Interviewer: Let’s dive into the insights you’ve gained about the current landscape of grassroots governance, especially regarding performance assessments. You mentioned that performance indicators are often misused in various regions. Can you shed some light on this issue?
Han Chaoyang: Absolutely. Performance assessments play a critical role in grassroots work. When implemented correctly, they can enhance work execution and promote accountability among officials. However, during our investigation at Half-Monthly Talk, we found that some regions have become overly reliant on performance indicators to navigate the complexities of grassroots governance. This has resulted in a concerning trend where, despite meeting numerical targets, the actual effectiveness of governance declines. In some instances, the sheer number of indicators seems to create a paradox: the more indicators there are, the poorer the real outcomes.
Interviewer: Can you share specific examples where these misaligned performance indicators fail to achieve the desired governance results?
Han Chaoyang: A notable example is the push for cremation in rural areas, which is part of funeral reforms aimed at land conservation. One local Party secretary from a central town expressed the immense pressure surrounding the “cremation rate.” When a death occurs, local officials are responsible for ensuring cremation happens. They often feel compelled to pressure grieving families, which can lead them to opt for traditional burials after cremation, thereby still occupying land. This clearly illustrates how performance metrics can diverge from genuine objectives.
Interviewer: It seems there’s a disconnect between the intended goals and the results of these assessments. What specific challenges do local officials encounter with these evaluations?
Han Chaoyang: Definitely. Many rural officials struggle with fiscal targets. They often mention that local governments resort to “headquarter economies,” luring businesses with tax incentives to establish local operations, regardless of actual business activity. This artificially enhances local fiscal indicators but fosters unhealthy competition through unsustainable tax cuts. When various departments impose unrealistic demands, such as hurried safety inspections after incidents, the results can be chaotic. For instance, a town official shared that they were pressured to assess thousands of homes quickly for safety, often relying on untrained local officials who lack the expertise. While report rates might hit 100%, the quality of assessments is frequently questionable.
Interviewer: It seems some indicators function more as a means of shifting accountability rather than promoting effective governance. Can you elaborate on that?
Han Chaoyang: Yes, for sure. Some performance assessments not only fail to align but actually foster a culture of scapegoating. In community disputes, for instance, local authorities are often held accountable for problems originating outside their jurisdiction, simply because the involved parties reside locally. This puts immense pressure on local governments to address issues beyond their control, diverting resources and efforts from viable solutions—ultimately inflating statistics without resolving the real problems.
Interviewer: The high-pressure environment created by these assessments is indeed alarming. What changes do you believe are necessary to improve the current system?
Han Chaoyang: We need to be cautious of falling into a cycle where “more assessments, higher standards, and faster accountability lead to increasingly empty results.” Some higher-level departments push their responsibilities down to local officials without considering whether those officials have the capacity to meet the demands. This disconnect hampers effective governance. There’s a pressing need to streamline supervision at the grassroots level, enabling meaningful reforms that reduce pressures and emphasize qualitative outcomes over mere numbers. It’s also essential that local officials are involved in developing performance targets to ensure they are practical and applicable to their unique situations.
Interviewer: How can grassroots officials reclaim control over their duties and responsibilities?
Han Chaoyang: The 20th Party Congress highlighted the importance of curbing the overall volume of inspections at the grassroots level, enhancing research quality, and reducing excessive check-ins. Local governments should have clearly defined responsibilities and receive support for tasks beyond their capacity. Ultimately, local leaders need to be empowered to operate effectively by participating actively in the design of their performance assessments, addressing the issues of formality and inefficiency that currently plague the system.
Interviewer: Your insights reveal significant systemic challenges. What do you foresee as the broader implications if these issues remain unaddressed?
Han Chaoyang: If these challenges continue, we risk entrenching a culture of formalism where performance metrics overshadow real governance efforts. This not only squanders resources but also erodes trust between the government and local communities. It’s crucial for higher-level bureaucracies to recognize and tackle these issues to build a more effective governance system that truly serves the populace rather than simply ticking boxes.
Interviewer: Thank you, Han Chaoyang, for sharing your valuable insights on this critical issue. It’s evident that addressing these problems is essential for the future of grassroots governance.
