Public Participation in Government Performance Measurement in China: A Critical Review and Prospects

Abstract

This paper provides a historical review and critical evaluation of government performance measurement in China in the past 20 years from the perspective of public participation. The first section focuses on theoretical discussion in an attempt to construct a proper conceptual and analytical framework for the review and assessment. The second section gives account to the practice until the end of the last century under the title of "government domination and no citizen participation." The third section describes the progresses made in recent years and its driving forces. And the last section starts with a critical assessment of the current situation, followed by some prospects on the practice in the foreseeable future. The conclusion is that enhancing public participation in government performance measurement in China is far beyond the reach of instrumental rationality, it requires systematic and fundamental reforms of the political systems.

Civic Engagement of Older Adults in Mainland China

“…However, some political scientists assert that civic engagement is a broader concept than political engagement and should include social, economic, and cultural engagement (Yu, 2006). Public administrators define civic engagement as citizens’ participation in public policy making, implementation, and evaluation (He, 2011; Zhou, 2008). In the field of sociology, scholars define civic engagement from multiple perspectives.…”

The Cognitive Difference of Performance Evaluation: Focus on County-level Government

“…From what we have discussed above, different participators all recognize the role of the public in government performance evaluation, but difference still exist in the objectives because of their interest ascription. The external parties aim to attend the evaluation and learn the assessment information, so that the act of government can be improved in the favor of them; consequently, they are inclined to trust their own perception rather than accept the judgment from the internal parties or relevant experts while judging the government performance [5]. As a matter of fact, from the perspective of 360-degree assessment, the judgments from the supervisors, sectors at the same level, service objects and even themselves are beneficial to the comprehensive and objective evaluation on government performance, so we can't say whose evaluation is the most effective mechanically but shall distribute the proportion to their opinions based on the category of government performance evaluation.…”