Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative analysis examines misalignments in China's maritime policy instruments and objectives, suggesting improvements.
This paper constructs a diamond model for expanding national strategic marine scientific and technological capabilities, establishes a three-dimensional analytical framework of “policy instruments—policy objectives—policy actors,” and conducts a quantitative analysis of 229 policy documents using Nvivo 12. The results indicate that existing policy instruments are inadequately aligned with major strategic needs, production factors, and policy objectives; there is an imbalance in the application of instruments and the distribution of actors; and the system exhibits significant institutional endogeneity. The root causes lie in the allocation of powers and responsibilities between the central and local governments and fragmented inter-departmental governance. Based on these findings, the following optimization directions are proposed: enhance the alignment between policy instruments and objectives, and strengthen demand-side incentives to boost supply; use objectives to guide improvements in the quality of factor supply, focusing on talent development and breakthroughs in core technologies; improve the coordination system among laws, regulations, and policies; and restructure the mechanisms for central-local authority allocation and inter-departmental coordination to address the problem of entrenched preferences in instrument selection at the institutional level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: