Voice of All Awakened Aboriginal Societies (VoAAAS)
LESSON 2964 Wed 17 Apr 2019
Tipitaka - DO GOOD BE MINDFUL is the Essence of the Words of the Awakened One with Awareness
is the Voice of All Awakened Aboriginal Societies (VoAAAS) for welfare, happiness
and peace on the path of Eternal Bliss as Final Goal
MEDITATION PRACTICE in BUDDHA’S OWN WORDS
— Attendance on awareness —
[ mahā+satipaṭṭhāna ]
Analytic Insight Net -Free Online Tipiṭaka Law Research & Practice University in 112 CLASSICAL LANGUAGES
Paṭisambhidā Jāla-Abaddha Paripanti Tipiṭaka nīti Anvesanā ca
Paricaya Nikhilavijjālaya ca ñātibhūta Pavatti Nissāya
http://sarvajan.ambedkar.org anto 112 Seṭṭhaganthāyatta Bhās
Voice of All Awakened Aboriginal Societies (VoAAAS)
Good Governance of the Modern World
Just 0.1% intolerant, violent, militant, number one terrorists of the world,
ever shooting, mob lynching, lunatic, mentally retarded, Paradesis from Bend Israel
Kicked out from there the chitpavan Brahmins of Rowdy Rakshasa Swayam Sevaks
Remotely controlling Brashtachar Jhoote Psychopaths headed by stooges,
Chamchas, slaves, chelas, bootlickers, own mother’s flesh waters like the
Murderers of democratic institutions & Masters of diluting institutions full of
hatred, anger, jealousy, delusion, stupidity which are defilement of the mind
requiring mental treatment at mental asylums in BeneIsrael are now ruling
the country after tampering the fraud EVMs/VVPATs keeping their software
with its source code hidden from the eyes of the voters.
Now 99.9% All Aboriginal Awakened Societies have united to throw the
chitpavan Brahmins and their slaves in mental asylums and start good
governance for welfare, happiness and peace for the many.And to save
Universal Adult Franchise,Democracy, Equality, liberty,
and fraternity as enshrined in our modern
All political leaders who are ruling are chitpavan Brahmins
reaping the hindutva society by tampering the fraud EVMs/VVPATs.
Marvelous Construction fathered by Dr B R Ambedkar.
Caste discrimination and caste privileges conscious is there
all over the country.
Manyavar Kanshiram ji was a successful political reformer who united
all backward castes. As a result Ms Mayawati became CM of UP for
4 times and provided good governance as per the constitution and
The Teaching of the Awakened One with Awareness and became eligible
to be the PM.
This was not liked by the chitpavan brahmins. So the EVMs/VVPATs are tampered
to deny the Master Key to the downtrodden as desired by Dr Ambedkar
EC (Election Criminals) urged to act against Murderers of
democratic institutions & Masters of diluting institutions (Modi),
BJP Brashtachar Jhoothe Psychopaths leaders
17 Apr 2019
On Tuesday it urged the Election Commission to initiate action for
prosecuting BJP Ministers, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and
party president Amit Shah, for their alleged unconstitutional and
communally divisive statements. In a letter to the poll panel, PUCL
cited media reports to allege that key leaders of the BJP had made
“highly objectionable, communal, anticonstitutional and hate inciting”
statements in the past few days. The NGO also requested the EC to issue
directions to the media for not publishing communally divisive contents.
With BSP chief Mayawati out of campaigning for 48 hours, for violating
the election code, the party made a statement in the “capital of
Sarvajan Samajl” by putting her nephew Akash Anand on the centre stage.
Accompanying party general secretary Satish Chandra Mishra, SP
president Akhilesh Yadav and RLD chief Ajit Singh, Mr. Anand appealed to
voters to vote for the mahagathbandan candidates in Agra, Fatehpur
Sikri and Mathura.
MAY YOU ALL BE EVER HAPPY, WELL AND SECURE
MAY YOU LIVE LONG
MAY ALL SENTIENT AND NON-SENTIENT BEINGS BE EVER HAPPY
MAY YOU BE ALWAYS HAVE CALM, QUIET, ALERT,ATTENTIVE AND
EQUANIMITY MIND WITH A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT
EVERYTHING IS CHANGING
UPASAKA JAGATHEESAN CHANDRASEKHARAN
ECONOMY OF THE AWAKEN ONE WITH AWARENESS
The Awaken One with Awareness assert that, “The way to change the world
is to change the nature of man,”that offers Insight to Improve
Conditions for Planet, Inhabitants.
The world needs waves of reforms.
Generate an opportunity to set the world on a more equitable and sustainable path of development.
AOA much to offer that process. AOA assert that, “The way to change the
world is to change the nature of man,” offers a critical insight into
how to improve conditions for our planet and its inhabitants.
The spirit to care not just for ourselves but for others, based on an
awareness of our interlinked fates, lies at the heart of AOA- and,
indeed, all of the world’s great religions.
These thoughts challenge families, communities and nations to act in
concert for the advancement of our common well-being. That is the best
way to secure individual and collective progress in an interdependent
We must also change longstanding assumptions and open our minds to new
ideas and possible solutions if we are to address major global threats,
from the proliferation of deadly weapons to intolerance and inequality.
We must invite Awaken Ones with Awareness and people of all traditions
to use the occasion to reflect on how we can change our actions to pave
the way for a more sustainable future.
Awakened One with Awareness bequeathed to humanity profound thoughts
that can guide our efforts to resolve the severe problems facing
Injunction against the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance
is especially relevant to multilateral efforts to overcome the hunger
that needlessly affects nearly a billion people in a world of plenty,
the brutal violence that takes millions of lives each year, and the
senseless environmental damage that humans cause to our only home, the
Socio-economic development may sound modern, but its core is the
very problem of human suffering that was addressed more than 2,500 years
Numerous Awakened One With Awareness organizations are putting these
thoughts into practice. Their support is for activities to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals, our blueprint for enabling all people to
enjoy lives of dignity and opportunity.
Let us draw on the universal values of Awakened Ones With Awareness
to act in solidarity with those who are suffering, thereby contributing
to a more compassionate and awakened world for all.
ECONOMY OF THE AWAKEN ONE WITH AWARENESS (AOA) is to provide all people with a minimum income.
