The reform of the classification of centrally-affiliated public institutions has been completed. The classification of public institutions will become a hard target for the reform.

"China Economic Weekly" reporter Wang Hongru | Reporting from Beijing

On June 2, the national symposium on promoting the reform of public institutions by category was held at the Jingxi Hotel in Beijing. The reform of China's public institutions, which was once a smoke and mirrors, finally has a clear outline.

The recent issuance of the "Guiding Opinions on Classified Promotion of the Reform of Public Institutions" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions") means that the reform of public institutions has begun to be formally promoted.

At present, there are 1.26 million public institutions nationwide, of which there are more than 30 million regular employees and 9 million retirees. This reform involves almost all institutions and personnel in public institutions, which makes many people feel uneasy.

The "Opinions" show that the central government has determined a timetable for the reform of the classification of public institutions: in five years from 2011 to 2015, our country will complete the classification of public institutions on the basis of clean-up and standardization; by 2020 In 2019, our country will form a new management system and operating mechanism for public institutions and form a public welfare service system with Chinese characteristics.

In this timetable, the classification of public institutions will become a rigid indicator of the first five-year reform goal.

There are very few centrally-affiliated public institutions that are classified as government institutions

The difficulty of reforming the classification of public institutions is beyond the imagination of many people.

In this reform, the government is both the promoter and the target of reform. The phenomenon of "subject and object being the same" in the reform puts the government into an embarrassing situation. The protection of various interests also makes reforms of this scale difficult.

Experts analyze that the protection of various interests also makes reforms of this scale difficult. The specific interests of the government, the independent interests of public institutions, the public's demands for public services, and the personal gains and losses of reform have made the motivation for reform offset each other among the maintenance of various interests, and it is impossible to form a broad social foundation.

From this point of view, the five-year goal set by the classification reform is not too long.

Under the five-year goal, according to the "Opinions", the reform of public institutions is divided into three categories: "reference civil servant category", that is, public institutions undertaking government functions are classified into the government sequence; The "subsidiary" category, that is, public institutions engaged in production and business activities will be pushed to the market; while a part of the "fiscal subsidy" category, that is, public welfare institutions, will be promoted from the aspects of personnel management, income distribution, social insurance, fiscal and taxation policies, and organizational establishment. , adopting measures such as “separation of management and office” to improve the governance structure.

“These three categories are actually divided according to social functions. To put it bluntly, the reform of the classification of public institutions is to transform those that undertake administrative functions into administrative agencies; those that engage in production and business activities into enterprises , promote it to the market; retain public institutions engaged in public welfare services. This kind of reform can be vividly summarized as 'getting rid of the two ends and leaving the middle (backbone)'" said Song Shiming, a professor at the National Academy of Administration.

In fact, the reform of public institutions has been carried out for many years and has achieved some results. For example, a large number of for-profit scientific research institutes have completed the transformation and transformed into enterprises a few years ago, and some scientific research institutes have also become listed companies; last year, all publishing houses that were originally public institutions completed the transformation into enterprises.

However, among the above three types of reforms, the transformation of public institutions into administrative agencies means that under the current national conditions, the original "iron rice bowl" has been transformed into a "golden rice bowl", which is particularly concerning. Informed sources revealed to China Economic Weekly that most of the classification reforms of centrally-affiliated public institutions have been completed, and there are only a few public institutions that have been classified as government-sponsored and bear government functions.

According to the above-mentioned insiders, among the public institutions affiliated to the central government, only a few such as the Development Research Center of the State Council and the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau are classified as government officials and treated as civil servants; the Central Party School and the National Administration The college implements a method of distinguishing between management posts and technical posts and managing them separately. Academic institutions such as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences are classified as public welfare institutions and fall under the "financial subsidy" category.

"Recently, many public institutions have carried out job appointment system reforms. These units must do all these things before hiring people."

The reporter reported to the Office of the Central Institutional Establishment Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Staff Office") Office") to verify the above information, relevant sources told China Economic Weekly, "Many reports on classification reform are speculative and are unofficial voices. We do not comment on or discuss this. ”

At present, the reform of public institutions in our country is mainly carried out by two departments-the Central Staff Office and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. The General Staff Office is responsible for system-level reforms, such as classification reform; while the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security is responsible for the formulation of more specific plans such as recruitment system reform, employment system reform, professional title reform, and salary reform.

As for the classification reform, we have only seen the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security’s position so far. The relevant person in charge of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security stated that the classification reform is a long-term work, and the relevant departments will implement it steadily in accordance with the principles of classification guidance, classification promotion, classification organization, and classification implementation.

