By Liu Lihui

Research Report Vol.20 No.3, 2018

The Chinese economy is shifting from the stage of high-speed growth to the stage of high-quality development, and the shift in economic development stage is sure to result in the change of social governance model. Regarding the scope and specific contents of social governance, the governments at all levels are in the stage of exploration regarding both policy formulation and practical work. At the moment, many matters concerning the level, subject and approach of governance have to be straightened out, and the policies and content system of China’s social governance should be sorted out too, so as to find out the internal logic and development path of the socialist social governance system with Chinese characteristics.

I. Two Contexts of Social Governance

Social governance means the governance of the social sector. The concept of “governance” was first used in China in the 1990s. At first it was usually used in the concept of “corporate governance”, which was often seen during the reform of SOEs and the establishment of modern corporate system. Later the word “governance” was widely used in areas such as commerce, environmental protection, media, society, governance behavior and international affairs. This was partly because the domestic and foreign academia deepened the study of governance theories, and partly because the continuous leaps in China’s economic and social development created the realistic demand for it. The governance theory emerged in the 1990s, when the western circle of social sciences began to reflect on the failure of the old paradigm and make new explorations. Therefore, the “governance” in China included the contents of western governing paradigm in the academic context and China’s basic system and social and cultural connotations in the policy context. In practical use, the two contexts usually draw on each other, but they also conflict with each other from time to time.

According to western governance theory, “governance” means an independent mechanism of coordination that coordinates the public organizations and agents deriving from but not limited to the government, guides them to clarify the boundary and dependence of rights and duties in the stake-holding areas of economic and social development, and urges them to voluntarily and dynamically perfect and adjust their behavior. It emphasizes the independence and autonomy of the stakeholders rather than government authority, and the government’s responsibility and ability is mainly reflected in the effective guidance and supervision of the actions of independence and autonomy. We can say that “governance” is a reflection on and correction of government malfunction and market failure when capitalist market economy is highly developed and has the obvious feature of “decentralization”. Later the “mega-governance” theory is put forth that stresses the role of basic rule makers (mostly the government), but the government is just a “senior member of the same generation” among the different governing entities.

In the domestic policy context, the more important meaning of “governance” is “state governance” and a generalization of the state-governing approach and process in different areas and on different levels, including reform, development and stability, domestic affairs, diplomacy and national defense, and the running of the Party, the nation and the military. The basic precondition is socialist system, and the most essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the CPC’s leadership. In other words, “governance” is the development and perfection of the government’s behavioral model and the market mechanism on the premise of adhering to and strengthening the Party’s comprehensive leadership. In this process, there are some suggestions on “diversifying” the subjects of governance, but that doesn’t mean “decentralization”. In the area of social governance, the reports of the 18th and 19th CPC National Congress both made it clear that “the Party Committee exercises leadership and the government takes the responsibility”, while private forces and the public could engage in governance as the coordinator and participant in a law-based and orderly way according to the decisions and deployments made by the Party Committee and the government.

Analyzing the two contexts of “governance” isn’t simply differentiating one from the other conceptually. What’s more important is studying their political and economic backgrounds. The 1990s saw the climax and denouement of the so-called third wave of democracy in the west, when the “End of History” theory about liberty and democracy was very popular, and the electoral democracy was considered the entirety of national development. The western governance theory, especially self-organized governance, was regarded as an independent governance model beyond the nation and government authority and caught on in various areas. However, after more than 20 years of practice, the output of electoral democracy encountered global failure, main western economies experienced sluggish growth, and the western governance theory faced a huge crisis. A sharp contrast to this was China’s fast rise in this period. After Deng Xiaoping made the speech during his southern tours in 1992, the Chinese economy maintained high-speed growth, and the stable political leadership and progressive reform were important features of the successful Chinese governance model. There was still much room for improvement in China’s social governance practice, but the “governance” in western academic context and its theory can neither explain the existing success of China’s social governance nor solve the realistic problems it faces.

II. Policy Connotations of Social Governance

China promoted the work in every aspect of social governance before the “governance” paradigm emerged in the 1990s, but it didn’t have a prominent position in terms of theory and policy. As the general layout of the socialist undertaking with Chinese characteristics evolves from three-pronged to four-pronged and five-pronged development, the theoretical and policy system of domestic social governance is continuously improved.

1. Policy evolution of social governance

According to the CPC history after the 14th CPC National Congress in 1992, social governance work, from initiation to the formation of systematic policies, has a clear development trajectory and process of evolution. This is the progressive process from overall management of social security to social management, social governance and social governance modernization.

The reports and resolutions of previous CPC national congresses all included contents about social governance. The 14th CPC National Congress vowed to straighten up social security and clear away all social evils. The 15th CPC National Congress called for efforts to preserve stability and unity, properly handle prominent conflicts concerning the people’s immediate interests, straighten up social security and enhance political and legal work. The 16th CPC National Congress elaborated on “maintaining social stability” and expressly demanded “improving social management” with specific requirements. The 17th CPC National Congress made social development one of the “four prongs” in the general layout of the socialist undertaking with Chinese characteristics, elaborated on social management work in the theme of “accelerating social development with the focus laid on improving the people’s livelihood”, and stressed improving social management and maintaining social stability and unity.

The 18th CPC National Congress explicitly vowed to “build the socialist social management system with Chinese characteristics”, emphasized that “we must intensify the legal, institutional, mechanism, capability, talent and IT work of social management”, and specified the social management system, public service system, social organization management system, and social management mechanism. The third plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee proposed to “establish a scientific and effective social governance system at a faster pace”; it was the first time that “social management”, which had been used for many years, was replaced by “social governance” in the resolution document of a central plenary session. The fourth plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee vowed to “raise the level of law-based social governance”; the fifth plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee demanded “refined social governance”; and the 19th CPC National Congress called for efforts to “intensify and innovate social governance” and pledged to “establish a social governance model based on collaboration, participation, and common interests”. It also set the goal and assigned the task that by 2035, “a modern social governance system should have basically taken shape”.

...

If you need the full text, please leave a message on the website.