Radiation theory sees the economy prospering through the virtuous actions of individuals following the moral law.
AOA accept existing political and economic institutions, even while
providing a democratic social ethos revolutionary for its time.
King Asoka, greatest of all Indian emperors, pursued a highly
activist fiscal policy even though he believed only meditation could
help people to advance in moral living.
AOA places great stress on gift giving.
Income Redistribution in the Ideal State
Through the laws of cause and condition there is a distributive
cycle of one’s current social and economic position is due to one’s good
cause and condition accumulated in the past. This does not mean
indifference to the poor, for one’s economic status is not only
dependent on the laws of cause and condition, but is also complemented
by the moral virtues of compassion and generosity.’ Alms giving to the
poor is regarded as increasing one’s merit The importance of our active
intervention has some important implications for behavior of the
“righteous ruler” as well.
AOA kings are also known for the financial aid which they provided
for the poor; indeed, the kings were advised to give their gifts to all
who are poor. Moreover, gifts to the those who practice AOA do not
prevent them from providing a refuge for the destitute or from
redistributing such beneficence to the indigent.
Redistribution of income, either through the public or private,
sectors, is certainly regarded in a favorable light. In order to favor
the spiritual improvement of the population, the State is justified in
taking steps to provide all people with a minimum income.
Radiation: Virtue as a Positive Externality
AOA theory of radiation sees the economy prospering through the collective impact of the virtuous actions of individuals.
AOA argue that since the economy can ultimately prosper only through
virtuous action, ultimately the only hope for prosperity lies in a
regeneration of human kind, e.g., through the cultivation of the Four
Sublime Abodes (loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and
equanimity). Any appropriate good action inevitably leads to an increase
of the material wealth of the community.
Trade Through the Market
AOA discussion on right livelihood prohibits trade in certain goods
and services, which means that all other types of trade are apparently
allowed (but not explicitly approved). In an interesting
comparison between trading and agriculture as means of livelihood, the
AOA also notes that both can bring high or low returns, depending on the
circumstances; however, trading is an occupation with little to do, few
duties, a small administration, and small problems, while agriculture
is the reverse. The capable merchant is approvingly said to know the
value of goods and prices and the profits he obtains; and to buy where
the price is low and to sell where the price is high.
A merchant who was generous to the cause was highly praised for his piety.
AOA accepts competition in general in the sense that it is possible to compete without hurting others,excel in virtue.
“prizes in the school of life that each may strive for to obtain….
If a man chooses to interpret this as free competition, it is still
competition without rivalry, for victory to oneself does not mean the
defeat of someone else.”
Description of the origins of property also discusses the origins of
the State. As crime increased after the division of the land, the
people elected a king to maintain law and order, paying him for his
troubles. This suggests a type of social contract theory, which means
that the king has important obligations toward the people.
Some of the discussion about economic policy are traditional Ten
Royal Precepts of Kingship: generosity, morality, liberality,
uprightness, gentleness, self-restraint, non-anger, non-hurtfulness,
forbearance, and non-opposition.
However, more practical advice can also be found. For instance, one
of the sources, speaks of the Royal Acts to increase prosperity which
include giving of seed corn and food to farmers and of capital to
merchants to start or increase their business. The particular source
emphasizes that if prosperity increases, economic disorders and crime
such as theft decrease.
Additional insight into State economic activities can be gained by
examining the records of some of the “righteous rulers” who are revered
by the AOA. It should be noted that because of the participation of the
State in the operations of the irrigation systems in many of these
countries, the crown had a fairly active role in the economy.
The prototypical important righteous ruler was the revered King
Asoka (Ashoka) (ca. 274-232 B.C.E.), the grandson of the founder of the
Mauryan dynasty in indict and one of the greatest of the Indian
emperors.2 From Asoka’s edicts it appears that he generally accepted the
economic and political institutions of his time.
However, he also took as the goal of statecraft the welfare and
happiness of the people. He adopted a highly activist fiscal policy,
both with regard to current and capital expenditures. For instance, he
gave gifts to the aged, other needy, and religious orders; he set up
public education courses to teach the doctrines of Rule of the Law; he
cut back on large public festivals; he imported and planted medicinal
herbs; and he carried out various public works projects such as digging
of wells, planting of trees, construction of rest houses and animal
watering stations along main roads in the empire. Some of his edicts
appeared to enforce traditional AOA beliefs, e.g, bans on slaughtering
various animals. The funds spent on the maintenance of the crown and
good works were high, e.g., taxes were apparently about one fourth of
the revenue of land.
Still another righteous ruler was King Ruang who lived in the 14th
century in Thailand, long after the canonical scriptures had been
completed. Ruang stated quite clearly that a righteous king brings
prosperity to his subjects. He apparently had a much less luxurious
court or a less activist governmental expenditure policy than Asoka,
since he advised that taxes should be less than 10 percent of the crop
(and less in a drought) and that such taxes should never be higher than
those of the preceding king. He also urged that the State provide
interest free loans to those wishing to engage in commerce and that no
profit taxes should be placed upon such commercial activities.
Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) and Politics
The Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) had gone beyond all worldly affairs, but still gave advice on good government.
The AoA came from a warrior caste and was naturally brought into
association with kings, princes and ministers. Despite His origin and
association, He never resorted to the influence of political power to
introduce His thoughts nor allowed His Thoughts to be misused for
gaining political power. But today, many politicians try to drag the
AOA’s name into politics by introducing Him as a communist, capitalist,
or even an imperialist. They have forgotten that the new political
philosophy as we know it really developed in the West long after the
AOA’s time. Those who try to make use of the good name of the AOA for
their own personal advantage must remember that the AOA was the
Supremely Awaken One who had gone beyond all worldly concerns.
There is an inherent problem of trying to intermingle religion with
politics. The basis of religion is morality, purity and faith, while
that for politics is power. In the course of history, religion has often
been used to give legitimacy to those in power and their exercise of
that power. Religion was used to justify wars and conquests,
persecutions, atrocities, rebellions, destruction of works of art and
When religion is used to pander to political whims, it has to forego
its high moral ideals and become debased by worldly political demands.
The thrust of the AOA Rule of Law is not directed to the creation
of new political institutions and establishing political arrangements.
