997, fn. 37. A title 〈论新权威主义〉 for 1994 could not be found anywhere and should be treated as incorrect.
  1. VERIFIED (scholar identification). “Twohey,” the scholar to whom earlier accounts attributed the observation that the debate pitted the stream against democrats, is Michael Twohey (political scientist, Cambridge PhD), author of Authority and Welfare in China: Modern Debates in Historical Perspective (Palgrave Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press, 1999), chapter 8: “The ‘New Authoritarian’ Debates” (DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230375710_8).

Corrections against earlier hypotheses. (i) The flagship essay is January 1989, not late 1988 — any 1988 circulation was internal/unpublished and is unverified. (ii) No source supports a “September 1988 meeting” where the term entered public debate; the documented introduction event is July 1988 Beidaihe, and the September 1988 event was Dai Qing’s strongman talk (different content) — treat the September-meeting claim as likely conflation, UNRESOLVED. (iii) “沙乌曼” is a transliteration variant of Sautman (Barry Sautman), not a separate scholar — inference, flagged accordingly in (f).

(b) OFFICIAL PRC POSITION

  1. ATTRIBUTED, not established fact. The most-cited elite-reception anecdote: Zhao Ziyang reportedly told Deng Xiaoping in 1988 that “new authoritarianism” meant a political strongman stabilizing conditions and developing the economy; Deng reportedly replied 「我就是这个主张，但是不必用这个提法」 (“That is exactly what I advocate, but there is no need to use that term”). Lu Yi attributes this to Yang Jisheng 杨继绳, 《中国改革年代的政治斗争》(2004), p. 546; zh.wiki says it comes from Zhao Ziyang’s own recollection. The original passage has not been located — keep as ATTRIBUTED.
  1. VERIFIED (role); UNRESOLVED (reception). Wu Jiaxiang was then on the staff of the Central General Office Policy Research Office （中央办公厅政策研究室）, and the Office’s internal outlet 《室内交流》 carried debate material (Lu Yi). This documents institutional proximity, not an endorsement.
  1. STRONG. Chen Xitong’s June 30, 1989 report to the NPC Standing Committee named 《世界经济导报》 in the crackdown’s aftermath — context for the environment in which the debate’s main newspaper venue was shut down, not a verdict on the proposal stream itself.
  1. UNRESOLVED. No documented official endorsement of the stream as policy, and no solid evidence of any specific Party elder attacking or endorsing it as such. The conservative-elder and anti-bourgeois-liberalization reactions to the stream are not established. Do not infer endorsement from the post-1989 crackdown.
  1. STRONG (press-tolerance evidence). 《人民日报》 published Liu Donghua’s pro-stream 〈”新权威”不可少〉 on 1989-03-10 (Lu Yi) — evidence that the stream had mainstream-press tolerance before June 1989, not evidence of official endorsement.

(c) FCM POSITION

UNRESOLVED — no evidence located. No contemporaneous Free China Movement position on the 1988–89 neo-authoritarianism debate has been found in the evidence consulted. As a historical-debate family, the FCM slot records an absence rather than a position.

(d) NAMED DISSIDENT-SCHOLAR POSITIONS — competing viewpoints preserved as distinct positions

Proponents:

