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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsonM. A.BreulJ. D. & KamenskyJ. M. (2006). Six Trends Transforming Government, IBM Center for The Business of Government, Special Report Series.
2.
ArsteinS. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1969.
3.
BarberB. (2003). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (20th anniversary edition), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
4.
BuckA. (1924), Measuring the Results of Government, National Municipal Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1924.
5.
Bureau of Personnel of Natong Municipal Government. (2007). Guojia renshibu gaodu pingjia Nantong shi jiguan zuofeng jianshe he jixiao kaoping gongzuo (Ministry of Personnel highly Appreciated the Practice of Performance Measurement in Nantong), accessed from: http://www.jsrc.com/jsggfw/newsfiles/186/2007-07/19900.shtml
6.
The Cabinet Office (UK.) (2007). Promoting Customer Satisfaction: Guidance on improving the customer experience in Public Services.
7.
CaoK. (1990). mubiao guanli zerenzhi de shjian yu qishi (The Objective Responsibility System: Practice and Reflections), zhongguo renshi (China Personnel), No. 24, 1990.
8.
Center for Development Study, The State Council. (2004). jiedu quanmian jianshe xiaokeng she-hui zhibiao tixi (Elaboration on Fairly Well-Off Society Indicators), jingji cankao bao (Economic Reference), March 15, 2004.
9.
DengG. & XiaoM. (2007). qungzhong pingyi zhengfu jixiao: lilun, fangfa yu shijian (Public assessment of government performance: theories, methods and cases), Beijing: Peking University Press.
10.
EdinM. (2003). State Capacity and Local Agent Control in China: CCP Cadre Management from a Township Perspective, The China Quarterly, No. 173.
11.
Executive Session on Public Sector Performance Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Get Results Through Performance Management: An Open Memorandum to Government Executives (State and Local Version). 2001.
12.
HM Treasury (UK).Service Transformation Agreement, October 2007.
13.
HolzerM. (2000). gonggong bumen yeji pinggu yu gaishan (Performance Measurement and Improvement in the Public Sector), Chinese Public Administration.
14.
HolzerM.MelitskiJ.Seung-Yong RhoS. Y. & SchwesterR. (2004). Restoring Trust in Government: The Potential of Digital Citizen Participation. IBM Center for The Business of Government, Special Report Series.
15.
HouY. (2002). chengshi mubiao guanli yu jingzhengli luntan lunwen huibian (Proceedings of the Forum on Municipal Objective Responsibility System and Competitiveness), Qingdao: Secretariat of the Association for Municipal Objective Responsibility System.
16.
HuJ. (2003), Speech Delivered at the Third Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the CCP, October.
17.
HuangY. (1995). Administrative monitoring in China, The China Quarterly, No. 143.
18.
JacksonPeter M. (ed.) (1995), Measures for Success in the Public Sector, London: CIPFA.
19.
National Center for Public Performance, Rutgers University.Citizen-Driven Government Performance: Case Studies and Curricular Resources.
20.
National Partnership for Reinventing Government. (1999). Balancing Measures: Best Practices in Performance Management, August.
21.
National Performance Review. (1993). From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less, September.
22.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2000). Implementing Results-Based Management: Lessons from the Literature.
23.
Office of Performance Measurement of Qingdao Municipal Government (2007). mubiao jix-iao kaohe minyi diancha de tansuo yu shijian (Exploration on and practice of public opinion survey in ORS and government performance measurement, the Chinese Society for Government Performance Management (Ed.), zhengfu jixiao pinggu zhibiao tixi yan-taohui cailiao xuanbian (Collection of papers presented at the workshop on performance indicators for government in Haerbin), August.
24.
PetersG. (1996). The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models.The University Press of Kansas.
25.
RenJ. (1990). Difang xingzheng jiguan mubiao guanli tixi chutan (Management by Objectives in Local Governments), zhongguo renshi (China Personnel), 24.
26.
RidleyC. & SimonH. (1938). Measuring Municipal Activities: A Survey of Suggested Criteria and Reporting Forms for Appraising Administration. Chicago: International City Management Association.
27.
RongJ.,. (1998). Cong yalixing tizhi xiang minzhu hezuo tizhi de zhuanbian: xian xiang liang ji zhengzhi tizhi gaige (Transformation from the Pressurized System to a Democratic System of Co-operation: Reform of the Political System at the County and Township Levels), Beijing: Zhongyang bianyi chubanshe (Bureau of Translation Press).
28.
RouseJ.Performance Management Under New Labour: really new or merely more of the same? (working paper), February 2001.
29.
SunJ. (2007). yi si ge daoxiang wei jiazhi hexin de Hangzhou zonghe kaoping tixi (The comprehensive performance assessment scheme in Hangzhou: four orientations as core value), Speech delivered at the International Conference on Performance Measurement and Government Innovation in Hangzhou, July 10, 2007.
30.
WilliamsD. W. (2003). Measuring Government in the Early Twentieth Century, inPublic Administration Review, November/December 63(6).
The Cabinet Office (UK.) (2007). Promoting Customer Satisfaction: Guidance on improving the customer experience in Public Services.
33.
CaoK. (1990). mubiao guanli zerenzhi de shjian yu qishi (The Objective Responsibility System: Practice and Reflections), zhongguo renshi (China Personnel), No. 24, 1990.
