Selective Implementation Of The Functions Of Community Committees In Urban Grassroots Governance

Equal consultation and pluralistic co-governance are the trend of urban grassroots social governance in China.Existing studies have shown that the coordinated development of co-governance is an effective way to promote social governance.According to the investigation of the social committee of S community in Shanghai,the phenomenon of "strong co-governance" and "weak co-governance" appears in the process of promoting community governance.In terms of co-governance,residents strong demands of co-governance,strong project execution ability,rich implementation environment resources and strong implementation effect.In the aspect of consultation,there are some phenomena such as policy substitution,low participation of community bodies,weak institutionalized norms and weak rational consultation ability of participants.So this article use the research question,literature method,observation method and interview method,combining the governance theory,the selective execution,it is concluded that appeared in the process of grassroots social management operation selective execution of reasons: first,policy provides the possibility and fuzzy for selective enforcement operation space;Second,the interest orientation is the intrinsic inducement,the execution subject is driven by the interest factor,"project" as the core of the funding and incentive system is not reasonable,driven by the performance,tend to choose co-governance behavior,which is more likely to produce explicit performance of the implementation;Thirdly,due to the advantages of projectivization,social committees tend to choose the implementation of co-governance functions to seek the legitimacy and sense of presence in the community;Finally,in the context of town management community,path dependence makes traditional community participation habits tend to choose co-governance.On this basis,it points out the social consequences caused by selective implementation in the current grass-roots social governance.On the negative side,it affects the realization of grass-roots governance goals,causes the waste of public resources,and affects the image of executing agencies.