Basically, it seeks to approach the problems of society by reforming the
individuals constituting that society and by suggesting some general
principles through which the society can be guided towards greater
humanism, improved welfare of its members, and more equitable sharing of
There is a limit to the extent to which a political system can
safeguard the happiness and prosperity of its people. No political
system, no matter how ideal it may appear to be, can bring about peace
and happiness as long as the people in the system are dominated by
greed, hatred and delusion. In addition, no matter what political system
is adopted, there are certain universal factors which the members of
that society will have to experience: the effects of good and bad Cause
and Condition, the lack of real satisfaction or everlasting happiness in
the world characterized by unsatisfactoriness, impermanence), and
egolessness. To the AOA, nowhere in Samsara is there real freedom, not
even in the heavens or the world of Brahama.
Although a good and just political system which guarantees basic
human rights and contains checks and balances to the use of power is an
important condition for a happy in society, people should not fritter
away their time by endlessly searching for the ultimate political system
where men can be completely free, because complete freedom cannot be
found in any system but only in minds which are free. To be free, people
will have to look within their own minds and work towards freeing
themselves from the chains of ignorance and craving. Freedom in the
truest sense is only possible when a person uses Rule of Law to develop
his character through good speech and action and to train his mind so as
to expand his mental potential and achieve his ultimate aim of
While recognizing the usefulness of separating religion from
politics and the limitations of political systems in bringing about
peace and happiness, there are several aspects of the AOA’s thoughts
which have close correspondence to the political arrangements of the
present day. Firstly, the AOA spoke about the equality of all human
beings long before Abraham Lincoln, and that classes and castes are
artificial barriers erected by society. The only classification of human
beings, according to the AOA, is based on the quality of their moral
conduct. Secondly, the AOA encouraged the spirit of social
-co-operation and active participation in society. This spirit is
actively promoted in the political process of modern societies. Thirdly,
since no one was appointed as the AOA’s successor, the members of the
Order were to be guided by the Rule of Law. Until today very member of
the Order is to abide by the Rule of Law which governs and guides their
Fourthly, the AOA encouraged the spirit of consultation and the
democratic process. This is shown within the community of the Order in
which all members have the right to decide on matters of general
concern. When a serious question arose demanding attention, the issues
were put before the monks and discussed in a manner similar to the
democratic parliamentary system used today. This self-governing
procedure may come as a surprise to many to learn that in the assemblies
of AOAs in India 2,500 years and more ago are to be found the
rudiments of the parliamentary practice of the present day. A special
officer similar to ‘Mr. Speaker’ was appointed to preserve the dignity
of the Parliamentary Chief Whip, was also appointed to see if the quorum
was secured. Matters were put forward in the form of a motion which was
open to discussion. In some cases it was done once, in others three
times, thus anticipating the practice of Parliament in requiring that a
bill be read a third time before it becomes law. If the discussion
showed a difference of opinion, it was to be settled by the vote of the
majority through balloting.
The AOA approach to political power is the moralization and the
responsible use of public power. The AOA preached non-violence and
peace as a universal message. He did not approve of violence or the
destruction of life, and declared that there is no such thing as a
‘just’ war. He taught: ‘The victor breeds hatred, the defeated lives in
misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful.’
Not only did the Buddha teach non-violence and peace, He was perhaps
the first and only religious teacher who went to the battlefield
personally to prevent the outbreak of a war. He diffused tension between
the Sakyas and the Koliyas who were about to wage war over the waters
of Rohini. He also dissuaded King Ajatasattu from attacking the Kingdom
of the Vajjis.
The AOAdiscussed the importance and the prerequisites of a good
government. He showed how the country could become corrupt, degenerate
and unhappy when the head of the government becomes corrupt and unjust.
He spoke against corruption and how a government should act based on
The AOA once said, ‘When the ruler of a country is just and good, the
ministers become just and good; when the ministers are just and good,
the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are
just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank
and file become just and good, the people become just and good.
The AOA said that immorality and crime, such as theft, falsehood,
violence, hatred, cruelty, could arise from poverty. Kings and
governments may try to suppress crime through punishment, but it is
futile to eradicate crimes through force.
The AOA suggested economic development instead of force to reduce
crime. The government should use the country’s resources to improve the
economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and
rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and
business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life
with human dignity.
The AOA had gtiven to rules for Good Government. These ten rules
can be applied even today by any government which wishes to rule the
country peacefully. The rules are as follows:
1) be liberal and avoid selfishness,
2) maintain a high moral
character, 3) be prepared to sacrifice one’s own pleasure for the
well-being of the subjects, 4) be honest and maintain absolute
integrity, 5) be kind and gentle, 6) lead a simple life for the subjects
to emulate, 7) be free from hatred of any kind, 8) exercise
non-violence, 9) practice patience, and 10) respect public opinion to
promote peace and harmony.
Regarding the behavior of rulers, He further advised:
- A good ruler should act impartially and should not be biased and
discriminate between one particular group of subjects against another.
- A good ruler should not harbor any form of hatred against any of his subjects.
- A good ruler should show no fear whatsoever in the enforcement of the law, if it is justifiable.
- A good ruler must possess a clear understanding of the law to be
enforced. It should not be enforced just because the ruler has the
authority to enforce the law. It must be done in a reasonable manner and
with common sense.
‘If a man, who is unfit, incompetent, immoral, improper, unable and
unworthy of kingship, has enthroned himself a king or a ruler with great
authority, he is subject to be tortured‚ to be subject to a variety of
punishment by the people, because, being unfit and unworthy, he has
placed himself unrighteously in the seat of sovereignty. The ruler, like
others who violate and transgress moral codes and basic rules of all
social laws of mankind, is equally subject to punishment; and moreover,
to be censured is the ruler who conducts himself as a robber of the
public. It is mentioned that a ruler who punishes innocent people and
does not punish the culprit is not suitable to rule a country.