  1. 吴稼祥 Wu Jiaxiang (STRONG on corpus; VERIFIED on flagship date/venue). Then a staff member of the Central General Office Policy Research Office; Beida economics graduate; described by Sautman 1992 as close to Zhao Ziyang (ATTRIBUTED — the political-reform-group role is outside this family’s scope). Texts: 〈新权威主义述评〉, 《世界经济导报》 1989-01-16; 〈新权威：通过市场化开往民主化的特别快车〉 (1989 anthology, pp. 44–46); 〈萌芽与移栽：个人所有权成长的历史道路〉 (written early 1988; drew leadership attention per zh.wiki citing his 2002 明镜 book — STRONG). Positions: the new/old-authoritarianism watershed （剥夺还是保障个人自由）; the market-first express train; the courtship metaphor — 「在民主与自由『结婚』之前，有一段专制与自由的『调情期』。如果说民主是自由的终身伴侣，则专制是自由的婚前『情人』」; the anti-degeneration safeguard of continuous democratic pressure. Titles 〈再谈新权威主义〉 and 〈新权威主义研究提纲〉 are named by Lu Yi without recoverable venue/date (UNRESOLVED).
  1. 萧功秦 Xiao Gongqin (VERIFIED as term-introducer per Lu Yi + zh.wiki corroboration). Shanghai scholar; associate professor, History Department, Shanghai Normal University (promoted 1987). Position: 新权威主义 is the political form experienced by third-world non-socialist countries in early modernization — a transitional authoritarianism distinct from enlightened despotism, chosen by the imperatives of economic development, legal construction, social integration, and stability; a 「必要的祸害」 (“necessary evil”) with middle-class supervision as the safeguard against backsliding. Co-authored text: 萧功秦、朱伟， 〈新权威主义：痛苦的两难选择〉 (1989 anthology, pp. 54–59) — STRONG. Per Wu’s later account, Xiao said that in Shanghai only “two and a half people” supported him. 1994 revival: 〈东亚威权政治与现代化〉, 《战略与管理》 1994年第3期 (VERIFIED citation via Feng Chen 1997).
  1. 张炳九 Zhang Bingjiu (STRONG). Peking University doctoral student. Position: his 1986 “semi-centralized system” （半集权制） thesis, restated June 1988 — 「过早地采行多元民主制的政治运行机制是不聪明的」; democracy requires historical maturation （民主制要经过历史的发育）. Text: 〈经济体制改革和政治体制改革的进程与协调〉 (1989 anthology, pp. 2–3); with Wu, 〈激进的民主还是稳健的民主〉 (anthology p. 28). Lu Yi’s retrospective credits his model as vindicated by post-1992 market development (ATTRIBUTED).
  1. 王沪宁 Wang Huning (ATTRIBUTED). In 1986 circulated a report arguing reform required necessary concentration of central power — this is Wu Jiaxiang’s own retrospective account as relayed by Lu Yi; no independent text located.
  1. 陈一谘 Chen Yizi and circle (STRONG for published affinity; not endorsement). With 王小强 and 李峻： 〈建立「硬政府，软经济」的发展模式〉 (1989 anthology, p. 248) — for a considerable period most citizens could not directly govern; reform would practically be elite politics. Documents overlap from Chen’s policy-research circle, not an official Zhao-line endorsement.
  1. 戴晴 Dai Qing (STRONG). At the September 1988 90th-anniversary-of-the-1898-reform symposium, advocated a political strongman for China’s reform akin to East Asia’s. She argued the strongman thesis; she is not documented as using the 新权威主义 label.
  1. Others documented in the anthology (STRONG for titles; affiliations unresolved for some): 杨百揆 〈政治发展中的民主和权威〉 (p. 100); 黄河 〈新权威确立之途径〉 (p. 103); 刘东华 〈「新权威」不可少〉, 《人民日报》 1989-03-10.
  1. 荣剑 Rong Jian — SPECIAL CASE (VERIFIED as critic; ATTRIBUTED as early sympathizer). Renmin University PhD student in Marxist philosophy (1986–89). Sautman 1992 characterizes Wu’s framework as roughly “a blend of Rong Jian’s and Huntington’s views” — i.e., Rong was an early intellectual source — but on 1989-01-16 Rong published the paired rebuttal 〈”新权威主义”在中国是否可行？〉 in 《世界经济导报》: immediate application of the thesis would cause a comprehensive retreat from reform; authoritarian politics and a free economy can coexist only if politics and economics are separated, a prerequisite China lacked (content STRONG via Lu Yi; venue/date VERIFIED).

Critics:

  1. 黄万盛 Huang Wansheng (STRONG). 〈新权威主义批判答问录〉, 《文汇报》 interview, 1989-02-22: the thesis revived the “old dream of despotism” (better labeled “new despotism”); China’s lesson was excessive concentration of power; reform should socialize and democratize power; rejected the Four Tigers as proof, pointing to democratic pressures in South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Singapore.
  1. 于浩成 Yu Haocheng (STRONG). 〈中国需要新权威主义吗？〉: rejected the Four Tigers analogy — their free, export-oriented economies and limited state economic control were unlike China’s politically controlled product economy.
  1. 郭苏建 Guo Sujian (STRONG). 〈评新权威主义的误区〉: corruption, inflation, disorder, agricultural decline, infrastructure and educational weakness reflected the need for deeper property-rights and political reform — not an authority deficit requiring a new despotic apparatus.
  1. 远志明 Yuan Zhiming (STRONG). 〈新权威主义的三点疑难〉: what guarantees an emerging authoritarianism would be “new” rather than “old”?
  1. 韩水法 Han Shuifa (STRONG). 〈反新权威主义论〉: proponents admitted the risk that idealized modernizing rulers could produce the opposite outcome but offered no solution — “if luck is bad, then what?”
  1. 岳麟章 / 郑永年 Yue Linzhang and Zheng Yongnian (STRONG). 〈新权威主义与政治民主化〉 (Beijing Youth Political Science College, Dept. of Public Administration; reprinted in the Liu Jin & Li Lin anthology — citation VERIFIED via Zheng 1994 footnote): the model might yield violent modernization — entrenched rulers might not surrender power even after creating the material conditions for democracy, leaving violent revolution as a possible outcome.
  1. 王逸舟 Wang Yizhou (STRONG). 〈为什么不能赞同新权威主义〉: acknowledged shared ground — proponents accepted democracy’s ultimate value, valued markets, and opposed political-economic totalism.
  1. Lu Yi’s debate-character point (STRONG). The controversy was largely inside the reformist camp, not simply reformers versus old conservatives.
  1. Explicit non-findings (UNRESOLVED as debate-specific critics). No directly verified debate publication or quotation has been located for Yan Jiaqi 严家其， Su Shaozhi 苏绍智， or Fang Lizhi 方励之 as participants in this exchange. Wu Jiaxiang’s later-supplied critic list includes them along with Liu Xiaobo, Li Zehou, Wang Ruoshui, Xu Liangying, Wan Runnan, Li Yining, and others — but that proves only that Wu later listed them as critics (ATTRIBUTED); their precise arguments and venues remain unverified. Do not present them as documented participants. Su Shaozhi’s reported remark that China needed a “tough liberal leader” （强硬的自由派领导） is ATTRIBUTED via zh.wiki’s account of Sautman’s conclusion; Sautman’s full text was not extracted.

