The embodiment of the Marxist view of the essence of law in the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China

The Marxist concept of the rule of law, which is one of the important contents of Marxist jurisprudential thought system, covers the classical Marxist concept of the rule of law as well as the socialist concept of the rule of law with Chinese characteristics [1-2]. And the construction of the rule of law in China is a high degree of generalization and deepening of the construction of the socialist rule of law in the context of the new period of China’s reform and opening up, which is both an inherent provision of the construction of socialist political civilization and a strong guarantee for the development of the socialist market economy [3-5]. In the process of socialist rule of law construction, China combines its own reality, on the basis of Marx, Engels’ view of the rule of law and Lenin’s view of the rule of law, and constantly promotes the Chineseization of the Marxist concept of the rule of law [6-7]. Under the guidance of the Marxist theory of the rule of law, China has pioneered the socialist road of the rule of law with unique Chinese characteristics, and formed the theoretical achievements of the Chineseization of the Marxist theory of the rule of law, which together guide the practice of the rule of law in China [8-10]. Both the Marxist theory of the rule of law and the Marxist theory of the Chineseization of the rule of law have given the rule of law a prominent position in the overall pattern of rule of law construction, which is one of the target contents of the development of the rule of law [11-13]. Therefore, the promotion and ultimate realization of the rule of law in China requires not only the Marxist concept of the rule of law as its theoretical foundation, but also certain economic, political and ideological conditions.

The study fully understands the ideological connotation of the Marxist concept of the essence of law and clarifies its embodiment at the theoretical and practical levels in the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China. Based on this, the development of rule of law construction in contemporary China is assessed from the perspective of the government and the people respectively. On the one hand, the evaluation index system of the rule of law construction in contemporary China is selected, and the measurement results of each index are analyzed to preliminarily evaluate the overall development of the rule of law construction. Then, based on the subjective and objective weights obtained by the G1 method and the entropy weight method, the Lagrange multiplier method is utilized to assign the combination of each indicator, and the effect of China’s rule of law construction from 2017 to 2023 is discussed. On the other hand, perceived justice is used as a measure of the people’s evaluation of the rule of law construction, and litigation experience, social structure variables, other external factors and provincial level variables are selected. The overall situation of perceived justice by the Chinese people is described through statistical analysis methods, and the relationship between the selected variables and the people’s perceived justice is analyzed using ordered Logit regression to explore the people’s perception of China’s rule of law construction under the Marxist view of the nature of law.

2

The Marxian concept of the essence of law and the construction of the rule of law in China

With the development of the economy, the construction of the rule of law of socialism with Chinese characteristics has made great achievements, and there has been a renewed understanding of Marxist jurisprudence, which has continuously combined the Marxist view of the nature of law with the specific practice of rule of law construction in China, and has promoted the efficient unfolding of the practice of ruling the country according to the law in an all-round way.

2.1

Ideological connotations

The Marxist view of the essence of law is a conclusion drawn from analyzing the legal phenomenon by using dialectical materialism and historical materialism on the basis of profound reflection on the legal thought of predecessors. The connotation of Marx’s idea of the essence of law is shown in Figure 1, including four dimensions: material origin, national will, historical evolution and ultimate value.

2.1.1

Material Origin

Law is a manifestation of the will of the class determined by certain material conditions of life, and the material conditions of life of the society cultivate the legal needs of the people and at the same time determine the nature of law. According to Marx, the relation of law is a relation of will that reflects economic relations. The content of this relation of law or relation of will is determined by this economic relation itself.

2.1.2

National voluntarism

The law, as a norm of behavior observed by people, embodies the overall will and fundamental interests of the ruling class, i.e., the common wishes and requirements of the ruling class. Through law, the ruling class builds a well-organized relationship between itself and the ruled class. On the basis of his analysis of the class nature of law, Marx further analyzed the social nature of law, arguing that law should be based on society.

2.1.3

Historical evolution

Law, as a special social phenomenon, evolves along with socio-economic, political and cultural development, and each mode of production corresponds to the relations and forms of domination of the law that are compatible with it, and the old types of law will inevitably be replaced by new and higher types of law. Since Marx’s historical materialist viewpoint combines the examination of political phenomena with the objective process of social movement, it leads to the logical conclusion that Marx’s idea of the nature of law (this particular political phenomenon) must also be grasped from a dynamic, developmental point of view.

2.1.4

Ultimate value

Marx criticized the essence of the bourgeoisie’s freedom in the form of law as the application of the human right of private property to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, and then pointed out that the proletariat’s concept of freedom is to “bring the world and human relations back to the human being himself” in order to realize the emancipation of mankind. Marx believed that the boundaries of freedom are the boundaries of the law, and that the freedom and comprehensive development of man is the ultimate goal pursued by the law.

