Decentralising Data Collection and Centralising Information in the People’s Republic of China: Decentralise, Manage, and Service Reforms

Abstract

Xi Jinping’s ascent to power as Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was accompanied by changes in national governance strategies in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that have progressively incorporated the use of big data. Shortly after, in May 2015, the Chinese State Council released a set of policy reforms under the abbreviation fang guan fu 放管服 (decentralise, manage, and service). These reforms promoted big data led (1) market regulation, (2) supervision and management systems, and (3) service provision processes. By applying a case study analytical approach, this paper explores how advancements in big data contributed to these reforms aimed at centralising information in China. Combining the joint knowledge of surveillance and China studies scholarship, this paper offers evidence of big data surveillance streamlining China’s fragmented intergovernmental policy system. We build on David Murakami Wood’s 2017 outline of a political theory of surveillance and argue that decentralisation of data collection points and centralisation of both bureaucratic and public access to information are key components of the Party-state’s regulatory governance strategy incorporating the use of big data and comprehensive surveillance. Our findings have implications for future analyses of the relationship between political organisations and surveillance within other nation-state contexts, particularly in situations where Chinese technologies and systems are being adopted and adapted.

Civilized cities or social credit? Overlap and tension between emergent governance infrastructures in China

“…The major change to the 2021 edition of the assessment system is that most reports and evaluations from relevant departments can now be submitted online. Broader reforms instigated by the State Council in 2015 are pushing bureaucratic processes onto online platforms to increase the efficiency of government services (Trauth-Goik & Bernot, 2021). There are also more items in the 2021 edition that result in point subtraction.…”

“…This includes but is not limited to, smart cities, artificial intelligences, online public services, blockchain technology, credit evaluation and scoring systems, and quantum information technology (Digi China, 2022). Enhanced cooperation and data sharing among a variety of administrative units are key expectations underpinning the Party-state’s latest informatization drive (Trauth-Goik & Bernot, 2021). Top-down ideologies and discourses serve to define the purpose, goals, and characteristics of emergent governance infrastructures in China, but like elsewhere in the world, lower-level authorities and individual users also appropriate component technologies to their own ends, often for purposes that go beyond the scope of the original design blueprint (Edwards, 2003; Mann et al, 2003; Andrejevic 2005).…”

China's COVID‐19 pandemic response: A first anniversary assessment

“…While grid management served as the backbone to organizing pandemic surveillance, Internet+ allowed the government to integrate massive datasets into a centralized, cloud‐based platform. First introduced in 2015, Internet+ is a set of government initiatives that refers to the government collection of big data for the purpose of online governance (Trauth‐Goik & Bernot, 2021 ). On February 5, 2020, the NHC and the State Council published a notice that required private and public organizations, including all big technology companies operating in China, to contribute their data to control the pandemic within the legal framework of 'Frontier Health and Quarantine Law', published earlier, in January (State Council, 2020a ).…”

Envisioning a credit society: social credit systems and the institutionalization of moral standards in China

“…More recent research identifies a rather complicated idea of SCS in which the credit scoring and recording practices got executed at various municipal levels and in diversified forms (e.g. Liu, 2019; Trauth-Goik and Bernot, 2021). Meanwhile, these systems have been functioning as experimental processes through which a market-based digital governance could possibly be fulfilled (Bach, 2020).…”