(e) CIVIL-SOCIETY POSITION

UNRESOLVED. No organized civil-society intervention in the 1988–89 debate is documented in the evidence located. The controversy as evidenced played out in establishment academia, economics and policy-research circles, and the commercial press. Whether labor, rural, or consumer groups entered the public argument is not established.

(f) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTION POSITION

No international institution took a position. This section records named Western-scholar analysis of the debate (full citations):

  1. **Mark P. Petracca & Mong Xiong, “The Concept of Chinese Neo-Authoritarianism: An Exploration and Democratic Critique,” Asian Survey 30(11) (November 1990): 1099–1117. DOI 10.2307/2644692.** VERIFIED citation. Authorship nuance (STRONG per Zheng 1994’s own footnote citing it as “Mark P. Petracca and Mong Xiong (Yongnian Zheng)”): “Mong Xiong” is 郑永年 (Zheng Yongnian).
  1. **Barry Sautman, “Sirens of the Strongman: Neo-Authoritarianism in Recent Chinese Political Theory,” The China Quarterly 129 (March 1992): 72–102. DOI 10.1017/S0305741000041230.** VERIFIED citation. Inference (labeled): “沙乌曼” in Chinese secondary writing is a transliteration variant of Sautman, not a separate scholar.
  1. **Stanley Rosen & Gary Zou, eds./trans., “The Chinese Debate on the New Authoritarianism,” Chinese Sociology and Anthropology 23(2) (Winter 1990–91): 46–68; 23(3) (Spring 1991): 16–23; 23(4) (1991); 24(1) (1991) — four parts.** VERIFIED citation.
  1. **Michael Twohey, Authority and Welfare in China: Modern Debates in Historical Perspective (Palgrave Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press, 1999), chapter 8: “The ‘New Authoritarian’ Debates.” DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230375710_8.** VERIFIED citation. This resolves the “per Twohey” attribution.
  1. **Zheng Yongnian, “Development and Democracy: Are They Compatible in China?” Political Science Quarterly 109(2) (1994): 235–259.** VERIFIED citation; its footnotes verify the Liu Jin & Li Lin 1989 anthology and the Yue–Zheng essay.
  1. **Feng Chen, “Order and Stability in Social Transition: Neoconservative Political Thought in Post-1989 China,” The China Quarterly 151 (1997): 593–613.** VERIFIED citation and quotation: “compared with largely speculative neoauthoritarian thought, neoconservative arguments seem more empirically based and strongly assertive for an orderly change directed from above.”
  1. **Joseph Fewsmith, “Neoconservatism and the End of the Dengist Era,” Asian Survey 35(7) (July 1995): 635–651.** VERIFIED citation.
  1. Dingxin Zhao, 1994 article on “defensive authoritarianism” (comparing Taiwan and mainland China) — exact title/full citation UNRESOLVED; key argument VERIFIED from retrieved text (debate “ended by the collapse of the new authoritarian school”).
  1. Wu Guoguang, “Ziyou: tuijin zhongguo xiandaihua zhuanxing de jiben daoxiang,” in Chen Yizi et al. eds., 《中国大陆的改革与发展》 (Taibei: Guiguan Book Company, 1991), 123–152 — VERIFIED via Zheng 1994 fn. 1. **Wen Guanzhong, “Zhongguo de ziyou jingji yu zhengzhi zhuanzhi,” 《知识分子》 (The Chinese Intellectual) 26 (Winter 1992): 45–48 — VERIFIED via Zheng 1994 fn. 1.**
  1. **Els van Dongen, Realistic Revolution (Cambridge University Press, 2019), esp. “Xiao Gongqin and the Yan Fu Paradox,” pp. 67–93 — STRONG. Yuezhi Zhao, Media, Market, and Democracy in China (1998), p. 43 — STRONG. David Rolls, “The Emergence of the ‘Jiang Zemin Era’…” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Queensland, 2004 — ATTRIBUTED (via citations).**
  1. Explicit non-finding. No verified publication by Andrew Nathan or Maurice Meisner specifically analyzing the 1988–89 neo-authoritarianism exchange has been located. Nathan’s relevant works are general (Chinese Democracy, 1985; ed., China’s Crisis, 1990; later “authoritarian resilience” work). Do not list them as debate specialists.