2.2

Guidelines for building the rule of law

The development of the Marxist concept of the essence of law in China has gone through different historical periods, forming a unique theoretical progression and theoretical logic. This section discusses the embodiment of the Marxist concept of the essence of law in the construction of the legal system in contemporary China, which is divided into the theoretical and practical levels.

2.2.1

Theoretical level

Marx’s philosophy of law exposition of the class nature of law provides theoretical support for the assertion that “Party leadership is the essential characteristic of socialism with Chinese characteristics”, and its humanistic thought provides correct guidance for the direction of the construction of the rule of law and the ultimate purpose of legal development in socialism with Chinese characteristics, and further strengthens the theoretical foundation of contemporary Chinese thinking on the rule of law, helping to adhere to the correct political direction of the construction of the rule of law with Chinese characteristics. It has further strengthened the theoretical foundation of contemporary Chinese rule of law thought, and helps to insist on the correct political direction of the construction of the rule of law in socialism with Chinese characteristics. 1)

The theoretical foundation of contemporary rule of law thought

Marx’s philosophy of law has become an important theoretical foundation for contemporary Chinese rule of law thought in terms of legislation, law enforcement, justice and law-abiding. In legislation, Marx believed that the law is not created, but the expression of social material life. Thus, in legislation, good laws should be established to promote good governance. Marxist theory should be used as a guide to correctly inquire into the nature of things. Correctly recognize China’s national conditions and formulate laws that conform to actual laws. In enforcing the law, test the understanding and test the law in practice. Let the law come from practice and go to practice. To realize fairness and justice in the administration of justice, to oppose privileges in the observance of the law, and to resolutely eliminate the undesirable phenomenon of a part of the population enjoying only rights but not obligations. Contemporary Chinese thought on the rule of law is the inheritance and development of Marxist thought on the rule of law and a profound grasp of Marx’s legal thought.

2)

Exploring the correct political direction

The starting and ending point of the construction of the rule of law in socialism with Chinese characteristics is the people. To guarantee that the goal of the rule of law is not deviated from, and to guarantee that the ultimate goal of the development of law is the people we must adhere to the leadership of the Party, and adhere to the free and comprehensive development of human beings as the ultimate goal.

In the class nature of the law, the proletariat is more adept at using the law to elevate its will to the will of the state, to safeguard the fundamental interests of the people in the form of the law, and the socialist rule of law is aimed at the freedom and emancipation of the people. The class nature of the law determines that the socialist rule of law in China must adhere to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.2.2

Level of practice

The economic base determines the superstructure. In comprehensively promoting the strategy of ruling the country by law, it is important to correctly recognize the economic base of Chinese society and to give full play to the counteraction of the legal superstructure to the economic base, so as to better promote the ruling of the country by law and to enhance the people’s sense of well-being in their lives. 1)

Promoting the Comprehensive Rule of Law

Marx emphasized that the law should embody the requirements of certain social and economic laws, and that the economic base is the deeper origin of the law. The economic base determines the superstructure, and the economic base of Chinese socialism determines the nature of China’s state and the nature of its laws, providing a solid material foundation for the construction of the rule of law in China. Therefore, in the construction of the rule of law, it is necessary to build up the economic foundation of socialist law, and at the same time, it is also necessary to give full play to the counteracting role of the law, so as to provide a solid material guarantee for the comprehensive promotion of the rule of law.

2)

Implementation of the “people-centered” concept of the rule of law

The deep care and concern for people has always been in the theory of Marxism, it can be said that Marxism is the doctrine of “people”. The construction of the rule of law in contemporary China also runs through the “people-centered” concept of the rule of law, and the idea of people-centeredness should be embodied in all aspects of the construction of the socialist rule of law. The ontology of law tells us that the fundamental position of the construction of the rule of law is to stand in the people’s point of view and speak for the fundamental interests of the people, then the value theory of the law is to point out specifically in the “people-centered” fundamental position of the value of the guidance to follow.

In the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China, the people-centered concept of the rule of law is required to be implemented in all aspects of legislation, law enforcement, administration of justice, and compliance with the law, in terms of safeguarding human rights, grasping the people’s pursuit of social justice, and adhering to the status of the people as the mainstay of society. Safeguarding the rights and interests of the people is the fundamental purpose of the rule of law, which not only safeguards the fundamental interests of the people, but also pays attention to their individual interests in the specific practice of the rule of law. The law’s safeguarding and confirmation of the fundamental interests of the people make the law a good law that the people are convinced of, and respect for the interests of specific individuals is conducive to the real implementation of the law into real life, and becomes a weapon for the people to safeguard their legitimate rights.

3

Evaluation of the rule of law in contemporary China

Under the guidance of the Marxist concept of the essence of law, the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China has paid more attention to the protection of human rights, the maintenance of order and social and economic development. This chapter constructs a set of evaluation index system to quantitatively reflect the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China under the Marxist view of the essence of law.

