Marketization, globalization and administrative reform in China: a zigzag road to a promising future

Abstract

The Chinese administrative system has been periodically reformed since the early 1980s. This article mainly focuses on the reforms of the State Council, the central government of China, and then deals with the five main rounds of reform. It gives a full picture of the story of reform with its context and contents, the measures taken, the difficulties encountered and the challenges ahead. It is argued that administrative reform in China has been used to reorient the Communist state to an emerging market-oriented economy and to enhance the capacity of the government to regulate market forces and to respond to the significant impacts made by economic globalization. Given the authoritarian nature of the party-state polity of China, the authors argue that administrative reform in China has also been used as an alternative route to alleviate the crisis of governance resulting from rapid social change; however, its effects are constrained by the implications of politico-administrative apparatus. To build up a modern governing system suitable for a market economy, a proactive approach, including political or constitutional reform, should be put on the agenda.

Determinants of government size: evidence from China

“…The main reasons for the expansion of China"s government, as suggested in the literature, include "maintaining political patronage" (Burns 2003), "party control" (Brødsgaard 2002), the "authoritarian nature of China"s political system" (Ngok and Zhu 2007) and "unsuccessful government function shifts" (Ni and An 2008). While this literature may have identified some causes of government growth in China, emphasizing solely the unique characteristics of the Chinese political system may overlook some important factors that also play roles in determining government size.…”

Innovation in the Chinese Public Sector: Typology and Distribution

“…The country's unprecedented economic growth has been accompanied by dramatic political and administrative reform, which is usually labelled ‘reform with Chinese characteristics' (Aufrecht and Li 1995). The ‘crossing the river by feeling the stones' and trial‐and‐error models of reform constitute the core of administrative reform in China, and the bottom‐up approach has generally been preferred to the top‐down approach (Ngok and Zhu 2007). Although the central government has implemented several administrative reforms in recent decades, Chan and Chow (2007) consider the ‘learning by doing pattern’ adopted by local governments to be more effective.…”

“…We define it as new approaches and practices that aim to manage democratic institutions, trigger citizen participation and fight corruption. Governance innovation is more political and polycentric in nature than the other types of innovation discussed here, and it has increasingly become a prerequisite for in‐depth administrative reforms (Ngok and Zhu 2007). As argued above, such innovation is now prevalent in developing countries and transition economies due to the changing nature of their political systems, and can be found in grassroots democratic elections, public engagement, and administrative delegation (Saich and Yang 2003; Foster 2006).…”

“…The three decades since China initiated its reform and opening up programme in 1978 have witnessed dramatic transformation and change in almost every corner of the country (Lin 2008). Although scholarly attention has been devoted primarily to reforms of the economic system, political and administrative reforms also merit greater attention (Ngok and Zhu 2007). China's transitional context and unique institutional background render the behaviour exhibited by local governments and other public organizations (for example, state‐owned enterprises and not‐for‐profit organizations [NPOs]) quite distinct from that of their counterparts in Western countries (Chan and Chow 2007; Yang 2007).…”

‘Poor governance’ for development in China and Vietnam

“…Creation of 'super-departments' and new regulatory organs have appeared, while existing ministries and departments have been forced to focus on regulation and coordination, instead of direct economic micromanagement (Dong, Christensen and Painter 2010;Luo 2003;Ngok and Chan 2003;Ngok and Zhu 2007;Painter 2003a;Yang 2004). …”