China’s Administration and Civil Service Reform

Background of China’s Reform

China’s administrative system before the reform years was considered by many researchers as inefficient and incapable of supporting the reform policies (Burns, 1983, 1993; Chow, 1991; Harding, 1981, 1987; Manion, 1985). The old administrative system encountered many bureaucratic and political problems because it was run not by competitively recruited civil servants but by cadres recommended by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Some of these cadres did not possess the knowledge and expertise necessary for managing the economic development because they were recruited based on their political loyalty and connection. In addition, government operations and public services were negatively affected by several political and ideological campaigns and struggles (Burns, 1983).

To support the goal of economic development, Chinese leaders have introduced many reform measures to gradually change the structures and operations of China’s administrative system. At the early stage of the reforms, Chinese leaders introduced new ideas and policies to change the operations of their traditional system. The changes emphasized included strategies such as decentralization of decision-making power from the central government to local governments and separation of economic enterprise management from administrative agencies and functions (Liou, 1999 You, 1986). The purpose of these adjustment policies was to provide incentives for local cadres, enterprise managers, workers, and farmers to improve their production and performance.

On the basis of the lessons from the early reforms, Chinese leaders introduced systemwide changes to support Deng Xiaoping’s call for deeper reform and development in 1992. One important system reform, for example, is the reform of China’s cadre management system. China’s traditional cadre management system suffered many bureaucratic problems that made the system inefficient and unprofessional (Cabestan, 1992; Chow, 1991). The cadre system included some questionable and unprofessional recruitment, performance evaluation, and reward methods. To develop a modern civil service system, the Chinese government adopted the Provisional Regulations on State Civil Servants in 1993 to address many personnel issues, which include the duties of civil servants, job categories, recruitment procedures, appraisal procedures, performance rewards, discipline, promotion and demotion policies, transfer, pay, resignation, and retirement (Lam & Chan, 1995; Tsao & Worthley, 1995).

After China’s entry to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, Chinese leaders recognized the need to expand the scope of reforms to meet requirements and challenges of the global environment (Guo, 2002). In the area of civil service reform, many professional personnel management concepts and methods have been emphasized and embodied in the Chinese civil service system. Many government agencies now adopt open examination and selection methods in the recruitment and promotion of government employees and emphasize performance measurement systems in the evaluation of employee and agency performance. These management principles were formally emphasized in 2005 when Chinese leaders expanded the scope of civil servants in the Law of Civil Servants (Chan & Li, 2007; Xinhua News Agency, 2005).

Recognizing the changes present in China’s administrative reforms, researchers of public administration have developed research symposiums to understand China’s reform experiences. For example, Holzer and Zhang (2009) identified six themes in their symposium on comparison between China and American public administration. The six themes consist of articles studied China’s public administration education, public budgeting and fiscal administration, administration and civil service reform, policy implementation, local and intergovernmental relations, and new governance. Among these themes, the area of administration and civil service reform has been the focus of public administration studies and will be further examined in this symposium.

Summary of Symposium Articles

The purpose of this symposium is to examine China’s reform and development experience in its administration and civil service system. The symposium consists of five articles that are related to major concepts and cases of government reforms, values present in the civil service reform, challenges in appraising employee performance, experiences of civil service training, and lessons of pay reform as it relates to public corruption.

The first article by Xue and Liou examines the development of China’s government reforms by analyzing eight cases in four management areas of personnel, structure, strategy, and process. Based on major concepts of recent pubic management reforms, they explain China’s reforms from the framework of managerial competency, organizational capacity, accountability and transparency, and citizen participation. They recognize four characteristics of China’s reforms, including the expansion of reform scope, the importance of local innovation, the increase of international connection, and the concerns about social and political stability.

Focusing on the civil service reform, Jing and Zhu study the development of China’s civil service reform from the interaction of political, managerial, and legal values. They discuss the development from a conflict-oriented to a harmony-oriented model and the effort to institutionalize the coexistence of competing values in the 2005 Civil Service Law. Their study shows limitations of the harmony-oriented model because of the weakness of value reconciliation in China’s integrated political system and the need for the development of institutional capacities to balance the competing values.

Within the scope of civil service reform, Liu and Dong explain the development and improvement of China’s civil servants’ performance appraisal system. They review major components of the Provisional Regulation on Appraisal of Civil Servants of 1994, the document of Suggestions on Strengthening the Appraisal Work of the Civil Servants of 2000, and the proposal of the Regulation on Appraisal of the Civil Servants of 2007. They point out problems of the current system, including the immature civil service system, underdeveloped performance management practices, and operational defects of the performance appraisal system itself. The authors recommend the need for establishing a holistic performance management framework, enhancing raters’ training mechanisms, clarifying job responsibilities and specifications, and emphasizing performance improvement and career growth.

Addressing the need for civil service training, Yang and his colleagues examine benefits and challenges of civil servant training from a case study of one local government in China. They recognize that China’s centralized training system encounters similar problems as in Western countries, such as inadequate training needs assessment, low motivation on the part of employees, and difficulty in measuring training outcomes. They note that trainees provide suggestions about training decentralization and marketization as a solution, but they argued that the government is unlikely to rush to it because of concerns for other issues.

Finally, Gong and Wu examine China’s civil service pay reform and the relationship between pay reform and anticorruption efforts. On the basis of some empirical data, their study reveals parallel dramatic increases in both the levels of corruption and of civil service pay in recent years. They observe a limited role of higher remuneration in controlling corruption in China’s public service and maintain that corruption prevention is a multifaceted mission, which requires concerted efforts in various areas of human resource management and beyond.

Conclusion

This symposium includes five articles that address important issues related to China’s administration and civil service system. The findings of these articles provided important lessons about China’s reforms. First, all of the studies indicate that China has improved its administrative system since the beginning of its reform policy. For more than 30 years, Chinese leaders have adopted many professional management concepts to introduce gradual reforms. These reforms have changed the structure and operation of China’s administration system from a traditional cadre-based system to a new civil service–based system. These reforms have contributed to China’s successful economic and social development.

While recognizing changes and improvements, the authors of these articles identify some common problems in their studies. For example, Xue and Liou indicated the concern of social stability and the problem of official corruption during the process of reforms. Gong and Wu address the corruption issue and recognize the limitation of pay reforms to control corruption. Liu and Dong emphasize the importance of civil service trainings in performance appraisal and related personnel management issues. Yang and his colleagues examine local training programs and identify weaknesses of current civil service training approaches. Jing and Zhu point out that the problems of civil service reform are related to the weakness of value reconciliation in China’s integrated political system.

These articles also point out that Chinese reformers have not fully adopted Western concepts of public management. Instead, they have introduced some revised versions of Western reforms to fit with China’s political system. One example is the 2005 Law of Civil Servants, which has changed the CCP into a political institution and has affirmed its role in civil service management (Chan & Li, 2007). These characteristics of China’s reforms reveal the influence of political and social environment on reform efforts. These environmental factors will affect China’s further government reforms in terms of reform scope and timeline. Future studies of Chinese administrative reforms should pay attention to these environmental factors and examine their interactions with reforms to fully understand the contribution of the Chinese experience to the literature of public administration.