The king always improves himself and carefully examines his own
conduct in deeds, words and thoughts, trying to discover and listen to
public opinion as to whether or not he had been guilty of any faults and
mistakes in ruling the kingdom. If it is found that he rules
unrighteously, the public will complain that they are ruined by the
wicked ruler with unjust treatment, punishment, taxation, or other
oppressions including corruption of any kind, and they will react
against him in one way or another. On the contrary, if he rules
righteously they will bless him: ‘Long live His Majesty.’ (Majjhima
The AOA’s emphasis on the moral duty of a ruler to use public power
to improve the welfare of the people had inspired Emperor Asoka in the
Third Century B.C. to do likewise. Emperor Asoka, a sparkling example of
this principle, resolved to live according to and preach the Rule of
Law and to serve his subjects and all humanity. He declared his
non-aggressive intentions to his neighbors, assuring them of his
goodwill and sending envoys to distant kings bearing his message of
peace and non-aggression. He promoted the energetic practice of the
socio-moral virtues of honesty, truthfulness, compassion, benevolence,
non-violence, considerate behavior towards all, non-extravagance,
non-acquisitiveness, and non-injury to animals. He encouraged religious
freedom and mutual respect for each other’s creed. He went on periodic
tours preaching the Rule of Law to the rural people. He undertook works
of public utility, such as founding of hospitals for men and animals,
supplying of medicine, planting of roadside trees and groves, digging of
wells, and construction of watering sheds and rest houses. He expressly
forbade cruelty to animals.
Sometimes the AOA is said to be a social reformer. Among other
things, He condemned the caste system, recognized the equality of
people, spoke on the need to improve socio-economic conditions,
recognized the importance of a more equitable distribution of wealth
among the rich and the poor, raised the status of women, recommended the
incorporation of humanism in government and administration, and taught
that a society should not be run by greed but with consideration and
compassion for the people. Despite all these, His contribution to
mankind is much greater because He took off at a point which no other
social reformer before or ever since had done, that is, by going to the
deepest roots of human ill which are found in the human mind. It is only
in the human mind that true reform can be effected. Reforms imposed by
force upon the external world have a very short life because they have
no roots. But those reforms which spring as a result of the
transformation of man’s inner consciousness remain rooted. While their
branches spread outwards, they draw their nourishment from an unfailing
source — the subconscious imperatives of the life-stream itself. So
reforms come about when men’s minds have prepared the way for them, and
they live as long as men revitalize them out of their own love of truth,
justice and their fellow men.
The doctrine preached by the AOA is not one based on ‘Political
Philosophy’. Nor is it a doctrine that encourages men to worldly
pleasures. It sets out a way to attain Eternal Bliss. In other words,
its ultimate aim is to put an end to craving that keeps them in bondage
to this world.’The path that leads to worldly gain is one, and the path
that leads to Eternal Bliss (by leading a religious life)is another.’
However, this does not mean that AOAs cannot or should not get involved
in the political process, which is a social reality. The lives of the
members of a society are shaped by laws and regulations, economic
arrangements allowed within a country, institutional arrangements, which
are influenced by the political arrangements of that society.
Nevertheless, if a AOAwishes to be involved in politics, he should not
misuse religion to gain political powers, nor is it advisable for those
who have renounced the worldly life to lead a pure, religious life to be
actively involved in politics.
Putting Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) to Work:
A New Approach to Management and Business
Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) Economics: The Emerging Middle Path between Capitalism and Socialism
A novel approach to economic management that goes beyond socialism
and capitalism. The proposed economics for the 21st century is ‘Awaken
One with Awareness (AOA) Economics’.
Based on the insight of the Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) that
spiritual liberation is attained by avoiding extremes, whether by
indulgence in worldly pleasures or severe asceticism, and treading
namely ‘ the Middle Way ‘, ‘Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) Economics ‘
is recommended as the ideal middle path between the competing models of
capitalism and socialism. Both these systems, have failed to contain
the relentless destruction of the natural environment and the human
community, thereby forcing leading executives and planners to search for
new solutions for planetary problems.
Best aspects of both capitalist and socialist economic systems is
drawn in ‘ Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) Economics ‘ model. It
supports the conventional forces of a free market and competition
without destroying either nature or human society. Alternate vision of
sustainable economics is meant to be more just and more ecologically
Inspired by the fundamental AOA insight of the inter-connectedness
existing among all living things, that AOA, Economics and Ecology are
all inter-related. There is a heavy emphasis on the concept of freedom
as understood in AOA in contrast to the Western concept of ‘freedom’. In
the West ‘freedom’ revolves around the rights of the individual i.e.
freedom to do what one wishes. In AOA, ‘freedom’ means freedom from
personal desires or attachments.
An AOA approach to economics requires an understanding that
economics and a moral and spiritual life are neither separate nor
mutually exclusive. The 20th Century has been ravaged by a
materialistic, self-centered consumerism. The next century needs to
focus on the quality and spirituality of life itself. AOA, which
advocates the ‘Middle Path’, serves as an important resource to pursue
an alternative to the extremes of capitalism and socialism, or pure
self-interest and utter self-negation.
The Essence of Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) Economics
Three key phrases are identified that underlie the model of Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) Economics.
1) an economics that benefits oneself and others
2) an economics of tolerance and peace
3) an economics that can save the earth.
An Economics that benefits oneself and others
Theory of free enterprise based on the concept of self-benefit is
developed. This led to people being more concerned with enriching
themselves and disregarding the interests of others. At the
international level, major colonial powers such as England, Netherlands,
France, Portugal and Spain developed their economies from the resources
taken from other poorer regions, without an adequate resulting benefit
accruing to the colonies. In contrast, the earlier AOA societies such as
India during the time of the AOA or Japan during the time of Prince
Shotuku ( 574 - 622 AD ) existed with a radically different social
approach. In Japanese society where the density of population was high,
human relations were tightly interwoven, and Japanese people were
encouraged to pay great attention to how other people thought or
reacted. In the Japanese world of business, earning the trust of others
and entering into mutually beneficial transactions have always been
given priority. Such conduct was the result of deep-seated AOA
The Western obsession with ’self-benefit ‘ and indifference to the
rights of non-European people has been well analysed by former Indian
diplomat K.M.Panikkar in his ground breaking book ‘Asia and Western
Domination - A Survey of the Vasco De Gama Epoch of Asian History 1498 -
1945, published in 1953. Panikkar says that western colonial powers
were reluctant to recognise that doctrines of international law applied
outside Europe or that European nations had any moral obligations when
dealing with Asian people. For example, when Britain insisted on the
opium trade against the laws of China in the 19th Century, there was a
prohibition by law on opium smoking in England. In countries under
direct British occupation eg. India, Ceylon and Burma, though there were
equal rights established by law, there was considerable reservation in
enforcing the law against Europeans. Maurice Collis, a British
magistrate in Burma, gives a rare candid account in his book ‘Trials in
Burma’ ( 1938 ) about the pressures brought upon him by the members of
the Colonial Government and the British expatriate community, to be
partial towards Europeans in his judgments. Panikkar avers that this
doctrine of different rights (which made a mockery of the concept of the
Rule of Law) persisted to the very end of western colonial domination
and was a prime cause of Europe’s ultimate failure in Asia.
