Institutional basis of local government management in China

The first part constructs the institutional basis of local government performance management in China.

Over the past 20 years of reform and opening up, the political system reform has been carried out step by step with the deepening of economic system reform. Today, the transformation of government functions and institutional adjustment are still the focus of reform. With the deepening of reform, it is imperative to reform the government management mode, improve the management level, establish a code of conduct, and innovate a coordinated, fair, transparent, efficient and clean government management mode. Among them, government performance management is an important part of government management innovation.

The research on the performance management of local governments in China is a new thing in recent years. The so-called government performance management refers to evaluating the government's performance and achievements as accurately as possible with scientific methods, standards and procedures, and improving and upgrading the government's performance on this basis. As a practical management tool to improve and evaluate government performance, government performance is bound to be related to the institutional foundation laid by the government administrative model. This is an important reason that affects the improvement of government performance. With China's accession to the World Trade Organization and the continuous improvement of the socialist market economic system, especially the great impact of globalization and informatization, China's socialist modernization is facing the dual tasks of industrialization and informatization. Improving government performance plays a vital role in promoting the government to effectively implement the strategic plan of economic development, achieving the established goal of a well-off society and sustainable development, maintaining the smooth operation of government administration and improving government administrative efficiency. Therefore, it is the key to reform the traditional administrative model and improve government performance to explore the necessity of implementing performance management in local governments in China, replace the efficiency concept under the traditional administrative model with the concept of new public management, establish the institutional basis for implementing government performance management, and design a strategic performance management framework and systematic performance evaluation method suitable for the new situation.

First, the limitations of performance management under the traditional administrative model

(A) the main problems of the traditional administrative model

1. The internal and external environment of the traditional administrative model of China local government.

The traditional administrative model has played an irreplaceable role in the historical process of industrialization, and its normal operation needs specific social and historical conditions. The traditional administrative model refers to the modern administrative model with bureaucracy as the core that has been implemented since the British civil service reform in the19th century. The political-administrative dichotomy, bureaucracy and scientific management methods, which constitute the main contents of the traditional administrative model, have had an important impact on adapting to the development of industrialization and shaping the current administrative model in all countries of the world. In the west, the basic guiding ideology of the traditional administrative model is as follows: political leaders control the administrative department through election or appointment. Under the bureaucratic system, the administrative department is composed of neutral, permanent and impersonal officials, who carry out the policies of the ruling party to the letter. The normal operation and administrative efficiency within the administrative department are guaranteed by bureaucracy, procedures and rules of conduct, while the external department relies on the streamlined and slow-paced social environment as the premise of effective operation. Although modern countries have different social systems, political systems and democratic forms, the traditional administrative model meets the requirements of the development of productive forces and is conducive to the development of industrialization, which has been widely adopted by governments in various countries. With the establishment of the civil service system, the government structures and administrative models of various countries are very similar. In China, the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China established a major policy centered on economic construction and began the process of reform, opening up and modernization. As an inevitable requirement of industrialization and modernization, China began to separate the party from the government in the 1980s, and formally implemented the national civil service system in 1993. The traditional administrative model has become the only choice for local governments in China. With the change of internal and external conditions, the disadvantages of the traditional administrative model that can't adapt to the development of post-industrialization and informatization situation have also emerged in the administrative practice of various countries, including China. It is particularly worth mentioning that: for the local government in China today, under the historical condition of highly planned system for a long time, the basic function of local government is to implement the political intention of the central government at the local level and carry out extremely limited local economic, cultural and social construction tasks on the premise of playing a chess game nationwide. There is no need for the traditional administrative model to exist. Therefore, under the conditions of reform and opening-up, the traditional administrative model with the civil service system as the core is still a new thing in China. Under the double impact of industrialization and informatization, the local government in China is caught in a dilemma, that is, under the traditional western administrative model, there is no skilled management skills and experience to ensure the efficient operation of the government, but it must adapt to the requirements of informatization and reform the disadvantages of the traditional administrative model, so it is more difficult to implement government management innovation. Therefore, it is of special significance to analyze the internal and external environment of the traditional administrative model.

① Internal environment. Whether at home or abroad, the internal environment of bureaucracy includes the organizational structure, procedures, behavioral characteristics, operation and technical means of government administration.

