Research On The Construction Of Official Accountability System In China Since The Founding Of The People ’S Republic Of China

At present,China is implementing the modernization of the national governance system.To establish the perfect each system has become an important task of the Party and the country.As a significant part of the national governance system,the accountability system for officials is also an edge tool for the big promotion of each work,which determines the necessity to vigorously improve the accountability system.But the existing studies mostly focus on the logic of the system and how to testify its reasonability from the qualitative point of view.Few of them examine the construction process of the system from a new historical perspective,which naturally leads to the excessive repeated research.This thesis bases on the theory of institutional change,and deconstructs the original institutional system with the method of text analysis,aiming at enriching some relevant theories of the accountability system for officials.According to the occurrence order of the important historical events,the establishment and adjustment of each institutions,and the introduction of relevant laws and regulations,the author divides the basic course of the construction of the accountability system for officials into four basic stages,namely the preliminary exploration stage(1949-1976),the redevelopment stage(1976-2003),the comprehensive promotion stage(2003-2013)and the summarization and deepening stage(2013 to present).Through the method of text analysis,this paper analyzes the static basic situation of the accountability system for officials at different stages to get an intuitive understanding of the five basic factors of the system,including "accountability,behavior,measurement,punishment and procedure".From these analyses,the author has grasped the basic characteristics of the dynamic process of the accountability system for officials:(1)the combined force of the high level,the event and the technical cooperation is the impetus of the system construction;(2)the main institution evolution mode is gradual rather than radical;(3)the path dependence exists in the construction of the system;(4)the phenomenon of convergence occurs between different officials and fields,as well as the Party and the country.Based on the practical point of view,this paper argues that the construction of the accountability system for officials in our country has formed a rather complete system,which strengthens the officials’ sense of duty,promotes the construction of political ecology and improves the national governance ability.Of course,there are still some problems in the construction of the accountability system for officials:firstly,there is a supply imbalance between the local governments and the central and local governments;secondly,the specific system shows that the construction of the allogeneic accountability system is relatively weak.The official accountability is relatively extensive and needs to be optimized;thirdly,the path dependence increases the cost of institutional construction;finally,the imperfect of the performance management system,the unsound officials’ return mechanism and the weakness of the authority of the accountability system for officials have led to the functional,political and social deinstitutionalized pressure.In order to build an accountability system for officials with Chinese characteristics to improve the accountability system of our officials,this article advocates the following aspects:(1)to draft and formulate the "official accountability law" to achieve the balance of institutional supply;(2)to strengthen the construction of the allogeneic accountability system,refine the standards of the official accountability,and optimize the accountability procedures for officials to improve the system factor;(3)to establish a list of powers,responsibilities and accountability to weaken the path dependence;(4)to improve the performance management system,standardize the mechanism of official return,and maintain the authority of the accountability system to improve the supporting system to eliminate the pressure of deinstitutionalize.