An Economics of Tolerance and Peace
The Indian Emperor Asoka established the world’s first welfare state
in the third century BC upon embracing AOA approach. He renounced the
idea of conquest by the sword. In contrast to the western concept of ‘
Rule of Law ‘, Asoka embarked upon a ‘policy of piety or rule of
righteousness’. The basic assumption of this policy of piety was that
the ruler who serves as a moral model would be more effective than one
who rules purely by strict law enforcement. The right method of
governing is not only by legislation and law enforcement, but also by
promoting the moral education of the people. Asoka began by issuing
edicts concerning the ideas and practice of Rule of Law, dealing with
universal law and social order. Realizing that poverty eroded the social
fabric, one of his first acts was to fund social welfare and other
public projects. Asoka’s ideals involved promoting policies for the
benefit of everyone in society, treating all his subjects as if they
were his children and protecting religion. He built hospitals, animal
welfare shelters and enforced a ban on owning slaves and killing. He
gave recognition to animal rights in a number of his rock edicts and
accepted state responsibility for the protection of animals. Animal
sacrifice was forbidden by law.
An important aspect of Asoka’s economics of peace was tolerance. In
one of his rock edicts, Asoka calls for religious freedom and tolerance,
and declares that by respecting someone else’s religion, one brings
credit to one’s own religion. The idea of religious tolerance only
emerged in the West in 1689 with the publication of John Locke’s book ‘ A
Letter Concerning Toleration ‘.
From a AOA perspective, politics can be summed up by the wheel
turner, which means a king or political ruler who protects his people
and the AOAt teachings. Asoka was the prototype of this ruler whose
political ideas were to inspire a countless number of other Asian
Emperors and rulers. One enthusiastic follower of Asoka in Japan was
Prince Shotuku. (574 - 622 AD ). An ardent believer in AOA approach,
Shotukti drafted a 17 Article Constitution (the first AOA approach
Constitution of Japan), which was promulgated in 604 AD. Shotuku appeals
neither to ’self-evident truths ‘ (as in the American Constitution )
nor to some divine right of kings as the basis of law. Instead he begins
pragmatically by stating that if society is to work efficiently for the
good of all, then people must restrain factionalism and learn to work
together. A key feature of this Constitution is the emphasis placed on
resolving differences by appeals to harmony and common good, using the
procedure of consensus. This approach is in marked contrast to the
western view that factions can be controlled only legally by a balance
of powers. Decision making by consensus is a significant characteristic
of Japanese society. Every effort is made to ensure that minority
dissident factions are not allowed to lose face.
The influence of AOA approach in Japan was such that in 792 AD
Emperor Kammu (781 - 806 AD) despite constant threats from Korea,
abolished the 100 year old national army, except for one regiment to
guard the region near Korea. National security was maintained by sons of
local clan leaders somewhat similar to the present day police. Japan
was effectively without an army until the emergence of the new warrior
class before the Kamakura, Shogunate (1192 - 1333 AD). Tibet is another
example of demilitarisation (in the 17th century). What is significant
to note here is that long before the ideal of demilitarisation was
espoused in western countries, ancient Buddhist countries had already
implemented it. In Japan, beginning from the 9th century, the death
penalty was abolished for nearly three and a
An Economics to save the Earth
The practice of industrial societies indulging in a policy of
take-and-take from nature is criticized, despite economics being
fundamentally about exchange or give-and-take.A possible root cause of
the western attitude towards nature. This passage declares:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image created he him, male
and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto
them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it,
and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”.
Some have interpreted this passage literally, as one giving divine
sanction to domination of the earth for the benefit of only human beings
and disregarding the interests of both plants and other living
creatures of this world. In contrast, AOA approach sacred texts are much
more humble and always emphasise the need to live in harmony with
nature and peacefully co-exist with other living creatures, as the ideal
and noble way. In the AOA approach worldview, humans rather being
masters of this earth, simply make up one tiny element in a vast cosmos.
In the AOA approach Economics that proposes, the earth rather than
human beings will be placed at the center of our worldview.
History of Economics
The major ideas in the theories of prominent economists such as Adam
Smith (1723 - 1790), David Ricardo (1772 - 1823), Karl, Marx (1818 -
1883), John Keynes (1883 - 1946) Joan Robinson (1903 - 1983) and the
German Economists Friedrich von Hayek (1899 - 1992), Wilhelm Lopke (1899
- 1966) and Ludwig Erhard (1897 - 1977) is examined.Lopke’s
best-selling book ‘ Civitas Humanas (Human Citizen) published in 1949 as
laying the foundation for the new humanistic school of economics is
singled out.The concept of `social market economics’ advocated by Ludwig
Erhard in his 1957 book ‘Woffistand fur Alles (Happiness for All ) as
the precedent for developing the new AOA approach Economics is used.
Erhard called for the need to overcome the inherent tensions between the
haves and have-nots in society, through such governmental policies as
the banning of cartels, using government ‘price valuation’ to ensure
fair pricing, rent control and supporting people with disabilities.
Dr. E.F Schumacher’s book ‘Small is Beautiful’, which has a chapter
on AOA approach Economics is an inspiration. Schumacher was heavily
influenced by AOA approach meditation and wisdom during his time in
Myanmar (formerly Burma). Though Schumacher recommended a new approach
to economics based on AOA approach, that Schumacher’s ultimate solutions
were sought in Christian oriented ethics. Nevertheless, that
Schumacher’s book should serve as a wake up call for those living in AOA
approacht countries. He further says that given the destruction of the
natural environment that has taken place in the industrial West, the
time has come to use a
AOA approach to economics.
