Gary ziwen_Zu

1/6 SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… I ran a rare randomized field experiment on law and politics in the most populous province in rural China 🇨🇳⚖️ For 20 weeks, across 70 villages and 60,000+ adults, I studied what happens when ordinary people get easier access to legal service. Does that make them more compliant with the system—or more able to use it? What are the social and political implications of accessing law in autocracy? 👇 comments are welcome :)

@invariance @vshih2 @mollyeroberts @rxjia Thanks Wisarut!

@zu_gary @vshih2 @mollyeroberts @rxjia Congrats!

Today I successfully defended my dissertation and officially became Dr. Zu. I cannot thank my advisors @vshih2, @mollyeroberts, @rxjia, Stephan Haggard, and Sebastian Saiegh enough for their guidance, support, and generosity throughout this journey.

@lihuafang @vshih2 @mollyeroberts @rxjia 谢谢李老师！

@zu_gary @vshih2 @mollyeroberts @rxjia Congratulations! Dr. Zu.

@whca2002 @vshih2 @mollyeroberts @rxjia thanks!

@zu_gary @vshih2 @mollyeroberts @rxjia huge congraaaaaaaaats!!!!

Illiberal Law and Development by Susan H. Whiting Explains how China achieved transformative economic development without secure property rights and regime durability despite conflict. 📚 cup.org/4vKSRqu

@SusanHWhiting Ordered now! A must read for China scholars and add it to my syllabus!

@xuyiqing @anniehplin So so productive 😱😱😱

🧵**Structural Conjoint** New paper with Avidit Acharya and Jens Hainmueller: “Learning Preferences from Conjoint Data: A Structural Deep Learning Approach.” We show how to recover interpretable structural parameters from conjoint experiments, combining a random utility model with double-debiased machine learning (DML). Paper: bit.ly/sconjoint

6/6 The strongest combination: ⚖️ lawyer-led mobilization 🏅 public recognition → more follow-up consultations → largest reductions in village-level conflict 📉 Big picture: The same state program can produce shallow compliance—or real legal empowerment— depending on who mobilizes citizens and how participation is framed.

5/6 Incentives mattered—but not in the obvious way 🏅 Small gifts helped a bit. But public recognition (being named a “Legal Knowledgeable Person”): • increased participation persistence • strengthened legal learning • improved trust in legal institutions And it worked best when paired with lawyer-led outreach.

1/6 SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… I ran a rare randomized field experiment on law and politics in the most populous province in rural China 🇨🇳⚖️ For 20 weeks, across 70 villages and 60,000+ adults, I studied what happens when ordinary people get easier access to legal service. Does that make them more compliant with the system—or more able to use it? What are the social and political implications of accessing law in autocracy? 👇 comments are welcome :)

8/8 So the key divide is not response vs. nonresponse. It is recognition vs. empowerment. Authoritarian legality at the frontline can be accessible, polite, and still selectively disempowering. Updated version here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… Comments very welcome.

7/8 Evaluation pressure matters asymmetrically. Praise improves both substantive and symbolic responsiveness. Complaint pressure mostly improves the visible side of service—tone, patience, accommodation—more than the claim-enabling side.

1/8 Updated version of my JMP working paper: How do authoritarian regimes make law accessible without letting it become politically dangerous? I study this through China’s legal-aid hotlines. 🧵