Inter-governmental reforms and county levels in China Liao LIAO

PhD Candidate of Political Science CHERPA-Sciences PO Aix, France Email: [email protected] Tel: +33666787515

Since the policy of reforming and opening, a big change has happened in China. Especially, a series of territorial reforms have been adopted, which bring a new local model of relationship between different levels of governments or perhaps furthermore, a new kind of local governance in China.

I. Subject：

A.Two important territorial reforms have been carried out.

Since the foundation of P.R. China, there were mainly 4 administrative levels in China1: state-province-county-village (town). However, in the sub-state levels, there was a prefectural level “qu” between the province and the county, which could be seen as a representative organization of province in local regions. During this period, China was a very centralized country, while with the planified economy and the system of “Hukou”, in China the cities and the counties were clearly separated. Besides ， the central government played an important part in Chinese society and within the provinces, different prefectures (qu) had controlled the local levels.

1. the first reform in 1983

However，as a consequence of the 1978 economic reforms, China has significantly restructured its administrative system. In 1983, there was a reform called 撤地改市 “che di gai shi” –changing the “qu” into central cities in order to empower central cities to play a leading role in driving national and regional economic development. In fact, central cities had been transformed into city-regions. In this reorganization of urban administrative space, many counties have acquired city status while others have been turned into city-counties. Such changes have clearly benefited the central cities. In 1986, in the regional structure of China, the number of “shi”-“central cities” represents 51% of the total at the prefectural level, while in 2004, this representation reached 85% at the prefectural level. So, “shi”-central cities could be considered as the main local model of administration in China2.

1Article 30 The Constitution of the People's Republic of China 2Research Center of Hainan, « the public service system: central and local government », Edition of Economics of China, 2006

1 2. the second reform in 2005

Although this “central cities” local mode played an important role in local economic development in China, its limits were more and more obvious with the local development and the urbanization procedure. In order to avoid its limits, another territorial reform has been also carried out especially after 2005 in China. The reform is called 省管县改革 “ sheng guan xian gai ge”- reform of county administrated directly by province. In fact, this reform has been experienced through a few steps since the beginning of 1990s in the province of Zhejiang and in 2002, some other provinces in China started also this experiment. This reform was successful in this experimental period and has been generalized in 2005 at the national level (except the autonomous regions and special administration zones in China).

B. Three types of counties in China

In fact, there are five administrative levels now in China. The first level is the state. On the second province level, there are 34 units including 23 provinces, 4 municipalities, 5 autonomous regions, 2 special administration zones. The third level is “shi”, which is the prefectural level. Then, on the level of counties, there are 3 types of counties in China. Finally, the smallest unit in China is the village or town where the most part is still rural3.

There are 3 types of counties:

1. The first type of county is the district, which is in the city area. On this type of county, there are totally 852 communities in all the prefectural cities in China. In the area of this county, the population density is very big with an active intern migration.

2. The second type of county is the county-city, which means the county has also urbanization but is still on the county level. In total, there are 374 county-cities in China.

3. The third type of county is the county in general sense. This area is usually around the central cities and the agriculture development is still an important factor for the local society. On this type of county, there are 1636 counties.

While we think back to the second territorial reform, the county administrated by province, we can find that the main kinds of counties are the second and third type talked above.

With this reform, counties can have much more powers than before and the relationship under the province level has changed from the model of 3 levels province/central city/county to the one of 2 levels province/central city or county.

3Statistics of the national administrative divisions in China in 2003

2 II. Research questions and hypotheses

A. Consequences in terms of autonomy

Firstly, with this reform, the financial system under the province has changed. The district can now directly get the whole subvention from the province without passing through the central city which usually took a part of this subvention. So, the district, which is involved in the reform, can get a more stable financial support. At the same time, there was also a reform of administrative procedure of approbation on public projects for aspects, such as social basic construction, education, health systems, and environmental protection and so on. Under this reform, local government of central cities or districts may have much more autonomy in public decisions without turning over the decision to the higher levels. What’s more, in some villages or districts in Sichuan, Zhejiang and other provinces in China, some direct selection of the director of village have been also held on in recent years, which presented that the local society could participate more and more in public affairs and a kind of new model of local governance4 is perhaps appearing in China.

