針對中國大陸近年的農村基層選舉，不少研究指出，雖遠遠不符民主選舉的起碼標準，但村民卻能在參與過程中學習民主程序、認識自我權利、並且內化民主價值。若能假以時日，不斷積累，此種動員式的參與仍將有助中國走向民主。為探究上述動員式參與的效果，作者特以「村改居」居民為研究對象，以釐清當農村所有的「物質動員誘因」與「集體資產聯結」均不存在時，累次農村選舉所內化的參與意識是否顯著而持久，並反映為「村改居」的參與表現？根據作者於2005至2007年至上海先進、發達兩「村改居」區的調查結果發現：相較一般居民，村改居居民參與社區事務的意願明顯低落，顯示動員式參與的教育效果不但有限，甚至是比較偏向負面。針對此明顯的矛盾，作者嘗試結合學習理論與資源外鑠觀點，並透過田野調查對此加以理解。根據作者的分析，選舉動員所運用的物質誘因，常會造成村民的錯誤認知：他們「學到」參與必須是有報酬的。但如此一來，外在物質誘因的挹注，反將抑制內在參與意識的孕育。結果當「村民」轉變為「市民」，各種物質誘因不再，這類村改居的居民便不再參與社區基層選舉。綜合上述，部分學者對農村基層民主的樂觀期待，認為中國大陸動員式參與也能逐漸積累成效，奠定民主轉型可能，本文卻根據持續的實地調查，提出不同於上述的解釋。

By any standard, rural China’s grass-roots elections are far from desirable. After all, residents’ participation almost entirely comes from mobilization by the local party-state. But many studies tend to highlight the cumulative and learning effects of these elections. According them, though being mobilized, the experiences of participation can themselves educate the peasants of the due procedurals of participation, awaken them to defend or act out their own rights, and to internalize the values of democracy. To better understand the true effects of these mobilized participations, this paper targets the people who used to be residents in rural communities but, due to urbanization and zoning policies, have become residents of urban communities (i.e., “cungaiju”). A comparison between these people and other urban citizens indicates that these cungaiju people have been less willing to participate in local elections. To make sense of this obvious paradox, this paper combines learning theory and extended field research carried out in two communities in the summers of 2005, 2006 and 2007. Our investigations suggest that after taking away previous inducements, usually monetary payments employed to mobilize them, these cungaiju people then lose any interest in participating in local elections. In other words, these people have “learned” that their participation would be rewarded; without the rewards, they then refuse to participate. It is thus these external incentives that block them from cultivating an internal consciousness of political participation. Based on the findings of the paper, the mobilization- for-participation model seems to be a promise that will never be fulfilled.