From the perspective of organizational structure, bureaucracy follows the following principles within the framework of rationality and legitimacy:

-Legal structure;

-Administrative posts and corresponding administrative powers are hierarchical in structure;

-Archives-based management;

-The administrative organization consists of official office equipment and documents;

-provided that they have been fully trained to perform government administrative duties;

-The perfection of administrative management requires officials to have sufficient working ability;

-The government office management is stable, comprehensive and learnable.

According to the above principles, government administration has the basic characteristics of specialization, hierarchy, knowledge and stability in structure. It replaces the traditional political control with the management of knowledge and skills, and the unreasonable personal authority with the legitimacy of the organization. Specifically, according to the goal that the government wants to accomplish, the bureaucracy is structurally divided into labor and power distribution. Professional work activities are coordinated through hierarchical authority, and government agencies are led by a single authority (that is, the chief executive responsibility system). Individual members are promoted through different majors and levels according to their qualifications and merits. Government agencies will exist for a long time. If they do not change with the entry and exit of members, the structure of government agencies will be destroyed and society will fall into chaos.

From the procedural point of view, due to the bureaucratic structure, the administrative procedure has the characteristics of dehumanization, formalism, rule restriction and high discipline.

From the perspective of administrative behavior, bureaucracy has the characteristics of high efficiency, authority and continuous expansion.

From the perspective of administrative operation, bureaucracy has played a great role in the whole industrialization period. It achieves the best efficiency at the purely technical level with rigor, rationality, stability and applicability. In this sense, bureaucracy is the most rational way of personnel control. Bureaucracy provides the strictest authoritative structure for instruction delivery and enables instruction publishers to better predict the effect.

From the perspective of management technology. At the beginning of the 20th century, the scientific management movement advocated by American frederick taylor had an important influence on public management. The scientific management theory consists of three parts, namely, the action and time of determining work standards, the piece-rate system and the task management system with clear responsibilities. The structure and operational characteristics of scientific management movement and bureaucracy complement each other, focusing on improving the actual operational efficiency of working procedures, and its idea of standardization and systematic control is very suitable for the hierarchy, process and convention of bureaucracy. In order to operate for the bureaucracy. Provides an excellent method. It is widely used in administrative activities. Administration is not only regarded as an art, but also a science, which is generally applicable to general management techniques and methods.

Through the analysis of the internal environment of administrative organizations, it can be seen that due to the isomorphism of Chinese and foreign governments, the core of administrative operation is the same at any level of government, that is, administration is a management problem within an administrative organization, administration is a separate process, and administrative organization is a closed organization. The operating characteristics of this organization are: the government can complete routine tasks under stable conditions, and a clear division of labor is the main means of government administration; Administration emphasizes the way to solve internal conflicts from top to bottom; Emphasis on work responsibility, members shall not exceed their authority; Members are loyal to subordinate departments, and information monopoly is implemented internally, and only the top management knows everything; The basic relationship between members is the vertical relationship between giving and receiving orders, the vertical relationship between management and obedience, and the horizontal relationship is very few; A person's position in an organization is determined by his official position.

The advantage of this closed internal environment is that all the results of organizational operation can be obtained through internal operation, which has nothing to do with the outside. People can predict the results through the goals set by government agencies. Under closed conditions, as long as government agencies have the above characteristics to operate, the efficiency can reach the best state.

② External environment. Adapting to the internal administrative environment, the traditional administrative model is suitable for the external environment with slow pace of social life and simple social structure and social relations.