Historical Background of Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) Economics
The life story of the AOA offers a valuable lesson when focusing on AOA
approach economics. The Prince rejected the material comforts of a royal
life, and also realised the futility of asceticism and denial of
natural physical needs. ‘’The AOA walked a fine line between materialism
and denial of the world, and this middle way or moderate standpoint is
fundamental to understanding AOA Economics’.
The ordinary public and the merchant class supported AOA approach from
the very outset. As AOA approach moved eastwards over the centuries, to
China, Korea and Japan it absorbed elements of the culture of these
countries and became transformed along the way. It also managed to
transform the societies and economies of these countries by introducing
ethical concepts into the pursuit of profit. In Japanese history there
has been substantial AOA approach support of commerce, which had come to
fruition during the Edo period (1603 - 1867). This period witnessed an
explosion of economic activity. Some sociologists have found interesting
parallels in the connections between the Protestant work ethic and
capitalism, and between the rise of Japanese Capitalism and the
religious thought of the time.
The world’s natural resources would be depleted if two factors are not immediately addressed:
1) the ever increasing population growth, and
2) the mismanagement of desire ( particularly of those people in the so-called advanced countries)
In the Ryoan-ji, the AOA Temple of Kyoto, famous for its stone and
sand garden, there is a poem carved on a stone, which says ‘ Know what
one really needs ‘. This is no simple injunction. To know what one
really needs in life requires great wisdom. But to have the strength to
say ‘no’ to the unessential products in life would release a person from
the coils of consumption. This view i.e. of wanting what is really
essential reflects the AOA approach view of consumption and it is the
ideal attitude to be promoted in the coming century.
Right livelihood is one of the components of the Noble Eightfold
Path. Its importance lies in the fact that the work one does for a
living influences a person’s thinking. The AOA has named five types of
occupations as unwholesome ways of earning a living. They are 1) Selling
liquor or being connected with the production and sale of liquor 2)
Sale of flesh or being connected with the raising and killing of animals
3) Poison (includes drugs) 4) Trading in living beings (includes
slavery or for similar purposes) 5) Dangerous weapons.
The layman’s code of discipline or gihi vinaya is the premise for
developing the right work ethic for the next century. In one passage AOA
says “One should work like a bee to earn one’s livelihood. Do not wait
for others to help, nor depend on others foolishly”.AOA showed his
concern for the material welfare and the spiritual development of his
lay disciples. In the discourse to young Sigala, the AOA explained the
full range of duties owed by a layman to all those with whom he
interacts. The AOA also indicated how wealth has to be spent i.e. one
portion for one’s needs, which includes offerings to Order of AOA and
charity, two portions on investment and the fourth portion to be kept
for an emergency.
Japanese entrepreneurs who had incorporated AOA principles and
meditation techniques in their day to day work in an effort to develop a
more humanistic and environmentalist business ethic.
Awaken One with Awareness (AOA) Economic Vision
Provides food for thought to anyone wishing to adopt an innovative
approach to Management and Business. However the greatest appeal of this
highly readable book lies in the elaborate development of Schumacher’s
profound insight that there is another way of approaching economics,
based on the ideas taught in the East 2500 years ago, particularly of
the fundamental interconnectedness of people and nature. It is upon this
premise that the world can shift from a throw-away culture to a more
sustainable* civilisation. This work also throws a challenge to
governments in AOA approach countries to develop a AOA economic vision
as a part of national planning, as we move towards a new millennium.
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences
March 2018, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as
Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis
Authors and affiliations
1.School of GovernmentPeking UniversityBeijingChina
Open AccessOriginal Paper
First Online: 12 October 2017
In a time of great change, accelerating globalization and increasing
uncertainty, all countries, whether developed or developing, are
searching for a new form of governance that is better adapted to the
times so as to gain an advantage in economic competitiveness and create
substantial and sustainable social growth. As governance theory is
becoming the dominant political theory in response to the change, the
values backing the discourse and texts consistent with them have helped
revise the theory of government in mainstream politics and were agreed
upon by global politicians, scholars, officials and entrepreneurs. When
we comprehend governance theory based on the practice of public
administration in China, it strikes us how theoretically and practically
important governance theory is for rebuilding the intellectual system
of China’s democratic politics, searching for an institutional platform
for good governance, transforming the public policy-making model and
getting rid of the practice in public administration in the process of
market-oriented development that is inefficient, or even fails in many
Governance Good governance Governance reform Public administration Political science
This article is translated from a Chinese version, which was previously published in Nanjing Social Sciences, 9 (2001).
The English word governance derives from Latin and ancient Greek and
originally meant control, guidance and manipulation. Its meaning had
long overlapped with the word government and was mainly used to refer to
administrative and political activities related to national public
affairs. However, in the 1990s, it was given a new meaning by western
political scientists and economists. Since then, the word has implied
much more than it did traditionally and is starkly different from what
the word government means. Instead of an exclusively English word, it is
in common use among people speaking other major European languages;
instead of an exclusively political term, it is widely used in social
and economic spheres.
When trying to sum up what was happening in Africa in 1989, the
World Bank used the term “crisis in governance” for the first time.
Since then, governance as a word has been widely used in political
development studies, especially for describing the political status of
post-colonial and developing countries. By now, scholars from various
countries have come up with five major propositions on governance as
theory. They are as follows:
Governance refers to a set of institutions and actors that are drawn
from but also beyond the Government. It challenges the authority of the
State or the Government in the traditional sense and maintains that the
Government is not the only power center of a state. As long as the power
exercised by a public or private institution is recognized by the
public, it is possible to become a power center at a specific level.
Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities
for tackling social and economic issues. It indicates that, in modern
society, the State is transferring its once exclusive responsibilities
to civil society (i.e., private sector organizations and voluntary
groups, which are undertaking more and more responsibilities that were
formerly in the hands of the State). As a result, the boundaries between
the State and society and between public and private sectors are
becoming increasingly blurred, as are definitions of their
Governance identifies the power dependence involved in relationships
between institutions involved in collective action. To be specific,
every organization devoted to collective action has to depend on other
organizations; to achieve its purpose, it has to exchange resources and
negotiate a common goal with others, and the outcome of the exchange
depends not only on the resources of each actor, but also on the rules
of the game and the environment in which the exchange takes place.