Guarantee the welfare benefits of those being reformed from the institutional level

Conducting pilot projects before reform has become a tried and tested method for my country to introduce reform measures.

According to the reporter’s understanding, as early as 2006, my country had carried out pilot reform of the classification of public institutions in Guangdong and other places.

In 2007, Guangdong Province reviewed and approved the "Guiding Opinions on the Pilot Classification Reform of Public Institutions in Guangdong Province"; in 2008, the "Implementation Opinions on the Classification Reform of Public Institutions in Guangdong Province (Draft for Comments)" was formulated, and in 2009 Promote the reform of the classification of public institutions in the province. These two documents divide public institutions into three categories: administrative, business and public welfare.

In the view of Wu Jiang, president of the Chinese Academy of Personnel Sciences, the difficulty in the reform of the classification of public institutions lies in the definition of administrative functions. "Some need to be merged into the government to enjoy civil servant treatment, and some need to be classified as enterprises. This is more complicated and cannot be done all at once."

The difficulties encountered in the classification reform of Shenzhen's public institutions seem to verify Wu Jiang’s judgment.

In July 2006, the "Guiding Opinions of Shenzhen City on Deepening the Reform of Public Institutions" was issued. Under the leadership of the Shenzhen Municipal Reform Office, the classification reform of Shenzhen’s public institutions was officially launched. The reform "divided public institutions into three" into supervision and management, business services and public services. They were separated from the original administrative units and some were directly transferred to enterprises.

However, what the designers did not expect was that many units that were listed as statutory body pilots (implement statutory body pilots in existing public institutions and operate according to the board of directors model), through various Various relationships demanded the cancellation of their own pilot projects; some units that were classified as enterprises and no longer enjoyed financial allocations began to collectively protest and demanded the restoration of their status as public institutions; when the education system promoted the elimination of administrative levels and allocated funds on a case-by-case basis, It triggered dissatisfaction and collective strikes among many teachers...

The reason why the reform could not advance smoothly, according to industry insiders, is actually because the reform touched the interests of some people, which triggered various backlashes , and also encountered resistance from all aspects.

“Most people do not understand the actual content of the reform, and there are often speculations, worries, doubts and misunderstandings about the reform. Many people think that ‘organizational reform means downsizing’ and ‘enterprise reform means "Reduce staff and increase efficiency", so we are worried that the reform of public institutions is "decoupling", which means reducing benefits and losing their jobs. This has greatly reduced employees' willingness to reform, weakened the positive motivation for reform, and turned it into a system based on interest protection. Resistance." Hu Xianzhi, a researcher at the National Academy of Administration, analyzed to China Economic Weekly.

Compared with the difficulties of the Shenzhen pilot, the Foshan pilot has progressed relatively smoothly.

Foshan, as a pilot city for the reform of the classification of public institutions in Guangdong Province, has experienced more than three years of reform of the classification of public institutions. According to the arrangement, 216 municipal institutions, including the Foshan Municipal Government Procurement Center, will be integrated and adjusted into 170 institutions. After the classification reform is completed, Foshan will no longer approve the establishment of new administrative institutions, and will no longer grant new public affairs management functions to existing institutions, except as clearly provided by laws and regulations.

It is reported that Foshan’s reform plan for administrative institutions has been submitted to relevant provincial departments for approval. The Foshan Municipal Editorial Committee Office requires all districts to complete this work before the end of June. All reform work is expected to be completed before the end of this year.

The real problem is that after the public institutions are abolished, how to divert and relocate relevant personnel has become the key to reform. To this end, Foshan has studied and formulated the "Opinions on Handling Issues Related to the Transfer of Municipal Institutions to Enterprises and the Cancellation of Units" to ensure that the welfare benefits of the reformed personnel will not be affected.

“Judging from the reform experience of Shenzhen and Foshan, no matter what type of reform, the analysis and design of resistance and motivation is a strategy and strategy worthy of attention.” To advance the pilot classification reform in Foshan, Guangdong Basic experience, Hu Xianzhi commented to China Economic Weekly.

In Hu Xianzhi’s view, the reform of public institutions should pay attention to ensuring the welfare benefits of the reformed personnel from the institutional level, clearly clarifying the direction of reform, developing the potential motivation for power expansion reform of public institutions, and advancing various reforms in a coordinated manner; Facilitate political relations and gather internal political consciousness and centripetal force within public institutions; strengthen legislation and publicity to form a favorable social environment and strengthen the spiritual motivation for reform. "The reform of public institutions must be good at tapping motivation and eliminating resistance. Only in this way can the smooth advancement of reform of public institutions be ensured."

Currently, the classification reforms across the country are still being further determined.