2. The internal and external dilemma of the traditional administrative model and its performance.

① External dilemma. In the west, the fundamental purpose of administrative dichotomy theory is to establish a politically neutral civil servant team according to the principle of relative separation of politics and administration, so as to reduce the political division and the instability of government administration caused by the rotation of political parties. The management technology provided by dichotomy theory, bureaucracy and scientific management movement has effectively improved the work efficiency of the government. However, with the development of society, the traditional administrative management model is facing increasingly severe environmental challenges. The process of industrialization has caused extremely complicated changes in social relations. In contemporary China, the new factors brought by the reform and opening up are: the continuous innovation of the Socialism with Chinese characteristics system, the establishment and continuous improvement of the market economic system; China's accession to the World Trade Organization, globalization and informatization impact China; With the development of market economy, the constitution is constantly revised, and the protection of citizens' property rights and human rights is becoming more and more complete. With the initial establishment of judicial procedures, people's awareness of the rule of law and rights protection has been enhanced. Direct elections at the next level have been popularized; The autonomy of local economic development has been expanded, and regional economic cooperation and competition have been strengthened; The modern enterprise system was initially established; The people's demands for government services are increasing day by day, social interests are diversified, and government financial pressure is increasing. In short, under the condition of planned economy, the social condition of single convergence no longer exists. The emergence of new factors puts forward new requirements for government administration: first, the government's administrative activities need more sustained cooperation with all walks of life. Second, government administration is more restricted by the whole society. Third, the focus of government administrative activities has shifted from political control that reflects the will of the state to providing public goods to the society. Fourth, the government, as the highest-level public organization in the whole society, can no longer ignore the high uncertainty of the environment. The government must consider the closeness and openness of administrative activities and adapt to the changeable external environment. Through the analysis of the internal environment of the traditional administrative model, we can see that the closeness of the organizational form under the traditional administrative model can no longer meet the challenges of the external environment changes. In the planned 1980s, in order to solve the breakfast problem of citizens in some cities in Northeast China, governments at all levels set up "steamed bread offices" one after another, which effectively solved the problem by administrative means and planning methods. Under the circumstances that people's living standards are not high, there is little room for consumption choices, and the polarization between the rich and the poor in society is not obvious, this is indeed a typical example of the government's concern for people's lives. Today, the same method can't adjust the diversified demand, but it will cause a huge waste of government administrative resources.

② Internal dilemma. Through the analysis of the external factors of administrative institutions, we can see that the traditional administrative management model is difficult to cope with the rapidly changing external conditions. Under the double impact of informationization and globalization, its inherent disadvantages are as follows:

-not guided by the interests of the masses. Redundant administrative procedures and huge institutional setup have bound the hands and feet of government officials, reduced work efficiency, and the cost for people to obtain services is extremely high. The masses have changed from the masters of the government to the dependence of the government, and the purpose of serving the people has changed from doing things according to procedures to serving the people, not doing work, but doing work.

-Not result-oriented. The response to different needs of society is the same, and it is even more impossible to provide services according to needs. For example, in the process of examining and approving the establishment of the owners' committee, the residential management office of the Land and Resources Administration of a municipality directly under the Central Government refused to approve the request of the residents of the residential area who have been paralyzed in property management for three years to establish the owners' committee, because although the original owners' committee has been in operation for three years, its term of office has not expired according to the current regulations, although more than 70% of the residents have signed for re-election of the owners' committee. However, the local residential property management regulations have no explicit provisions on this situation. The residents' office's request for residents to re-elect the owners' committee is not recognized. After letting the residential property continue to be paralyzed for one year, the problem was reflected to the superior unit of the department-the director of the Land and Resources Bureau of a municipality directly under the Central Government.

-Without market orientation, it is difficult to coordinate administrative actions.

The closure of administrative agencies leads to the fragmentation of government departments. Because only government departments have no branches, administrative agencies lack the pressure and motivation to face the market, government policies do not have timely and direct feedback, and there is a lack of responsibility and supervision mechanism. Administrative operation can not achieve the overall planning of urban and rural areas, regions, economy and society, man and nature, and domestic development and opening up. From the perspective of overall planning, administrative operation is more and more prone to errors, and the measures taken in administrative operation can not achieve the effect that this measure does not hinder the normal functioning of other measures. Finally, the administrative measures taken have made the situation worse, not alleviated, resulting in a serious waste of resources. In the cities of China, the most common example of this situation is that roads are compressed, dug, filled and dug. At the same time, because the managers of government departments have no ownership of institutions and work, they lack the incentive mechanism of similar enterprises. Civil servants work as little as possible, take the initiative to shirk their responsibilities, and short-term behavior is popular. For example, a sentence that is often heard in government departments is: "This matter is not in my charge, and I will find whoever I want." . Chief executives are more keen to build some flashy performance projects and image projects during their term of office. Under the increasing financial pressure, the expenditure of government departments is far from the actual demand, and the policy of earmarking funds makes it normal to spend money at the end of the year. At present, the supervision of government departments by the masses is usually carried out indirectly through the Commission for Discipline Inspection, the National People's Congress, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the news media. Indirect supervision can hardly be transformed into direct and effective pressure on government departments. In addition, the traditional administrative model has not been in operation for a long time in China. Compared with the operation of western governments, there is still a considerable gap in administrative standardization and management skills, and there is still a considerable degree of political control and administrative governance in the administrative actions of local governments. The behavior of the chief executive of the local government considers the political achievements far beyond the actual consideration, but lacks the overall consideration of marketization. For example, for a period of time after the mid-1980s, some major cocoon-producing provinces in the south were faced with the situation that some economically strong coastal provinces in the south bought cocoons at high prices, competed with their processing enterprises for raw materials, prohibited the export of cocoons outside the province, and even used armed police forces to block the border. As a result, this measure aimed at seeking the economic benefits of this province has caused the processing capacity of this province to be unable to digest the cocoon of this province. The embargo on producing areas led to the shutdown of some economically strong provinces with major processing capacity in China due to the lack of raw materials. This highly regarded initiative, involving the overall coordination of urban and rural areas, regions, economy and society, became a major news that sensationalized the whole country at that time.