3.1

System of evaluation indicators

The system of evaluation indicators for the rule of law in contemporary China should take into account the existing operational mechanisms of the rule of law system and objectively evaluate the rule of law in the areas of legislation, law enforcement, justice, legal literacy, legal services, public security and social equity. The evaluation index system of rule of law construction in contemporary China is as follows: 1)

Legislative indicators: the number of regulations on record (X1), and the rate of draft laws passed by NPC sessions (X2).

2)

Law enforcement indicators: the number of corruption cases filed (X3), the number of malpractice cases filed (X4).

3)

Judicial indicators: rate of correcting violations of the law by the Procuratorate (X5), rate of lawsuits (X6), rate of prosecutors’ offices closing complaint cases (X7), rate of appeals in first instance (X8), and rate of lawsuits closed (X9).

4)

Indicators of legal literacy: rate of juvenile criminal offenses (X10), ratio of government funding for social assistance to total fiscal expenditures (X11), number of labor contract dispute cases received (X12).

5)

Public Safety Indicators: Number of criminal cases filed (X13), amount of damage from traffic and fire accidents (X14), number of consumer complaints received (X15).

6)

Legal service indicators: number of mediators per 10,000 people (X16), number of lawyers per 10,000 people (X17).

7)

Social Equity Indicators: Social Assistance Ratio (X18), Pension Insurance Coverage Rate (X19), Ratio of Disposable Income of Urban and Rural Residents (X20).

The data for each indicator come from the China Statistical Yearbook.

3.2

Overall measurement results

According to the evaluation index system of the rule of law construction in contemporary China constructed in the previous article, the relevant index data from 2017-2023 were collected to carry out preliminary measurement and evaluation of the rule of law construction in contemporary China, and the data of the measurement indexes were normalized, and the results of the evaluation indexes of the rule of law construction in contemporary China are shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that, because at present, there is no specific quantitative standard for the development goal of the rule of law society, and thus this paper has not marked a specific critical range of the construction of the various evaluation indicators. However, in light of the long-term trend of the development of the rule of law society in contemporary China, and from the point of view of statistical significance, we believe that it is worthwhile to determine the development direction of the indicators according to the nature of statistical indicators. X1, X11, X16 and X17 are moderate indicators, X2, X3, X5~X7, X18 and X19 are positive indicators, and X4, X8~X10, X12~X15 and X20 are negative indicators. From the nature of the indicators, the development of the rule of law in contemporary China should be consistent with the direction of the indicators, i.e., for positive indicators, the value of the indicator should increase with the advancement of time, while the opposite is true for negative indicators, and moderate indicators should tend to be within a reasonable range.

It can be seen that the development trend of the vast majority of indicators in recent years is consistent with the nature of the indicators, indicating that the current rule of law society in China is generally in a better situation. However, it can also be found that the rate of litigation case completion X3 in 2020 (2.92) is lower than that in 2019 (3.23), contrary to expectations. The Procuratorate’s case closure rate X5 for complaint cases has also not shown a significant upward trend in recent years, indicating that overall China should still strengthen its judicial construction. Analyzing from the perspective of social development under the rule of law, the current disposable income ratio of urban and rural residents in China X20 should be an inverse indicator, but the indicator has been maintained in a more stable state and has not shown a downward trend, indicating that China’s urbanization rate is relatively low at present, and there is more room for urban-rural integration construction to be improved.

3.3

Combination of empowerment methods

3.3.1

Determination of subjective weights

Considering that the G1 method is easy to understand, the calculation results are clearer, and it can also well reflect the subjective opinions of decision makers. Therefore, this paper chooses the G1 method to determine the subjective weights of indicators. The weight calculation process is as follows: 1)

Determine the order relationship

According to the definition of G1 method (ordinal relationship analysis method): under a certain evaluation guideline layer or target layer, when the importance of evaluation indicator a_i is greater (or not less) than a_j compared to evaluation indicator a_j, a_i is expressed by a_i > a_j (or a_i ≥ a_j), and all evaluation indicators under this guideline layer (or target layer) are ranked in order of importance, with the relation equation: a_i > a_j > ⋯ > a_m, which is said that the evaluation indicators in the guideline layer (or target layer) are related to each other according to “>” determines the order relationship. In this paper, the rule of law construction evaluation indicators, based on the G1 method to determine the subjective weight of the order relationship.

