IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0288665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Single or pluralistic? The game and balance of China’s community governance policy tools

Author

Listed:
  • Hongxun Xiang
  • Yangfan Bu
  • Xunhua Wang

Abstract

Background: Policy tools embody policy concepts and are essential to achieving policy objectives. The effective allocation of policy tools directly impacts the effectiveness of community governance and determines the modernization process of grassroots governance. We aim to analyze the logic of community governance policy tool selection, and then provide assistance for the modernization of grassroots governance. Methods: We selected 100 national and provincial government work reports and 63 policy documents related to community governance during China’s “12th Five-Year Plan” to “14th Five-Year Plan” period as analysis samples. And build an analysis framework based on the three dimensions of time, space, and tools. We used Nvivo.20 software for text encoding analysis. Results: Based on the model framework, we analyze the results as follows. From the perspective of the time dimension, among the five types of policy tools, the proportion of command-type policy tools used showed a downward trend, from 88.16% in the 12th Five-Year Plan to 83.50% in the 14th Five-Year Plan. However, motivation-type and persuasion-type tools showed an upward trend, rising from 1.34% and 5.26% in the 12th Five-Year Plan period to 3.40% and 8.74% in the 14th Five-Year Plan respectively. The system-change-type policy tools decreased from 1.32% in the 12th Five-Year Plan to 0.97% in the 14th Five-Year Plan. The proportion of capacity-building-type policy tools has gradually increased from 2.63% in the 12th Five-Year Plan to 4.85% in the 14th Five-Year Plan. From the perspective of spatial dimension, apart from command and persuasion policy tools, the usage frequency of the other three types of policy tools in the three major regions all display a “growth-decline-growth” trend. From the perspective of tool dimension, command-type policy tools are dominant in China’s community governance, with a cumulative frequency of 1405 times and a high proportion of 81.75%. Apart from command policy tools, persuasive policy tools and capacity-building policy tools have a relatively high proportion, with usage frequencies of 186 and 78 respectively. Conclusions: We found that current community governance policy tools mainly consist of command tools. However, there is a trend towards combining tools such as command, persuasion, incentive, capacity building, and system change in the future. There is a typical contradiction between instrumental rationality and value rationality, indicating an evolution from instrumental rationality to the integration of instrumental and value rationality. This study addresses the conflict of policy tools through rational guidance of values, the rational guarantee of tools, and cooperation to achieve the goal of high-quality development of community governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongxun Xiang & Yangfan Bu & Xunhua Wang, 2023. "Single or pluralistic? The game and balance of China’s community governance policy tools," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288665
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288665
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288665
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288665&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0288665?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 2002. "Social Capital and Community Governance," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(483), pages 419-436, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Olza Donazar, Luis & Montero Eseverri, Eduardo & Marini Govigli, Valentino, 2019. "The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 100-109.
    2. Litina, Anastasia, 2012. "Unfavorable land endowment, cooperation, and reversal of fortune," MPRA Paper 39702, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Gabriel Burdí­n & Andrés Dean, 2009. "Las decisiones de empleo y salarios de cooperativas de trabajo y empresas capitalistas : evidencia para Uruguay en base a datos de panel," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 09-02, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    4. Bénédicte Gendron, 2004. "Why emotional capital matters in education and in labour? toward an Optimal exploitation of human capital and knowledge management," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques r04113, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    5. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Michael Storper, 2006. "Better Rules or Stronger Communities? On the Social Foundations of Institutional Change and Its Economic Effects," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 82(1), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Isabel Miralles & Domenico Dentoni & Stefano Pascucci, 2017. "Understanding the organization of sharing economy in agri-food systems: evidence from alternative food networks in Valencia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 833-854, December.
    7. Dupouet, Olivier & Yildizoglu, Murat, 2006. "Organizational performance in hierarchies and communities of practice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 668-690, December.
    8. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    9. Anastasia Litina, 2016. "Natural land productivity, cooperation and comparative development," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 351-408, December.
    10. de Melo, Gioia & Piaggio, Matías, 2015. "The perils of peer punishment: Evidence from a common pool resource framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 376-393.
    11. Ruffle, Bradley J. & Tobol, Yossef, 2014. "Honest on Mondays: Honesty and the temporal separation between decisions and payoffs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 126-135.
    12. Noel Castree & David J. Keeling & Jerald Podair & Michael Pryke & Duncan W. Scott & Paul Lambe & Robert McMaster & Michael Slivka, 2005. "Book Reviews," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(8), pages 1471-1484, July.
    13. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    14. Desai, Raj M. & Olofsgård, Anders, 2019. "Can the poor organize? Public goods and self-help groups in rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 33-52.
    15. Rodriguez-Sickert, Carlos & Guzmán, Ricardo Andrés & Cárdenas, Juan Camilo, 2008. "Institutions influence preferences: Evidence from a common pool resource experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 215-227, July.
    16. Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2011. "The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 193-210, February.
    17. Anne Marie Ward & John Forker, 2017. "Financial Management Effectiveness and Board Gender Diversity in Member-Governed, Community Financial Institutions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 351-366, March.
    18. Antoci, Angelo & Galeotti, Marcello & Russu, Paolo & Zarri, Luca, 2006. "Generalized trust and sustainable coexistence between socially responsible firms and nonprofit organizations," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 783-802.
    19. repec:tiu:tiucen:200457 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Asproudis, Elias & Filippiadis, Eleftherios, 2021. "Bargaining for Community Fishing Quotas," MPRA Paper 107409, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. R. Quentin Grafton & Stephen Knowles, 2002. "Social Capital and National Environmental Performance: A Cross-sectional Analysis," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0206, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288665. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.