A new evaluation system on government performance has been drafted that may result in rankings for cities that are similar to those of universities.
Initiated by the Ministry of Personnel, the system was formulated by a group set up to research China’s government performance evaluation. Sang Zhulai, is the group’s director.
Sang points out that a busy government is not necessarily a good government, because it may not be addressing the most urgent problems of the people.
Many governments complain that they are inundated with all kinds of documents, administrative dictums, rules and regulations. Civil servants, they insist, are dedicated, hardworking and unappreciated.
But Sang say that essentially a government is not to control but to provide service, and its performance should be evaluated through whether the public -- individuals, enterprises and society as a whole -- is satisfied with that service.
The “principle of satisfaction” upon which the government performance appraisal system is based includes economic evaluation, which requires the government to conduct cost-benefit analyses, save money and spend less to do more. Assessment of efficiency examines the ratio of input to the output, while the effectiveness evaluation is concerned with the quality of organization and its ultimate impact on society. Effectiveness should be reflected in satisfied people and social and economic development. Equality is also a standard, ensuring that groups and individuals are treated equally.
Sang notes that governments at several levels have drafted evaluation indices that include economic, job performance, trustworthiness and efficiency indicators.
But some defects have been detected in those items. First, many governments put priority on GDP and attracting investment, but, the reform of the administrative approval system renders invalid performance evaluations based solely on economic growth.
Moreover, there are too many internal evaluations. Experts hold that these indices belong to internal management and are thus not conducive to public monitoring and evaluation.
What is important is to measure the effect and contribution of government on society.
Scholars also suggest establish citizen appraisal committee composed of municipal citizens.
Sang says that the government’s job description is just as important as its performance appraisal.
Many local governments and departments establish criteria that are related only to a small part of the organization. For example, many localities promote the growth of certain cash crops and evaluate performance based only on direct contribution to that target. The result is that only the sections of the organization that directly promote growth of that crop are assessed as successful.
Obviously, says Sang, such criteria distort and hinder both the evaluation process and the functioning of the government. International experience of public administration shows that such systems evoke resistance and resentment from the people concerned and encourage the falsification of data.
|
Government performance |
Primary Indexes |
Secondary Indexes |
Tertiary Indexes |
|
Effect |
Economy |
Per capita GDP |
|
Labor productivity |
|
Ratio of external investment to GDP |
|
Society |
Average life expectancy |
|
Engel's Coefficient |
|
Average education received |
|
Population and environment |
Environment and ecology |
|
Proportion of non-rural population |
|
Natural growth rate of population |
|
Function |
Economic adjustment |
GDP growth rate |
|
Urban registered unemployment rate |
|
Fiscal revenue and expenditure |
|
Market monitoring |
Improvement of laws |
|
Law enforcement |
|
Enterprise satisfaction |
|
Social management |
Ratio of the poor to the aggregate population |
|
Crime rate |
|
Traffic and industrial accident fatality rate |
|
Public service |
Infrastructure |
|
Information transparency |
|
Public satisfaction |
|
State asset management |
Rate of value added and guaranteed in state-owned enterprises |
|
Ratio of other state assets to GDP |
|
Growth rate of profits realized by state-owned enterprises |
|
Potential |
Human resources |
Proportion of administrative staff with bachelor’s degrees |
|
Leadership team-building |
|
Strategic human resource planning |
|
Clean government |
Ratio of corruption cases to administrative staff |
|
Working style of officials |
|
Citizen appraisal |
|
Administrative efficiency |
Ratio of administrative funding to fiscal expenditure |
|
Ratio of administrative staff to aggregate population |
|
Level of information management |
(People.com August 2, 2003)