2)

Judging the relative importance between adjacent evaluation indicators

According to the calculation steps and rules of the G1 method, the ratio of importance between two neighboring evaluation indicators X_k−1 and X_k is recorded as γ_k, i.e., rational assignment γ_k: (1) $γ_{k} = \frac{w_{k - 1}}{w_{k}} (k = n, n - 1, \dots, 2, 3)$

3)

Calculation of subjective weight coefficient ω_k

According to the experts’ assignment of importance between indicators, the subjective weighting coefficient ω_k is calculated with the formula: (2) $ω_{k} = {(1 + \sum_{k = 2}^{n} \prod_{i = k}^{n} γ_{i})}^{- 1} (k = n, n - 1, \dots 2)$ (3) $ω_{k - 1} = ω_{k} γ_{k} (k = n, n - 1, \dots 2)$

As this paper invites s experts to participate in judging the importance and assigning values to the indicators of the rule of law construction in contemporary China, due to the difference in the business quality and work experience of s experts, there are differences in the judgment of the ordinal relationship and the rational assignment of the importance of the indicator set ${a_{1}, a_{2} \dots \dots a_{n}}$ . The situations that may occur in the process of analysis are listed below: 1)

The situation where all the ordinal relations are the same:

All s experts have the same order relations for indicator set ${a_{1}, a_{2} \dots \dots a_{n}}$ , but they assign different values to the indicator set. The formula is as follows: (4) $ω_{k} = {(1 + \sum_{k = 2}^{n} \prod_{i = k}^{n} γ_{i}^{'})}^{- 1} (k = n, n - 1, \dots 3, 2)$ (5) $ω_{k - 1} = ω_{k} γ_{k}^{'} (k = n, n - 1, \dots, 3, 2)$

where the formula for $γ_{k}^{'}$ is shown below: (6) $γ_{k}^{'} = \frac{1}{s} \sum_{i = 1}^{s} γ_{k i} (k = n, n - 1, \dots, 3, 2)$

2)

The case where the ordinal relationships are not the same.

s₁ experts out of s have the same ordinal relationship for indicator set ${a_{1}, a_{2} \dots \dots a_{n}}$ , but they do not assign the same value to the indicator set. The other s − s₁ experts have the same ordinal relationship, but do not assign the same value to the indicator set. Combining the formula in case 1) above, the weighting factor of indicator a_k is calculated using indicator a_k as an example. The weighting factor of indicator a_k when s₁ experts have the same ordinal relationship: (7) $ω_{k}^{'} = {(1 + \sum_{k = 2}^{n} \prod_{i = k}^{n} γ_{i}^{'})}^{- 1}$ (8) $γ_{k}^{'} = \frac{1}{s_{1}} \sum_{i = 1}^{s_{1}} γ_{k i}$

Coefficient of weight for indicator a_k when s − s₁ expert has the same ordinal relationship: (9) $ω_{k}^{″} = {(1 + \sum_{k = 2}^{n} \prod_{i = k}^{n} γ_{i}^{″})}^{- 1}$ (10) $γ_{k}^{″} = \frac{1}{s - s_{1}} \sum_{i = 1}^{s - s_{1}} γ_{k i}$

The combined weighting factor for the weighting factor of indicator a_k is: (11) $ω_{k} = \frac{s_{1}}{s} ω_{k}^{'} + \frac{s - s_{1}}{s} ω_{k}^{″}$

3.3.2

Determination of objective weights

Considering that the entropy weight method is more objective, its own applicability is also strong, and it can be used in combination with other methods of calculating weights. Therefore, this paper selects the entropy weight method to determine the objective weights of indicators. The weight calculation process is as follows: 1)

Construct the original data matrix of evaluation indicators

There is m indicator to be evaluated, and n experts are invited to assign values to m indicators to be evaluated, which constitutes the original data matrix of evaluation indicators $R = {(r_{i j})}_{m \times n}$ and r_ij, which indicates the original scoring value of evaluation indicator i by expert j. (12) $R = {(r_{i j})}_{m \times n} = [\begin{matrix} r_{11} & r_{12} & r_{13} & \dots & r_{1 n} \\ r_{21} & r_{22} & r_{23} & \dots & r_{2 n} \\ \dots & \dots & \dots \\ r_{m 1} & r_{m 2} & r_{m 3} & \dots & r_{m n} \end{matrix}]$

2)

Construct normalized judgment matrix

Construct normalized judgment matrix, normalize the original data matrix $R = {(r_{i j})}_{m \times n}$ of the above evaluation indexes, and get the normalized matrix $X = {(x_{i j})}_{m \times n}$ : (1)

Positive indicators: the larger the value, the better the result. The smaller the value, the worse the result: (13) $x_{i j} = \frac{r_{i j} - \min_{i (i j)}}{\max_{i (i j)} - \min_{i (i j)}}$

(2)

Negative indicators: the larger the value, the worse the result. The smaller the value, the better the result: (14) $x_{i j} = \frac{\max_{i (i j)} - r_{i j}}{\max_{i (i j)} - \min_{i (i j)}}$

Where max_i(ij) - indicates the maximum value assigned by the expert to evaluation indicator i.

min_i(ij) - represents the minimum value assigned by the expert to the evaluation index i.

