| The local governance theory has been one of new and core developments in public administration, caused by the failure of both the government and market under the social background of postmodernism and economic globalization and integration. It was the result that the value system of democratic politics of western capitalist countries had been infiltrated and expanded into the large number of developing countries. Currently, it has been widely applied in the public scopes all over the counties, which greatly promoted the local governance reform both in developed and developing countries and their capability and level of local governance.For the concept of local governance, based on the understanding of governance and local governance theory, the author concluded that local governance was a systematic and dynamic process that a diverse and independent network consisted of governments, NGOs, enterprises, parties, organizations, units, and etc. had been conducting the local public affairs, by the new governing idea, measures and technique that integrating the theory of administrative mechanisms, market and competitive mechanisms and self-governance system, to realize the purpose of nice local governance and the promotion of public benefits of local residents, under the ecological system composed of special politic, economic, social, cultural and historic conditions. Local governance was different from the governance, only a component of governance. Local governance is only the application of governing idea in the level of local affairs. It is both a moving process and an organic and open system. Generally, the system had seven sub-systems: governing purpose, ecological system, main governing bodies, governing targets, power system, decision-making system and techniques system of local governance.This paper focused on the sub-systems of local governance system and made a systematic, general and detailed comparison and analysis to the local governance's ecology, main bodies, targets, powers, decisions-making, techniques between China and the United States, using the researching methods of comparative study, systematic analysis, dialectic, and etc.The introduction and first Chapter made a general discussion on the current situation of Sino-U.S. local governance research as well as the general theories, and put forward the author's own opinion to local governance and built a basic theoretic framework to the whole paper. The second Chapter conducted a comparison to the four areas of Sino-U.S. local governing ecology: politic ecology, economic ecology, social ecology and cultural ecology. The theoretic analysis of the introduction and the first Chapter and the comparative analysis of the second Chapter is the theoretic and practical basis of the content of the third Chapter and the seventh Chapter.The third Chapter mainly made a comparative analysis to the main governing bodies of local governance in six aspects: local citizens, governments, NGO, politic parties, enterprises and the governing bodies system. The forth Chapter conducted a comparison to the governing targets of Sino-U.S. local governance in three areas: the governing scopes, the governing structure and fund of local governance. The fifth Chapter was the comparative analysis of local governing powers in the idea, scope, classification, power center, the power level, developing direction, etc.This paper had both the theoretic and practical value. It broke the limits that Chinese scholars in past time had excessively emphasized the introducing of western local governing theories and how to apply the theories in China, and tried to research the localization of governing theory in China. It offered some practical guidance to the local governance in China. This was profoundly manifested in the following ways: first, it provided some methods and suggestions for the establishment of democratic systems, focusing on the requirement of politic and democratic reform in China, for example, speeding up the proper power division between the central government and the local governments, accelerating the rational division of powers among the governments, society and market, ensuring full autonomy to the local governments, society and market, and encouraging more citizens and private sectors to take part in the practice of local governance. Second, the comparative analysis of the paper comes to a dicision that the practice of local governance in China could not blindly copy the experience of western countries because of the different politics, economy, society, culture and history of the two countries.The author strived to make innovation in its topic, paradigm, content and methods. There are two typical models of local governance: the U.S. Model representing the local governing model of developed countries and the China Model representing that of developing countries. It built a new paradigm and structure of local governance different from the traditional local governing research. This was profoundly manifested in the following ways: a systematic research was conducted in the researching framework composed of six elements as the ecology, main-bodies, targets, power, decision-making and techniques of local governance. It was a first attempt in local governance theory. Some new thoughts and opinions were put forward. First, the author concluded the concept of local governance by examine the six aspects as referred. Second, the author concluded the six sub-theories of local governance: the theory of polycentric governance, the synergy theory, the theory of new public administration, the theory of networking governance, the theory of social capital management, the informatization of governance. Third, it brought forward the opinion of balanced social structure. Forth, it believed that the local governing bodies were not only the local governments but also the central governments. Fifth, it thought that the boundary of power of organizations within