The Public Operators' Practice And Dilemma

In recent years, the problem of social inequality and polarization between the rich and the poor gradually become serious.Under the background of that,the central government invests a large number of livelihood funds,and makes sure the fund can be used in earmarked way by strengthening the "Target Management Responsibility System" to the local government. So the "Project System" rises in that context.It is concerned that whether the large number of livelihood projects can achieve the state's goal. This article provides an inspiration to that problem from a case study on the Nanling region's practice to the Reconstruction Project invested by the central government.The author not only focused on the the grassroots government's actions,but also paid attention to the grass-roots people's reactions to the government.On the basis of that,this article took the finding of the empirical investigation to the background on which the state's large scale of livelihood projects,and revealed the possible conflicts and tension of the great social engineering.This article finds that the grassroots government turned into a special role as "Public Operator" under the dual pressures of the livelihood project and economic tasks.During the Reconstruction Project,faced with the dual pressures,Nanling government implemented the strategy of mobilizing market for its lack of source.Meanwhile, under the economy drive and pressure,Nanling government used the Reconstruction Project to promote the development of town,for the improvement of town's infrastructure,the development of business and services,the income of the rental land.On the other hand,Nanling government took the Reconstruction Project to serve the industrial park construction project.So the Reconstruction Project become the latter's fund's source and policy integration tools.The Nanling region's behavior pattern of promoting the development with public welfare was thus forming.For doing that,The Nanling region not only mobilized a large number of market resources,but also improved the livelihood project's quality of service and social benefits,and promoted the development of local economy.However, it led to a series of consequences.First, the government highlighted the role of the operator,and dealt with dispute between real estate developers and residents negatively,even shielding the real estate developers.So the dispute could not be mediated,and sometimes led to large-scale conflict. Second,the government's resource allocation gave priority to efficiency but not equity,and led to the people's collective protest for their lack of policies benefits.Public Operator was faced with the inherent dilemma in which economic development and social risk coexist.Theoretical concept of Public Operator can be widely used to analysis the government's role and behavioral characteristics.First,the livelihood projects invested by the state are of great potentiality to mobilize market,so the feature of grassroots government's behavior may be similar.Second,the contradiction between livelihood project enormous pressure and the lack of resources,and another contradiction between economic development and livelihood enterprise,are the same task what the most grassroots government may be faced with. So it shapes the same feature of grassroots government's behavior.The theoretical image t of Public Operator may generally reflected in the operation of the livelihood projects.However,the contradiction of role and distribution of Public Operator could cause social conflict and the conflict between citizen and the government during the practice of livelihood projects. What's more,the livelihood projects currently implemented may induce people's demand on which based on the idea of egalitarianism and desire for compensation,and cause the contradiction between the government's flexible operation and the people's demand.So the social benefits of livelihood projects will reduced.This paper argues that there is an limitation in the great social engineering basing on the Project System.lt is faced with the government's flexible operation respond to livelihood projects'and economic pressure,and can not basically meet the demands of people who are poor for long.In particular, the government's flexible operation is more likely to distort national targets.The paradox is that if the central government only emphasizes livelihood projects to construct national legitimacy, not considering whether the local-government's behavior match,even forcing the local-government achieve the state's goal with the logic of "sacrifice the politics for administrative",regardless of the social consequences facing by the latter,this behavior may overdraft public confidence in the country in future.After all,the social engineering launched by the state exists its limit under the existing system and the power structure.It comes from the social crisis,but state didn't accomplish"Rights of the Promotion",but improving people's livelihood to enhance the legitimacy.So it's different from the "Affirmative Action".The state takes advantages of the old system what can be the called advantages of central authority to local governments in centralization tradition and the paternalism in socialist state's governance tradition,response to the profound social crisis in market reform.So the old system's shortcomings such as the lower levels government's flexible and even negative response to parent,and people's over dependence on state welfare,may reduce effectiveness.of the social engineering launched by the state in turn.