According to the definition of entropy, if the system may be in many different states. And when the probability of occurrence of each state is p_i(i = 1, 2⋯n), the entropy of the system is defined as: (15) $e_{i} = - \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} p_{i j} \ln p_{i j}}{\ln n}$

Where: $p_{i j} = \frac{x_{i j}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{n} x_{i j}}$ , n is the number of experts involved in scoring. To ensure that the data are all meaningful, when p_ij = 0, define $\lim_{p_{i j} \to 0} p_{i j} \ln p_{i j} = 0$ . 3)

Determine the entropy weight of each evaluation index φ: (16) $φ_{i} = \frac{1 - e_{i}}{m - \sum_{i = 1}^{m} e_{i}} (m is number of indicators)$

Of which: 0 ≤ φ_i ≤ 1, $\sum_{i = 1}^{m} φ_{i} = 1$ .

3.3.3

Determination of portfolio weights

In order to give full play to the advantages of subjective weights and objective weights of evaluation indexes, avoid the limitations of single assignment method, and make the results of evaluation index weights of rule of law construction in contemporary China more accurate and scientific. Combined with the research of experts and scholars on the combination of assignment, this paper will use the Lagrange multiplier method to combine the subjective weights obtained by the G1 method and the subjective and objective weights obtained by the entropy weight method. According to the principle of minimum relative information entropy, in order to get more accurate weight results, this paper utilizes the Lagrange multiplier method to calculate the combination weights of evaluation indexes. According to the principle of minimum relative information entropy, the smaller the deviation between the combination weights and the subjective and objective weights, the better. The deviation function or objective function is: (17) $\min F = \sum_{i = 1}^{m} W_{i} (\ln W_{i} - \ln ω_{i}) + \sum_{i = 1}^{m} W_{i} (\ln W_{i} - \ln φ_{i})$ (18) $s . t . \sum_{i = 1}^{m} W_{i} = 1; W_{i} > 0, i = 1, 2, 3, \dots, m$

The portfolio weights are calculated using the formula: (19) $W_{i} = \frac{\sqrt{φ_{i} ω_{i}}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{m} \sqrt{φ_{i} ω_{i}}}$

3.4

Comprehensive evaluation

The indicator system measured above can only reflect the rough shape of the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China under the Marxian view of the nature of law from the side, and can’t give people an intuitive effect, while the use of statistical methods to synthesize the value of each indicator into a rating value, and the size of the value to measure the performance of the construction of the rule of law society is not a concise and ideal method.

Based on the differences in the types of indicators, the indicators selected in this paper can not be directly synthesized into a comprehensive value. Accordingly, this paper first standardizes each type of indicator into a positive indicator, and uses subjective-objective combination of weighting method to assign a weight to each indicator after the dimensionless, which can get a final comprehensive rating value.

3.4.1

Indicator weights

The results of the assignment of the rule of law construction evaluation index system are shown in Figure 3, with Figures (a) and (b) showing the weights of the first-level and second-level indicators, respectively. Among the first-level indicators, the law enforcement indicators have the largest family of weights of 0.316, followed by public security, judicial indicators and legal services, with weights of 0.194, 0.141 and 0.125 respectively, and finally social equity, legal literacy indicators and legislative indicators, with weights below 0.1. Among the secondary indicators, the number of corruption cases filed X3, the ratio of appeal cases in first instance X8 and the rate of litigation cases completed X9 all have weights greater than 0.8, and have the greatest impact on the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China under the Marxian view of the nature of law.

3.4.2

Evaluation results

According to the results of the assignment of indicators, the comprehensive value of the evaluation of the rule of law construction from 2017 to 2023 was calculated. The evaluation results of China’s rule of law construction are shown in Figure 4, and the comprehensive values of China’s rule of law construction in 2017~2023 are 3.045, 3.086, 3.091, 3.105, 3.206, 3.228, and 3.280, respectively, indicating that in general, the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China under the guidance of the essential view of the law of Marx is progressively improved, and the overall improvement in the period of 2017~2023 has increased by 7.72%.

4

Study on the public perception of the rule of law in China

Generally speaking, the assessment of the rule of law construction in contemporary China involves the organization of a large amount of raw data, which in practice is divided into government-provided data and private data according to the different subjects of data provision. The previous chapter mainly analyzed China’s rule of law construction under the Marxian view of the nature of law from the level of government data, and this chapter explores the people’s perception of China’s rule of law construction and its influencing factors from the perspective of the Chinese public.