B. Research issues and stakes

So, we may say that China is searching for a new local model of developing, as the urbanization is deepening in the rural parts of China. With this evolution, are the inter- governmental relationships changing? Besides, is the role of government in the society changing from a highly centralized interventionist government model into one that complements the market and fosters decentralized economic activities?5

1. A first set of hypotheses

4Guy Hermet, « la gouvernance, un concept et ses applications », CERI , 2005 5Qian and Weigast, « China’s Transition to Markets: Market-Perseving Federalism, Chinese Style», Journal of Policy Reform, 1996

3 A ． How to explain the general rule in China and the differences between provinces?

Hypothesis 1: The importance of territorial differences in the development, especially: 1 - the style of reorganization, which was first piloted in some provinces (Zhejiang 1992), and then was generalized (2002) and formalized (2005). 2 - the pace of economic development (urbanization, industrialization, international trade) that was highly variable, especially between the coast and inland.

Hypothesis 2: The impact of the timing of national economic policies. Can we distinguish it? -Phase 1 (mid-year 80 'and 90') experiment of opening the market (Deng Xiaoping). -Phase 2 (year 2000 '): confirmation and dissemination of "economic openness".

B ． What are the effects of the inter-governmental reform: simple change in leadership style or new style of public policy 6 ?

Hypothesis 1: Is there a change in the leadership style of local development? The reform has been driven according to a classic hierarchical scheme (top down)? It seems that in fact it has combined two complementary dynamic change managements (with shared responsibilities, and type of "cooperative" management).

Hypothesis 2: Is there a partial opening of the game players? What were the main players in this reform? The "perimeter" of the actors involved in this new style of economic development actions appears to have expanded in part (elected officials and technicians of Districts, local economic operators, NGOs and other social groups).

III. Cases studies

As this reform happened with dynamic and current results quite different from province to province, I have chosen two province cases in China, Province Zhejiang and Province Sichuan. Because Zhejiang was the first province which had begun this reform and it is in the eastern China, which can represent the eastern provinces in China while Province Sichuan which is in the west has begun this reform recently since 2007. With these two provinces, I may analyze the contrasts in researching in order to characterize the important factors influencing the reform. Besides, in each province, I also try to make a contrast by choosing the central cities with different social and economical developments so that I would have much more details which would also influence the actual reform. Besides, interviewing the policy makers at the local levels can also deepen the retain information.

However, although we find it differs much even between the two provinces, it exists also a lot of similar characters during the process of this reform and we may say that a

6Gilles Massardier, « Autoritarismes démocratiques et democratie autoritaire au XXI siècle », Ed. La découverte, Paris, 2008

4 new model of multilevel governance7 is going to appear in China. It seems this reform, important but out of media screens, is a mix of two complementary dynamics of change management which is important to understand (with shared responsibilities, and "cooperative" management style):

- A top-down type, where the central State sets the general framework of reform; -And another dynamic, a bottom-up one, where the provinces and districts are experimenting in this context new approaches and initiatives. This double trend could lead to some "horizontalization" negotiated interactions between public players (with only “ex-post” approval of local initiatives).

The “periphery” of actors involved in this new style of economic development activities appears to have expanded (including elected officials and technicians of the Districts, local economic actors, NGOs, "social" groups of entrepreneurs). So it can be seen as a certain pluralization of public action, especially as the level of supervision of Provinces appears more distant and relative than what used to be developed within urban region levels before.

7Jean Pierre Gaudin, « pourquoi la gouvernance », Paris, Presse de Science Po, La Bibliothèque du Citoyen, 2002

5