(g) LATER OUTCOME EVIDENCE

  1. STRONG. The debate fell silent in the second half of 1989; its main newspaper venue （《世界经济导报》) was closed in the crackdown environment; advocates — including proponents — lost faith in the regime (Dingxin Zhao 1994). Wu Jiaxiang was detained for denouncing martial law (The China Story) and was sentenced to three years in 1992 (HRW 1993 world report) — dates conflict per (a) fact 8.
  1. ATTRIBUTED interpretations of the 1992 southern tour. Deng Xiaoping’s 1992 southern tour accelerated market reform without political reform — a sequence that superficially resembles the stream’s “market first” thesis. zh.wiki notes that post-southern-tour high growth with political stability led scholars to recognize authoritarianism’s role in rapid, stable growth; Lu Yi (fn. 26) reports Zhang Bingjiu’s half-centralized model as vindicated by post-1992 market development. No verified scholarly source explicitly tying the 1992 southern tour to the 1988–89 proposal stream’s thesis was located — keep these as wiki-level and retrospective attributions, not scholarly fact.
  1. STRONG. 1990s revival as neoconservatism: Xiao Gongqin’s 〈东亚威权政治与现代化〉, 《战略与管理》 1994年第3期 (corrected title, see (a) fact 9); Feng Chen 1997 comparing the 1990s neoconservative position favorably in empirical grounding to the “largely speculative” 1988–89 neoauthoritarian thought.
  1. ATTRIBUTED. Wu Jiaxiang’s 2013 《公天下》 proposal of “polycentric governance” （多中心治理） reportedly reflects his continued belief in the benefits of neo-authoritarianism and was popular among leading Party officials (The China Story).

(h) ANALYTICAL INFERENCE (explicitly labeled; not fact)

  1. The 1992 southern tour’s market-acceleration sequence superficially resembles the 1988–89 “market first” prescription, but resemblance is not adoption: the tour continued the Party’s existing reform line under Deng, and no evidence locates the 1988–89 proposal texts as inputs to 1992 policymaking. Treat any “vindication” reading as interpretation.
  2. The debate’s most distinctive feature is that it ran largely inside the reformist camp — critics like Rong Jian, Yu Haocheng, and Wang Yizhou shared the proponents’ valuation of markets and of democracy as an ultimate goal, and argued about means and sequence. This is Lu Yi’s characterization, supported by the paired-essay format of the first press airing.
  3. The reconciliation of Wu Jiaxiang’s conflicting post-1989 dates (1989 detention vs. 1992-08-25 three-year sentence) as time-served is inference; the exact chronology remains unresolved.
  4. “沙乌曼” = Sautman (transliteration), not a distinct scholar — inference from description match.

(i) Primary-source targets (unlocated originals)

The following originals were not retrieved in this research. They are recorded as primary-source targets in the lane’s claims log:

  • 吴稼祥〈新权威主义述评〉 full newspaper text, 《世界经济导报》 1989-01-16 (only anthology page refs known).
  • 刘军、李林编，《新权威主义——对改革理论纲领的论争》，北京经济学院出版社，1989 — the key primary-source collection (page refs cited via Lu Yi, unverified against a physical copy).
  • The July 1988 Beidaihe symposium record (term first proposed by Xiao Gongqin) — exact sponsor and date unresolved.
  • 吴稼祥〈再谈新权威主义〉 and 〈新权威主义研究提纲〉 — titles only, no publication record.
  • 荣剑〈”新权威主义”在中国是否可行〉 full text, 《世界经济导报》 1989-01-16.
  • 黄万盛〈新权威主义批判答问录〉, 《文汇报》 1989-02-22 (date from search metadata).
  • The Zhao Ziyang–Deng Xiaoping 1988 anecdote at its source: Yang Jisheng 《中国改革年代的政治斗争》 p. 546 and/or Zhao’s memoir passage.
  • Dingxin Zhao 1994 “defensive authoritarianism” article — full citation.
  • Wu Jiaxiang’s arrest/sentencing record reconciling the 1989-detention and 1992-08-25-sentence accounts.
  • The 1989-04-05–08 Jingfeng Hotel “改革十年” conference record (currently wiki-chain only).