4.1

Data and Variables

In contemporary China, perceived justice concerns social harmony and stability, sustained economic development and people’s well-being, and is a yardstick to test whether the achievements of the rule of law construction effectively serve the people. In order to grasp the changing trend of perceived justice and its influencing factors, relevant variables are selected for analysis. The first is the influence of litigation experience, followed by a series of social structure variables such as gender, age, household registration, education level, and social class, followed by other external factors such as family, work unit, media use, social security, and local governance, and finally provincial level variables such as total GDP, GDP growth rate, total population, and urbanization level.

The data come from the China Social Situation Survey (CSS), a continuous national sample survey program initiated by the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), whose seven surveys from 2008 to 2020 were selected for analysis.

4.2

General picture and trends in the perception of the population

4.2.1

General

In order to capture the changing trend of perceived justice among the Chinese population, the full sample was divided by year and counted again. At the same time, in order to exclude as much as possible the hostage of the general trend of change in the sense of social fairness to perceived justice, the overall social, gaokao system and public healthcare fairness of the population in all the years were also counted as a reference system. Figure 5 shows the change in the mean value of perceived justice of the Chinese population. From 2008 to 2020, the mean value of the Chinese population’s perception of fairness in the construction of the rule of law has shown a U-shaped trend of decreasing and then increasing. In 2008, the value of perceived fairness in the construction of the rule of law among the respondents was 2.74. This perception declined to 2.64 and 2.63 in 2010 and 2012. Since 2014 onward, the perception has rebounded and continued to rise. In 2014, Chinese residents In 2014, Chinese residents’ perception of the fairness of the rule of law was 2.73. This rose to 2.83 in 2018 and peaked at 3.07 in 2020. In addition, neither the overall sense of social fairness, the sense of high institutional fairness, nor the sense of public health care fairness shows a U-shaped trend of change similar to that of perceived justice. This suggests that changes in perceived justice can hardly be attributed solely to the radiation effect of changes in people’s overall sense of fairness or in other areas of fairness. Between 2008 and 2020, the vast majority of the Chinese people identify with the development of the rule of law under the Marxian view of the nature of law, and are able to perceive justice and fairness.

4.2.2

Situation of social groups

In order to uncover the differences in the public’s perception of rule of law construction under different social structures, the current situation and trend of perceived justice in various social groups are further analyzed. Figure 6 shows the status of each social group’s identification with the construction of the rule of law and the changes over the years, with (a) to (h) showing the perceptions of different genders, ages, urban-rural differences, migrant populations, levels of education, political identities, incomes and social status groups, respectively. Overall, the trend of changes in perceived justice for each social group is basically consistent with that of the whole, roughly maintaining a U-shaped trend of decreasing and then increasing. In terms of age, the perceived justice of the youth group has shown the most drastic change in recent years. In 2008, the proportion of the youth group that perceived the rule of law to be built fairly was 65.19%, but this proportion dropped to 52.01% in 2014. Respondents from rural areas have a lower perception of fairness in the construction of the rule of law than urban respondents, but the difference between the two has been narrowing in recent years. Local respondents have long had a higher sense of fairness in building the rule of law than foreign respondents. Although the difference between the two was only 1.78% in 2008, the gap has been widening rapidly since then, and has only narrowed in recent years. The higher the level of education and social class, the more likely the group is to perceive the rule of law as fair.

4.3

Regression analysis methods

The analysis of the people’s perception of the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China and the factors influencing it requires the control of many variables, and according to the nature of the ordering of the explanatory variables, this paper uses ordered Logit regression for the analysis. The ordered Logit model is suitable for analyzing the people’s perception of the rule of law construction in China and determining the significance factors affecting the people’s perception. The ordered Logit model can establish the relationship between the factors to identify the influence of each factor on the people’s perception.

The ordered Logit model is one of the most appropriate models established for ordinal measure response variables, and the formula of the ordered Logit model is: (20) $y^{*} = α + \sum_{k = 1}^{k} β_{k} x_{k} + ε$

where y^* represents the response situation within the observed object and ε is the error term.

Let the response variable y have J categories, j = 1, 2, J, then there are a total of J − 1 points separating adjacent categories:

When y^* ≤ u, then y = 1.

When u₁ < y^* ≤ u₂, then y = 2.