-In the case of diversified administrative objectives, conflicting values affect efficiency.

Theoretically speaking, local government administration must have its own clear objectives, which are the criteria for local governments to evaluate their performance, the basis for controlling government activities, and the basis for judging whether administrative operation is reasonable. The goal is helpful to determine the nature of government administrative technical means, influence the structure of government organization, and show the true face and characteristics of government organization to the outside world, which is the starting point and foundation of reforming the traditional administrative model. If the social and economic development goals of local governments are clear and the degree of realization of these goals is logical, then its efficiency can be achieved by measuring these goals. Generally speaking, the smaller the organization, the more single the goal, and it is relatively easy to measure efficiency. On the contrary, the larger the organization, the more complex its structure and the environment it faces. Its goals are often vague and it is difficult to measure its efficiency.

As the highest-level organization of the whole society, the government is responsible for the whole society from the perspective of political rule. The government should ensure the interests of the rulers and take care of the interests of its allies. Perfuncturing the non-essential social requirements of the ruled itself makes the government's social and political goals diversified, while from the perspective of administrative governance, the government's social management and economic and cultural construction functions are more complex, diverse and conflicting. In modern society, the weight of economic and social goals managed by the government far exceeds the weight of political goals. Therefore, for local governments in China, the conflict between goal diversification and value in reality is mainly reflected in the priority order of different values in specific periods and specific matters. For example, according to a survey conducted by Liu Kaiming, a reporter of Shenzhen Legal News for many years, while introducing a large number of foreign capital to promote healthy development, the protection of the rights and interests of migrant workers in Longgang and Baoan districts, especially the compensation for work-related injuries of migrant workers, is extremely prominent. The goals of efficiency and fairness will inevitably conflict in economic development. In the face of these conflicts, compared with the central government, the administrative objectives of local governments are generally more general and difficult to define, because the leaders of local governments at a certain level are constrained by various external political and administrative factors, and local governments will inevitably have different priority choices in the face of competitive value orientation conflicts between economic development and social justice.

In addition, even if the administrative objectives of a local government can be clearly defined, the diversity of objectives will also cause internal policy conflicts. Common examples are: different government departments will have different opinions under the same goal of serving economic development. The tax department supports the establishment of roadside farmers' markets, and the urban management department is worried about damaging the city appearance. The traffic control and public security departments are worried that traffic and public order will not be guaranteed and oppose it. There are countless examples of conflicts between government departments.

Therefore, the influence of target diversification on the efficiency of local government in China is various. First of all, target diversification affects the measurement of value. First, like the central government, the expression of administrative objectives of local governments should conform to the ultimate goal of serving the people wholeheartedly. The ultimate goal is often embodied through the expression of value. The value is abstract and the goal is concrete. It is difficult to describe the abstract value pursued by administrative organizations with specific goals. For example, when the new government of a province announces the economic development goal of the new government, it must not be said that the new government aims at serving the people by setting the annual economic growth rate at 8%, but not at 7%. Similarly, in order to avoid this situation, the purpose may be replaced by more specific means. Second, there is no comparability between efficiency and value. Efficiency refers to the input-output ratio under a certain input, but efficiency can't solve the problem of comparing the realized value of different schemes under the same efficiency, that is, after using the same resources, different schemes can measure the cost with a unified standard but can't measure the benefit with the same value standard. For example, in the late 1990s, Tianjin Women's Federation (nominally a non-governmental organization, but it should still be regarded as a government organization under the special national conditions of China), with the assistance of the representative office of the United Nations Development Programme in China, began to help laid-off women workers find jobs with microfinance. If the same funds are not invested in the form of microfinance, but distributed to the same number of laid-off women workers in the form of solatium, the efficiency of microfinance is better than that of solatium. However, we must not draw such a value judgment that granting solatium will not help unemployed women workers.