34.
Center for Development Study, The State Council. (2004). jiedu quanmian jianshe xiaokeng she-hui zhibiao tixi (Elaboration on Fairly Well-Off Society Indicators), jingji cankao bao (Economic Reference), March 15, 2004.
35.
DengG. & XiaoM. (2007). qungzhong pingyi zhengfu jixiao: lilun, fangfa yu shijian (Public assessment of government performance: theories, methods and cases), Beijing: Peking University Press.
36.
EdinM. (2003). State Capacity and Local Agent Control in China: CCP Cadre Management from a Township Perspective, The China Quarterly, No. 173.
37.
Executive Session on Public Sector Performance Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Get Results Through Performance Management: An Open Memorandum to Government Executives (State and Local Version). 2001.
38.
HM Treasury (UK).Service Transformation Agreement, October 2007.
39.
HolzerM. (2000). gonggong bumen yeji pinggu yu gaishan (Performance Measurement and Improvement in the Public Sector), Chinese Public Administration.
40.
HolzerM.MelitskiJ.Seung-Yong RhoS. Y. & SchwesterR. (2004). Restoring Trust in Government: The Potential of Digital Citizen Participation. IBM Center for The Business of Government, Special Report Series.
41.
HouY. (2002). chengshi mubiao guanli yu jingzhengli luntan lunwen huibian (Proceedings of the Forum on Municipal Objective Responsibility System and Competitiveness), Qingdao: Secretariat of the Association for Municipal Objective Responsibility System.
42.
HuJ. (2003), Speech Delivered at the Third Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the CCP, October.
43.
HuangY. (1995). Administrative monitoring in China, The China Quarterly, No. 143.
44.
JacksonPeter M. (ed.) (1995), Measures for Success in the Public Sector, London: CIPFA.
45.
National Center for Public Performance, Rutgers University.Citizen-Driven Government Performance: Case Studies and Curricular Resources.
46.
National Partnership for Reinventing Government. (1999). Balancing Measures: Best Practices in Performance Management, August.
47.
National Performance Review. (1993). From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less, September.
48.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2000). Implementing Results-Based Management: Lessons from the Literature.
49.
Office of Performance Measurement of Qingdao Municipal Government (2007). mubiao jix-iao kaohe minyi diancha de tansuo yu shijian (Exploration on and practice of public opinion survey in ORS and government performance measurement, the Chinese Society for Government Performance Management (Ed.), zhengfu jixiao pinggu zhibiao tixi yan-taohui cailiao xuanbian (Collection of papers presented at the workshop on performance indicators for government in Haerbin), August.
50.
PetersG. (1996). The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models.The University Press of Kansas.
51.
RenJ. (1990). Difang xingzheng jiguan mubiao guanli tixi chutan (Management by Objectives in Local Governments), zhongguo renshi (China Personnel), 24.
52.
RidleyC. & SimonH. (1938). Measuring Municipal Activities: A Survey of Suggested Criteria and Reporting Forms for Appraising Administration. Chicago: International City Management Association.
53.
RongJ.,. (1998). Cong yalixing tizhi xiang minzhu hezuo tizhi de zhuanbian: xian xiang liang ji zhengzhi tizhi gaige (Transformation from the Pressurized System to a Democratic System of Co-operation: Reform of the Political System at the County and Township Levels), Beijing: Zhongyang bianyi chubanshe (Bureau of Translation Press).
54.
RouseJ.Performance Management Under New Labour: really new or merely more of the same? (working paper), February 2001.
55.
SunJ. (2007). yi si ge daoxiang wei jiazhi hexin de Hangzhou zonghe kaoping tixi (The comprehensive performance assessment scheme in Hangzhou: four orientations as core value), Speech delivered at the International Conference on Performance Measurement and Government Innovation in Hangzhou, July 10, 2007.
56.
WilliamsD. W. (2003). Measuring Government in the Early Twentieth Century, inPublic Administration Review, November/December 63(6).
WuJ. (1986). mubiao guanli yu lingdao kexue (Management by Objectives and Leadership Science), kexue guanli yanjiu (Study of Scientific Management), 4.
59.
YuanY.WenF.XiaoM. & FuY. (2004). Zhong-guo gonggong zhengce ji zhengfu bianxian pinggu lingyu de lingdian jingyan: duli minyi yanjiu de weizhi (The role of NGOs in policy evaluation and performance measurement in China: the experience of the Horizon Key Group), Meizhong Gonggong Guanli (US-Sino Journal of Public Management), No.1, 2004.
60.
ZhangN. (2004). Lvse GDP (Green GDP), jingji ribao (Economics Daily), April 15.
61.
ZhouZ. (1998). woguo zhengfu zhineng youhua de lilun sikao (Functional Restructuring for Chinese Government: Some Theoretical Reflections), in Editing Board, xiandai hua jincheng zhong de zhengzhi yu xingzheng (Politics and Administration in the Course of Modernization), Beijing: Peking University Press.
62.
ZhouZ. (2007). gonggong zuzhi jixiao pinggu: zhongguo shijian de huigu yu fansi (Public Sector Performance Measurement in China: An Overview and Critique), Lanzhou Daxue Xue-bao (Journal of Lanzhou University), 1.