When u_j−1 < y^*, then y = J. Where the cut-off point is denoted by u_j, there are J − 1 values, along with u₁ < u₂ < ⋯ < u_j−1. Then the cumulative probability of a given x value is expressed as: (21) $\begin{array}{rcl} P (J \leq j | x) & = & P (j^{*} \leq u_{j}) = P [α + \sum_{k = 1}^{k} β_{k} χ_{k} + ε \leq u_{j}] \\ = & P [ε \leq u_{j} - α + \sum_{k = 1}^{k} β_{k} χ_{k}] \\ = & P [α + \sum_{k = 1}^{k} β_{k} χ_{k} + ε \leq u_{j}] \\ = & F [u_{j} - α + \sum_{k = 1}^{k} β_{k} χ_{k}] \end{array}$

where $F (\cdot)$ is the cumulative distribution function of ε. If ε is a Logit distribution, the above equation can be rewritten as: (22) $\begin{array}{rcl} P (y \leq j | x) & = & P [ε \leq u_{j} - α + \sum_{k = 1}^{k} β_{k} x_{k}] \\ = & \frac{1}{1 + \exp [- u_{j} - α + \sum_{k - 1}^{k} β_{k} x_{k}]} \\ = & \frac{\exp [u_{j} - α + \sum_{k - 1}^{k} β_{k} x_{k}]}{1 + \exp [u_{j} - α + \sum_{k - 1}^{k} β_{k} x_{k}]} \end{array}$

In the formula: (23) $\begin{array}{l} P (y \leq j | x) = P (y = 1 | x) + P (y = 2 | x) + \dots + P (y = j | x) \\ α_{j} = u_{j} - α \end{array}$

which is obtained by transforming it into natural logarithms: (24) $\ln \frac{p_{j}}{1 - p_{j}} = α_{j} - \sum_{k = 1}^{k} β_{k} x_{k}$

Call it an ordered Logit model. Therefore: (25) $P (y = j | x) = P (y = j | x) - P (y = j - 1 | x)$

α_j is used to explain the logarithmic value of the ratio of the two different types of probabilities at some fixed j when the variables are all 0-valued. Since the regression coefficient β_k is independent of j. So there is α₁ < α₂ < ⋯ < α_j. Here α₀ is defined as −∞ and α_j is defined as +∞. When other variables are constant. The two different levels of x_k take values of a and b their ratio is $O R = e^{β_{k} (b - a)}$ .

So the ratio of dominance of any two levels of x_k is independent of j is also independent of α_j.

When $X^{T} = (x_{1}, x_{2}, \dots x_{k})$ , $β^{T} = (β_{1}, β_{2} \dots β_{k})$ : (26) $P = (y \leq j | X) = \frac{\exp (α_{j} - β^{T} X)}{1 + \exp (α_{j} - β^{T} X)}$

obtained after a natural logarithmic transformation: (27) $\ln [\frac{P (y \leq j | X)}{1 - P (y \leq j | X)}] = α_{j} - β^{T} X$

From there: (28) $P (y = j | x) = P (y = j | x) - P (y = j - 1 | x)$

Assuming that the ordered variable Y has j ranks, in descending order, with Y taken to be 1, 2, ⋯, j, the ordered Logit model can be expressed as: (29) $\log i t = \ln (\frac{P (Y \leq \frac{j}{X})}{1 - P (Y \leq \frac{j}{X})}) = \ln (\frac{P (Y \leq \frac{j}{X})}{P (Y > \frac{j}{X})}) = α_{i} + \sum_{j = 1}^{j} β_{i j} x_{j}$

Where: X is the i independent variables x₁, x₂, ⋯⋯, x_i and α_j is the constant term. β_ij is the regression coefficient, i is the number of independent variables, and P(j ∣ X) is the cumulative probability with $\sum_{j = 1}^{J} P (y = j | X) = 1$ .

The probability model of ordered Logit can be expressed as: (30) $P (Y \leq \frac{j}{X}) = \frac{\exp (α_{i} + \sum_{j - 1}^{j} β_{i j} x_{i})}{1 + \exp (α_{i} + \sum_{j - 1}^{j} β_{i j} x_{i})} (j = 1, 2, \dots j - 1)$

4.4

Results of regression analysis

4.4.1

Overall analysis results

To further explore the mechanism of change in perceived justice and its influencing factors, an ordered Logit regression analysis model was used, and the regression results of perceived justice and influencing factors are shown in Table 1. Model 1 incorporates only litigation experience as an explanatory variable. Models 2 to 4 incorporate social structure factors, other external factors, and provincial level variables, respectively; * indicates p<0.05, ** indicates p<0.01, and *** indicates p<0.001.

Table 1.

The return of perceived justice and influencing factors

Variables	Dependent variables: perceived justice
Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Litigation experience	0.893***	0.977***	1.072***	0.963***
Litigation experience	0.086	0.059	0.096	0.025
Gender		-0.049*	-0.065**	-0.091**
Gender		0.052	0.049	0.058
Age		0.177***	0.053	0.037
Age		0.047	0.025	0.081
Urban and rural difference		-0.043***	-0.158***	-0.143***
Urban and rural difference		0.085	0.065	0.052
Floating population		0.234***	0.191***	0.187***
Floating population		0.073	0.091	0.079
Education		0.096***	0.098***	0.072***
Education		0.087	0.069	0.039
Political identity		0.131***	0.115***	0.106***
Political identity		0.033	0.037	0.061
Income		0.134*	0.174*	0.116*
Income		0.106	0.025	0.091
Social status		0.206***	0.137***	0.256***
Social status		0.065	0.015	0.019
Family			-0.194***	-0.157***
Family			0.062	0.092
Worksheet			0.041	0.095
Worksheet			0.028	0.042
Media use			-0.203***	-0.214***
Media use			0.093	0.082
Social security			0.075	0.012
Social security			0.077	0.052
Local governance			0.245**	0.251**
Local governance			0.087	0.021
Fixed effect: provincial level	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fixed effect: year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Control variables at the provincial level	No	No	No	Yes
Observations	40521	40521	40521	40521