Secondly, the diversification of objectives makes it difficult for local governments to solve the problem of efficiency ranking, and different value standards will lead to different efficiency evaluation standards. In the case of diversified goals, local governments have to choose among various goals in order to give consideration to the distribution and balance of interests of various interest groups inside and outside the government. Therefore, the diversification of the objectives of administrative institutions will inevitably lead to different understandings of the value embodied in organizational efficiency inside and outside administrative institutions, but the efficiency model under the traditional administrative model can not reflect this feature, and the efficiency research methods applicable to enterprises can not reflect the diversified value of administrative institutions. This is very prominent in Shanghai's industrial development structure. According to the industrial comparative advantage, the economic benefit of developing grain planting in Shanghai is far lower than that in Xinjiang, and the Shanghai Municipal Government also intends to cooperate with Xinjiang and give Xinjiang some subsidies for grain production. Xinjiang solved Shanghai's grain supply, and Shanghai gave up most of its grain production. From an economic point of view. This is undoubtedly a win-win policy, but the cooperation between Shanghai and Xinjiang in grain production has not been completed so far from the consideration of preventing the reduction of cultivated land and balancing grain varieties.

-input and output are difficult to evaluate.

It is easy to calculate the efficiency input of local governments. Information, people, money and things can all be converted into money to measure, but it is insurmountable to measure the output of local governments. Generally speaking, the non-exclusiveness and non-competitiveness of public goods make it impossible for local governments to adjust their products and services by obtaining information in time like enterprises. In fact, it is difficult not only for the public sector to grasp enough information, but also for consumers of public goods to judge the output of government public goods (service quality and cost paid for services). Without information, it is extremely difficult to measure the output of government public goods. For example, as a public product, the street lamp service provided by the municipal departments of local governments is not exclusive, so the government cannot compare the output of a family of ten who seldom go out at night with a family of two who walk every night. As a result, local governments often measure their output by expenditure, and the news that "a province has completed a fixed investment of 100 million yuan in a certain year" is the best proof. In this way, the relative productivity between different departments can never be determined, even if the information acquisition ability can be improved by improving the internal information system. However, because the information comes from the local government rather than from the outside, the measurement of government output cannot prove itself. As a remedial measure, in a small scale, the government can solve the problem of subjective evaluation and measurement of output through individual interviews with the masses, but it is powerless in a large scale. For example, within a province, it is impossible for the governor to get the first-hand information reflected by every citizen in the convenience service of the provincial public security department. The governor mainly reports to his subordinates. If these reports do not include the measurement of output, managers will decide to increase non-productivity In addition, local governments often use activity records to measure efficiency, not output. Many government activities are carried out without records, such as routine inspections by epidemic prevention departments. Even if these activities are recorded, most of them are not a measure of output. Therefore, if the recorded activities are not compared with the output, no one can accurately evaluate the government's productivity.

In addition to the non-exclusiveness of the price of public goods, the efficiency of government output is difficult to determine, and the non-marketization characteristics of government output also lead the general public to care more about the output of public goods or services, more about the quality of public goods or services, and less about the input and cost of products. Because these costs are not directly paid by a citizen, the government, as a production department, rarely feels the pressure of losing money. Therefore, if the input-output ratio is not considered and controlled at the same time, the basis for measuring efficiency will be lost.

Lack of standardization is another obstacle for administrative agencies to measure output. Administrative activities are labor-intensive, and there is no standard measure. People can't evaluate leaders' leadership and coordination ability with completely objective standards like testing products. Objectively, this kind of evaluation is also very difficult.

-Program limit output evaluation.

The standardization of administrative procedure is one of the main characteristics of traditional administrative model. It emphasizes the management of society by means of coercion and education, which is very similar to the method of political rule and has strong compulsion. Forcing the whole society to stand on the basis of public interest by coercive means. The rule-based administrative model has become the only way for the administrative continuity and ability of local governments. There is a logical contradiction between this rule-oriented administrative model and the result of government efficiency, because administrative responsibility is embodied in administrative rules and administrative procedures, and administrative personnel are only responsible for procedures, not for results. Do more and do less, do good and do bad, and the manager is just an executor who acts according to the rules. His duty is to enforce the rules. As long as he doesn't violate the rules, he won't make mistakes. It doesn't matter what the result is. Therefore, the government's measurement of its own output naturally changes from replacing output with input and replacing output with activity records to measuring output mainly based on whether the procedure is legal and whether the behavior meets the established requirements.