the government should be clear while the power division among the government, society and market should be fuzzy. The governing ecology of U.S. has the following features: fully developed economy, privacy of ownership, improved and free and perfect marketing economy, federal system and separation of powers in politics, bipartisan system, the mature of civil society, the high diversity of social structure, the strong religious coloring, and the profound thoughts of democracy and freedom. The governing ecology of China has the following features: the underdeveloped economy, public ownership playing a dominant role in ownership system, imperfect marketing economy, the unity in politics and combination of legislature and administration, the low diversity of social structure, the weak religious coloring, and the profound thoughts of collectivism and feudalism.As for the participation of citizens in local government management, it lacks of physical and time condition, has poor social foundation, low subjectivity and single governance form. There are a few quantities but a large number of categories for Chinese government department. It is pyramid hierarchical structure vertically and unitary organization structure horizontally. The number of NGOs is small. And they are not so voluntary and independent with the single and limited capital controls. It is difficult to make the registration, and the organization principle is imperfect. The enterprise governance starts too late and the time short. The governance has high threshold and narrow scope. There are a large number of State-owned enterprises but limited governance methods. The principle of donation and tax free is complete. Chinese party: multi-party coexists, one party masters. It has rigorous organization structure and strict discipline, the member is voluntary highly. The basic property is people. Party and government administration integrated, and parties are partners and allies, they participate in and master political issue in relatively equal position.In terms of the target the local government managed, the scope of public service for American local public product is narrow, but the scope of public service for American local private product is wide. The range of public product for America local government is small, but the range of public product for American non-government is large. The hierarchical structure in vertical and the organization structure in horizontal for American government is not the same. In the vertical structure of government public product, the American federal government takes up a small proportion; the local government takes up a large proportion. Conversely, in the vertical structure of public education and cultural public product, he American federal government takes up a large proportion; the local government takes up a small proportion. In the vertical structure of public product for social insurance, welfare, public medical care and sanitation, the American federal government takes up a large proportion, the local government takes up a small proportion. In the horizontal structure of the public service for several common local public products, American public education takes up the largest proportion, and following is the public welfare and social insurance, medical care and sanitarian, public security, administrative affairs, public economy affairs. In the tax revenue system for American public products, it adopts strict and definite 3-levels tax system. In the tax revenue system for local public products, the tax of American local public product takes up a small proportion, but the tax of central pubic products takes up a large proportion. There is no property and business income in the non-tax revenue of American local public product, and non-tax revenue out of budget discipline, neither. But it has government bond revenue. In the fiscal expenditure structure of public product, the pubic product of American federal government takes up a large proportion, and the public of local government takes up small proportion. The expenditure on local agriculture, countryside, farmer and administration is less, and the expenditure on local public education is much more.In China, the range of local public product is large, and the range of local private product is small. The range of local public product for local government is large, and the range of local public product for non-government is small. The hierarchical structure in vertical and the organization structure in horizontal for American government have big similarity. In the vertical structure of government public product, the China central government takes up a small proportion; the local government takes up a large proportion. In the vertical structure of public education and cultural public product, the China central government takes up a small proportion; the local government takes up a large proportion. In the vertical structure of public product for social insurance, welfare, public medical care and sanitation, the China central government takes up a small proportion, the local government takes up a large proportion. In the horizontal structure of the public service for several common local public products, China public economy affairs takes up the largest proportion, and following is public education, administrative affairs, public welfare and social insurance, public security and medical welfare and sanitarian. In the tax revenue system of local public product, it adopts centralized and unified tax system that the tax revenue of public product in central government and local government are not divided definitely. In the tax of China local public product takes up a small proportion, but the tax of central pubic product takes up a large proportion. There is property and business income in the non-tax revenue of Chinese local public product, and non-tax revenue out of budget discipline. But it has not government bond revenue. In the fiscal