Governance emphasizes the importance of autonomous self-governing
networks of actors. A self-governing network as such has the authority
to issue orders in a certain sphere and work with the Government in this
sphere and share its responsibilities for public administration.
Governance recognizes the capacity to get things done without relying on
the power of the Government to command or use its authority. In public
affairs management, there are other management tools and techniques and
the Government has the responsibility to use them to steer and guide
public affairs (Stoker 1999).
Of all the definitions of governance, the one made by the Commission
on Global Governance is one of the most representative and definitive.
In a research report titled Our Global Neighborhood issued in 1995, the
commission defined governance thus: “governance is the sum of the many
ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their
common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or
diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be
taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce
compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and
institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest.”
It has four features: governance is not a set of rules or an activity,
but a process; the process of governance is not based on control, but on
coordination; it involves both public and private sectors; it is not a
formal institution, but continuing interaction.1
From the aforementioned definitions of governance, we can see that,
essentially, governance means exercising authority to maintain order and
meet the needs of the public within a certain range. The purpose of
governance is to guide, steer and regulate citizens’ activities through
the power of different systems and relations so as to maximize the
public interest. In terms of political science, governance refers to the
process of political administration, including the normative foundation
of political authority, approaches to dealing with political affairs
and the management of public resources. It particularly focuses on the
role of political authority in maintaining social order and the exercise
of administrative power in a defined sphere.
Literally, there seems no great difference between “governance” and
“government.” Yet semantically, they are vastly different. To many
scholars, a prerequisite for correct understanding of governance is to
distinguish it from government. As Jean-Pierre Gaudin said, “Governance
has to be distinguished from the traditional concept of government by
the State from the very beginning” (Gaudin 1999). As a political
administration process like government by the State, governance also
requires authority and power and ultimately aims to maintain a normal
social order. Despite their similarities, there are two fundamental
differences between them.
First of all, the most fundamental, or even essential, difference
between them is that governance requires authority but, unlike
government, this authority does not necessarily come from organs of the
Government. However, the authority for government is necessarily the
State. The body of government is necessarily the public institutions in a
society, while the body of governance can either be a public
institution, a private one, or even a cooperation between the two.
Governance is the cooperation between a political state and its civil
society, the Government and non-governmental organizations, public and
private institutions, which can be mandatory or voluntary cooperation.
It is mainly characterized by “contracting, rather than supervision;
decentralization, rather than centralization; administration by the
State, rather than redistribution by the State; management based on
market principles, rather than management by administrative departments;
cooperation between the State and private sectors, rather than being
guided by the State” (Merrien 1999). Therefore, governance is a broader
concept than government. From modern corporations to colleges and
basic-level communities, all of them can do without government by the
State, but not without governance, if they are meant to run efficiently
and in an orderly manner.
Second, power runs in different directions in management processes.
For government by the State, power runs top-down all the time as it
exercises the political authority of the Government to implement one-way
management on social and public affairs by issuing orders and making
and executing policies. By comparison, as an administrative process of
interaction between the upper and lower levels, the body of governance
manages public affairs through cooperation, negotiation, partnership,
establishment of identity and common goals, etc. In essence, governance
is cooperation based on market principles, common interest and identity.
Its administrative mechanism does not rely on the authority of the
Government substantially, but rather, the authority of a collaborative
network. Its power is multi-directional and two-way, rather than
unidirectional and top-down.
The immediate reason why Western political scientists and management
scientists came up with the concept of governance and advocated
replacing government is that they saw market failure, as well as state
failure, in social resource allocation. Market failure means that it is
impossible to bring about Pareto Optimum, a term in economics, by
market-based means alone. As the market has innate limitations in
restricting monopoly, supplying public goods, restraining extremely
selfish behavior by individuals, bringing the anarchic state of
production under control, cost accounting, etc., market-based means
alone cannot bring about the optimum state of social resource
allocation. Likewise, instruments of the State alone, including making
plans and issuing orders, cannot do that either, or promote or safeguard
the citizens’ political and economic interests ultimately. In view of
state and market failure, there has been a “growing fascination with
using governance mechanisms as a solution to market failure and/or that
in State coordination” (Jessop 1999).
Governance can compensate for certain deficiencies of the State and
the market in regulation and coordination, but it is never a panacea.
State and market can fail in social resource allocation; so can
governance. So, a natural challenge facing scholars is how to overcome
its failure and make it more effective. In response to the challenge,
many scholars and international organizations have come up with a number
of concepts, such as meta-governance, sound governance, effective
governance and good governance. Among them, the most influential one is
Ever since the State and government came into being, there had been
the concept of good government in the English language. However, since
the 1990s, good government, which had dominated as a political ideal,
has been severely challenged around the world. The challenge to it comes
from “good governance.” Since the 1990s, there has been an increasing
usage of the concept in English and Chinese political science
literature, making it one of the most pervasive terms. What does good
governance mean? What are the essential difference between good
government and good governance? And what are the elements of good
governance? Political scientists are still debating these questions.
In a nutshell, good governance refers to the public administration
process that maximizes public interest. One of its essential features is
that it is a kind of collaborative management of public life performed
by both the State and the citizens and a new relationship between
political State and civil society, as well as the optimum state of the
two. To sum up all the perspectives on good governance, we can see that
it has six essentials:
Legitimacy It refers to the state or quality that social order and
authority are voluntarily recognized and obeyed. It has no direct
relevance to laws and regulations, and from the legal angle something
legal is not necessarily legitimate. Only the authority and orders
genuinely recognized by people within a specific group are legitimate in
political science. The higher the degree of legitimacy is, the higher
the level of good governance will be. The principal approach to
achieving and improving legitimacy is to maximize the consensus and
political identity shared by citizens. Therefore, good governance
requires the relevant administrative bodies and administrators to manage
various conflicts of interest among citizens and between them and the
State to the maximum so as to obtain the citizens’ maximum consent to
and approval of their public administration activities.
Transparency It refers to the publicity of political information. All
citizens are entitled to the information on State policies that are
related to their own interests, including legislative activities,
policy-making, legal provisions, policy enforcement, administrative
budget, public expenditure and other relevant political information.
