What is the difference between the institutional reform in the State Council in and the traditional government function model?

Institutional reform is an action of China government every five years, which has played a certain role in transforming government functions and improving government efficiency. However, problems such as bloated institutions, overstaffed people and unclear responsibilities often come back soon after institutional reform. This makes institutional reform often become the focus of government reform in various countries, and institutional reform also bears many "unbearable burdens" such as transforming government functions, strengthening inter-departmental coordination and improving efficiency.

Considering the rapid changes in China and the central position of the government in economic growth and social development, it is understandable that institutional reforms are so frequent. In this way, it is very important to optimize the path and mode of institutional reform and improve the effect of institutional reform. Judging from the institutional reform plan of the State Council adopted at the first session of the 13th National People's Congress, it has the same aspects as previous reforms, but also highlights the differences worthy of attention.

First of all,

Institutional reform is the addition and subtraction of the number of departments, but it is higher than the addition and subtraction.

. In the past, institutional reforms were simply adding, subtracting, merging or abolishing some departments, but there were few internal adjustments. Especially in 2008 and 20 13, the two rounds of reform of the Ministry system aimed at streamlining the number of institutions directly under the State Council, but did not really realize the corresponding transformation of government functions. This makes the department structure after the reform still monolithic, the internal microstructure of the organization has not changed qualitatively, and the functional transformation is only a lot of thunder and little rain.

One of the highlights of this reform is to pay equal attention to addition and subtraction, rather than to do the subtraction of the "big department" completely. Although the number of departments and other institutions in the State Council has been greatly reduced, except for the General Office of the State Council, there are 26 departments in the State Council, with 8 ministerial-level institutions reduced and 7 deputy ministerial-level institutions reduced; However, the new institutions are even more exciting, especially the establishment of China International Development Cooperation Agency, Emergency Management Department, Veterans Affairs Department and National Immigration Administration, which meet the needs of the rise of great powers and the improvement of domestic governance. The establishment and prominence of these new institutions provide a foundation for the transformation of government functions in related fields, and also make the docking and implementation of government functions smoother.

Secondly,

The remarkable feature of this government institutional reform is that it pays attention to the reorganization and intersection of subdivision functions, rather than the complete withdrawal and merger of institutions.

. Judging from the previous reforms, the intensity of this reform is not small. In the formation and reorganization of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Emergency Management Department, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and the State Administration of Market Supervision. This reform broke the practice of merging ministries and state administrative organs, but started with the cross-reorganization of departmental functions, which provided conditions for the in-depth integration of government functions.

The "Decision of the Central Committee on Deepening the Reform of the Party and State Institutions" adopted by the Third Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee pointed out: "In principle, one department is responsible for one thing." This means that the reform is not a simple institutional merger, but a deep reorganization at the functional level; It means that the physical reaction in the past should give way to the chemical reaction, that is, the qualitative change of government institutions should be realized through organizational reengineering.

Say it again,

After the reform of central government departments, the establishment of local government departments below the provincial level will become an increasingly prominent problem.

. In the past, the reform of government institutions was promoted from top to bottom, and the guiding role of "sticking a pole in the end" was very strong, but it was also difficult to adapt to local conditions. While emphasizing centralized and unified leadership, this reform also clearly gives provincial and lower-level institutions more autonomy, thus providing institutional space for enhancing local vitality.

It is worth noting that with the reform of the division of central and local financial affairs and expenditure responsibilities in the field of basic public services, governments at all levels will assume relatively different responsibilities, thus giving play to their respective advantages. To this end, governments at all levels should naturally set up different institutions according to their needs. Institutional reforms in market supervision, taxation and emergency management have met the needs of local governments, and affirmed the pilot results of institutional reforms in local governments to some extent. But in other respects, it may be different, and to some extent, it will continue the traditional practice of "uneven".

It is worth noting that,

The institutional reform in the State Council is only half finished, because how to deal with the relationship between government institutions and party institutions is the key issue worth looking forward to.

Judging from the spirit of the document of the Third Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee, strengthening the Party's overall leadership over government agencies can be carried out in various ways, including the deliberation and coordination organs of the Party, centralized coordination of the functional departments of the Party, and co-location of the Party and government. On the one hand, it is to coordinate counterpart government departments, such as the central financial and economic leading group, by establishing the party's deliberation and coordination institutions. On the other hand, some party and government departments with overlapping functions may merge. For example, the radio and television management responsibilities of the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television have been taken over by the newly established State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, and the attribution of press and publication responsibilities is an unsolved problem. One possibility is that the party's propaganda department will absorb the responsibility of press and publication. In addition, in the past, the party's institutions and government departments kept pace, and there will still be some time.

It is worth noting that it is necessary to track and evaluate the implementation of government institutional reform to avoid the problem of insufficient integration. In 20 10, Guangdong province chose 2 1 county (city, district) to promote Shunde's large-scale reform model. The author's research shows that although the Ministry system has improved people's satisfaction with the government to a certain extent, it has little effect on the whole. Therefore, just reducing the number of departments may not help to improve government performance, and it is more important to start with the reform from the perspective of functional integration. A recent study conducted by the author in cooperation with Tom Christensen, a professor of political science at the University of Oslo, shows that during the institutional reform in the State Council in 20 13, some departments in the State Council were separated from each other after the merger, and the internal integration in structure, function and culture was not enough, resulting in the problem of "two skins" still happening from time to time.

Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the evaluation after the institutional reform, so that the implementation of the institutional reform is consistent with the direction expected by the principal and adjusted according to the implementation. However, the emphasis on functional reorganization and deep integration in this reform plan makes the integration of "appearance close to spirit" more difficult, and "helping each other in the same boat" is a reform trend worth looking forward to.