expenditure structure of public product, the pubic product of Chinese central government takes up a large proportion, and the public of local government takes up small proportion. The expenditure on local agriculture, countryside, farmer and administration is more, and the expenditure on local public education is much less.In terms of local management authority, the concept of American local management authority is authority separation. The authority boundary of different American government is very clear, but the boundary among government, society and market is natural unclear. The vertical division of local management authority in the US tends to local, and the horizontal division tends to market and society. Local management authority in the US is multi-centralized, and the structure converts from vertical to flat. The orientation is two-way operation. The concept of Chinese local government authority is centralization authority. The boundary among different government is denatural unclear, so it is as the boundary among government, society and market. The vertical division of local management authority in China tends to higher level and central committee, and the horizontal division tends to local government. Local management authority in China is single-centralized, and the vertical structure is pyramid. The orientation is single way operation.In terms of decision-making from local governance, the local governance decision-making culture in the United States is the bourgeois decision culture that is influenced by the bourgeois form of "freedom, democracy, equality, autonomy, openness, tolerance, pluralism". The consciousness and ability of decision-maker is relatively strong. The independence and the organizational level of decision-making are relatively high. The guidance of local governance decision-making adopts citizen and public social function guidance. The local governance decision-making is highly open and transparent. It is a multi-centralized local governance decision-making system. The local governance decision-making culture in China is socialistic decision-making culture that is deeply influenced by the feudal Confucian ethics. The consciousness and ability of decision-maker is relatively weak. The independence and the organizational level of decision-making are relatively low. The guidance of local governance decision-making adopts government and economy function guidance. The local governance decision-making is not so open and transparent. It is a single center decision-making system. In term of local governance technology, it has good basic facility of local governance information technology and mass foundation in the United States. It can provide fully dynamic information service to public. It owns wide operation range to achieve two-way interaction among government's intranet network, network's intranet network, government and citizen. It lacks of basic facility of local governance information technology and mass foundation in China. It only provides static information service. And there is limited operation range not to achieve two-way interaction among government's intranet network, network's intranet network, government and citizen. The local governance cooperative technology in the United States mainly includes time and space alternate and cooperative technology, mutually consultative technology, the council or the commission's technology, consultative conference technology, service technology provided mutually, service technology provided cooperatively, temporary loans, equipment and personnel joint used technology. The local governance cooperative technology in China mainly includes personnel exchange and cooperation technology, joint cooperation and consultation technology, economy joint and cooperative technology among various regional governments under the guidance of the central or higher levels of government, cooperative technology by organized a meeting or forum, cooperative technology by visit and study. As for technology the United States adopts to manage market, it has mature social conditions, various forms and wide operation range. For technology China adopts to manage market, it has non-mature social condition and limited operation forms and range.Through the above comparative analysis ,we know that, on one hand, china and us are facing the impacts and challenges of global and regional integration, economic knowledge, management information, all in varying degrees to implement their own local governance practices and change, are constantly Exploration and innovation of local governance in their own ways and means; but on the other hand, the class nature, level of development, economic system, political system, social structure and cultural values of the two countries are different. Therefore, when China learns the useful techniques and methods of local governance from the US should not be like the blind, it should go into the road of Chinese localization in the local governance. Now, American local governance in general is a well-developed mature capitalist mode of local governance, but Chinese local governance model in general is a developing socialist mode of local governance of non-mature. It can conclude that the general development trend and goal of China's local governance mode is as following: To build a developed socialistic local governance mode, that is, the socialist public ownership as the basis, the Marxism-Leninism as the guide, the leadership of the Communist Party as the core, the government lead moderately, the combination of legislative and executive powers as characteristic, flexible the relative flexibility, dynamic interactive, transparent law, multi-centralized, flat level structure, high market, high social capital, high information, high networking, citizen-oriented, relatively clear boundary within government, unclear boundary among government , society and market, focus on public service functions.
|
PDF Full Text Request