Litigation experience has a positive effect on people’s perception of justice. The coefficient of litigation experience is positive in all four model settings and all are significant at the 0.1% significance level. At the same time, the magnitude of this positive effect is large. For example, in Model 3, the coefficient value of litigation experience is 1.072. After controlling for variables, the magnitude of the coefficient value of this variable is not significantly different, which suggests that there is a robust relationship between litigation experience and perceived justice. The above data preliminarily shows that the actual experience of litigation basically meets the expectations of the majority of the public for the development of the rule of law in contemporary China during the same period. In addition to litigation experience, changes in perceived justice are influenced by a variety of social structural and external factors. It is worth noting that respondents’ evaluations of the governance capacity and rule of law level of local governments are highly correlated with their perceived justice, with regression coefficients of 0.245 and 0.251, which have a strong impact.

4.4.2

Impact of litigation experience

In order to further explore the effect of litigation experience on perceived justice, the sample set was analyzed by splitting it and then regressing it. The change in the coefficient of litigation experience is shown in Figure 7. In 2008, the coefficient of litigation experience was 0.857, and from 2008 to 2012, the coefficient of litigation experience was decreasing, and after 2012, this trend was reversed, and the negative effect of litigation experience was shrinking, from 0.744 to 1.058. The turning point and shrinking point of the negative effect of litigation experience coincide with the time point of China’s rule of law reform. To a certain extent, this shows that the construction of the rule of law in China under the guidance of Marx’s view of the nature of law is improving, and is more and more in line with the expectations of the people.

5

Conclusion

This paper organizes the basic connotation of the Marxist view of the essence of law and discusses the guiding role of the Marxist view of the essence of law in the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China. It explores the effect of integrating the Marxist view of the essence of law on the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China from the perspective of the government and the perspective of public perception. The main findings are as follows: 1)

The Marxist view of the essence of law serves as the theoretical foundation of contemporary Chinese rule of law thought and promotes the correct political direction of socialist rule of law construction. The rule of law construction in China has continuously adhered to the dictatorship of the proletariat, implemented the concept of the rule of law of “people-centered”, and effectively promoted the rule of law in a comprehensive manner.

2)

The trend of most of the evaluation indicators of the rule of law construction is consistent with the nature of the indicators, and the value of the comprehensive evaluation results of the rule of law construction also shows an increasing trend, from 3.045 to 3.280, an increase of 7.72%. It shows that under the influence of the Marxist view of the nature of law, the overall progress of the rule of law construction in China at this stage is better.

3)

Although the Chinese people’s sense of fairness towards the construction of the rule of law has a trend of decreasing and then increasing, the Chinese people’s evaluation of the construction of the rule of law has been significantly improved in recent years, especially since 2014, the improvement has been rapid, with an improvement of 12.45% in the period of 2014~2020. Meanwhile, the regression results verify the positive effect of litigation experience on people’s perception. It indicates that the rule of law construction in contemporary China has significantly improved both in terms of the fairness of filing cases and trials, as well as judicial standardization and transparency.

Through the above analysis, this paper concludes that the Marxist view of the essence of law has positive practical significance for the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China. Marxist jurisprudence can keep pace with the times and promote the construction of socialist rule of law. The construction of the rule of law in China should actively absorb the modern concept of the rule of law in the practice of reform and opening up, establish good law and good governance, and promote the Chineseization and modernization of Marxist jurisprudence theory.

Language:: English

Publication timeframe:: 1 times per year
Journal Subjects:: Life Sciences, Life Sciences, other, Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, General Mathematics, Physics, Physics, other

Journal RSS Feed

The embodiment of the Marxist view of the essence of law in the construction of the rule of law in contemporary China

Jiali Deng

Shuhuai Yang

Published Online: Sep 26, 2025

Received: Jan 24, 2025

Accepted: Apr 28, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-1034

KeywordsEvaluation index system, Combined empowerment, Lagrange multiplier method, Ordered Logit regression, China’s rule of law construction

© 2025 Jiali Deng and Shuhuai Yang, published by Sciendo.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Keywords
Evaluation index system, Combined empowerment, Lagrange multiplier method, Ordered Logit regression, China’s rule of law construction