Transparency requires that the aforementioned political information be
duly communicated to citizens through various media vehicles so that
they can participate in public policy-making and supervise the process
of public administration in an effective manner. The higher the degree
of transparency is, the higher the level of good governance will be.
Accountability Accountability means holding every person accountable for
his or her own behavior. In public administration, it refers in
particular to the duties related to a certain position or institution
and its corresponding obligations. Accountability means that
administrators and administrative bodies must fulfill the functions and
obligations of the positions they hold. If they fail to fulfill their
bounden functions or duties, or if they do so in an inappropriate
manner, their conduct constitutes dereliction of duty or lack of
accountability. The more accountability the public, especially public
officers and administrative bodies have, the higher the level of good
governance will be. In this regard, good governance requires the
employment of both law and ethics to enhance the accountability of
individuals and institutions.
Rule of law Essentially, rule of law means that law is the supreme
principle in public political administration that should be observed by
all government officials and citizens, who should be all equal before
the law. The immediate goal of rule of law is to regulate citizens’
behavior, manage social affairs and maintain a normal order in social
life, while its ultimate goal is to protect citizens’ basic political
rights, including freedom and equality. In this sense, rule of law is
opposite to rule of man as it both regulates citizens’ behavior and
restricts the conduct of the State. It is the arch-enemy of political
autocracy. Rule of law is a basic requirement of good governance, which
would be impossible without a sound legal system, due respect for the
law or a social order based on the law.
Responsiveness Responsiveness is closely associated with the
aforementioned concept of accountability. In a sense, it is an extension
of accountability. Essentially, it means that public administrators and
administrative bodies must respond to the demands of citizens in a
timely and responsible manner, and that it is forbidden to make delays
without cause or leave any issue unresolved without response. When
necessary, they should proactively solicit advice from citizens, explain
their policies to them and answer their questions on a regular basis.
The greater the level of responsiveness is, the higher the level of good
governance will be.
Effectiveness It mainly refers to management efficiency. It has two
essential meanings: rational administrative structure, scientifically
designed administrative procedures and flexible administrative
activities; and minimized administrative costs. Ineffective or
inefficient administrative activities are out of tune with good
governance. The higher the level of good governance is, the higher the
effectiveness of administration will be.
Good governance is the active and productive cooperation between the
State and citizens, and the key to its success lies in the powers
participating in political administration. Only when citizens have
sufficient political power to participate in elections, policy-making,
administration and supervision can they prompt the State and join hands
with it to build public authority and order. Apparently, democracy is
the only practical mechanism that can safeguard the fully free and equal
political power owned by citizens. Hence, good governance is
organically combined with democracy. In an autocratic system, it is
possible to have good government when the system is at its best, but it
is impossible to have good governance. Good governance can only be
achieved in a free and democratic political system, as it cannot emerge
without freedom and democracy.
In fact, there were more profound causes why the theory and practice of
good governance sprang up in the 1990s. First of all, good governance is
more widely applicable than good government in the traditional sense.
Good government has the same scope of coverage as the State. In modern
society, the State cannot interfere in many areas, from civil
organizations like companies, communities, clubs and professional
associations to the international community. In contrast, good
governance is not subject to the scope of coverage of the State as it is
also indispensable to companies, communities, regions, states and the
international community. Second, globalization is becoming the dominant
feature of our time, which, in fact, has been referred to by many as the
“Global Age.” One important feature of globalization is the growing
influence of transnational organizations and supranational organizations
and the diminishing sovereignty of nation-states and diminishing power
of their governments. As the government authority of nation-states in
the traditional sense is eroded, good governance is playing an
increasingly important role. It is because the international community
and the society within a state are still in want of public authority and
order, a new kind of public authority and order that can only be
achieved through good governance, rather than created by the State in
the traditional sense. Finally, good governance is an inevitable
consequence of democratization. Democratization is a political feature
of our time, as well as an irresistible historical trend. One of its
essential significances is that political power is returning from
political states to civil societies. Limited government power and the
shrinking functions and powers of the State do not necessarily mean
vanishing social and public authority, but rather that public authority
will be based more on cooperation between the State and citizens.
Immature and essentially ambiguous as it is, governance theory is a
breakaway from the traditional dichotomous thinking that has long been
dominant in social sciences, i.e., market versus planning, public sector
versus private sector, political State versus civil society and
nation-state versus international community. It regards effective
administration as cooperation between the two; it tries to develop
completely new techniques for public affairs management; it emphasizes
that administration is cooperation; it argues that legitimate power
comes not only from the State, but also from the civil society. The
theory also deems governance to be a new practical form of modern
democracy. Those are all its contributions of positive significance to
political studies. However, there is also a dangerous tendency in
Western countries to use the theory to justify some transnationals’ and
superpowers’ interference with the internal affairs of other countries
and pursuit of international hegemony. Based on the premise that the
role of the State and state sovereignty are insignificant and the
boundaries of nation-states are blurred, governance theory, especially
global governance theory, emphasizes the nature of governance as a
transnational and global activity. The danger here is that undermining
the important roles of state sovereignty and sovereign government in
domestic and international governance might be regarded as a theoretical
basis for the superpowers and multinationals to interfere with the
internal affairs of other countries and promote their international
hegemonic policies. Therefore, we must keep a wary eye on the dangerous
tendency of governance theory, especially global governance theory.
See Our Global Neighborhood compiled by Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 2–3.
Commission on Global Governance (ed.). 1995. Our global neighborhood, 2–3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gaudin, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Modern governance, yesterday and today: Some
clarifications to be gained from French government policies.
International Social Science Journal 50: 47–56. (Chinese edition).
Jessop, Bob. 1999. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The
case of economic development. International Social Science Journal 50:
29–45. (Chinese edition).
Merrien, Francois-Xavier. 1999. Governance and modern welfare states.
International Social Science Journal 50: 57–67. (Chinese edition).
Stoker, Gerry. 1999. Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal 50: 17–28. (Chinese edition).
© The Author(s) 2017
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes
About this article
Cite this article as:
Keping, Y. Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci. (2018) 11: 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-017-0197-4
11 June 2017
14 September 2017
12 October 2017
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this journal
Reprints and Permissions