At the same time, the creativity of civil servants is greatly stifled under the rule of complex and solidified rules, which stifles people's initiative and creativity while curbing their bad behavior. If there are major defects in the rules, strict implementation will inevitably lead to contradictory results with the government's established goals. If the rules can automatically achieve good results and give full play to the initiative and creativity of civil servants, it will affect the supervision of civil servants. In the case of the supremacy of rules, civil servants will naturally become robots that ignore the sufferings of the masses and have no humanity. Even if one thing does not harm one's "career", it will never "violate the rules" to solve the difficulties of the masses. The masses commented: "With bureaucracy, there is no humanity." But on the other hand. In the case that the rules are supreme and the rights and responsibilities are clear, insisting on running for the interests of the masses without violating the rules means that you should selflessly dedicate your own resources. What is even more frightening is that it will be regarded as ultra vires and rejected by colleagues from top to bottom. In a word, when it comes to the chief executive responsibility system, the rule is supreme and even develops to the unspoken rules that can't be observed for personal gain, even if it is a small transactional work. The following is a normal example. On April 24th, 1997, the general office of a Ministry in the State Council spent 20,000 yuan to hold a poverty alleviation exhibition in the unit to cooperate with Beijing Poverty Alleviation Publicity Week. This is a ministry that relies on full state financial allocation, and its office funds are extremely tight. In six days, it will be the 25th anniversary of the Ministry. If the poverty alleviation exhibition is not held immediately, it will inevitably collide with the exhibition held by the Ministry of Construction for the 25th anniversary of the State Council. However, after the celebration, it is meaningless to hold poverty alleviation exhibitions. It is such a small matter that you can do both. The deputy director of the general office of the Ministry was afraid of "taking the initiative" to ruin his career, so he dragged the unreasonable office expenses of young clerks and constantly urged them to be scolded on the grounds that the deputy director in charge was not at home and no one was responsible for asking for instructions. Small people are like this, and big people are no exception. Lv Rizhou, vice chairman of Shanxi Provincial Political Consultative Conference, had a fierce struggle with local civil servants during his tenure as secretary of Changzhi Municipal Committee, who acted according to the rules, shirked responsibilities and ignored the sufferings of the masses. Lv Rizhou was the head of the local government, supported by the main leaders of Shanxi Provincial Committee at that time, but he was still being falsely accused and attacked, and even forced to sigh that "a good official is hard to do, and a bad official is hard to do".

Second, the institutional basis of local government performance management

(A) the theoretical basis of performance management

1. Learn from the new public affairs management ideas.

The practice of reform and opening up has proved that after the initial separation of party and government and the establishment of a traditional administrative management model to meet the needs of market economy and industrialization, China's local governments are facing the challenges of globalization and informationization, social development presents a new trend of rapid development of science and technology, and the application of information technology has a rapidly increasing impact on local economic development. Local governments shoulder the dual tasks of industrialization and informatization. At present, the civil service system and administrative management system in other parts of our country are not perfect. Compared with western civil servants, local government civil servants can't master the contents that meet the requirements of productivity development in the traditional administrative system. In addition, the political system reform is still not thorough, there are no rules in doing things, and the phenomenon of implementing hidden rules and extrajudicial administration is still very serious. While the excellent content in the traditional administrative model has been eroded, the disadvantages of the traditional administrative model are constantly hindering the comprehensive, rapid and coordinated development of the economy and society. This is a phenomenon that needs special attention in the management reform of local governments in China. On the basis of speeding up the improvement of the civil service system, thoroughly reforming the traditional administrative model and establishing a new public management model have become the dual tasks of management reform and innovation of local governments in China. Here, the latter is our focus. Its main purpose is to learn from the new public management ideas to promote government management innovation, promote government performance management on the basis of economics and enterprise sector management theory, introduce market mechanism, learn from enterprise sector management experience and incentive mechanism, emphasize the mass interest orientation and result orientation of administrative activities, and build China local government into a low-cost and high-efficiency responsive government.

To establish the concept of new public management, we should pay attention to the difference between public management and public administration. Generally speaking, compared with administrative management, management has a wider connotation. However, under the traditional administrative management mode, public administration has been given a broader meaning. It was once defined by the school of public administration as the function of applying the theories and processes of management, politics and law to realize the instructions of legislation, administration and justice and provide management and services for the whole society or a part of it. And public management is only a branch of administrative management, and it is a low-level technical field. Management and technical issues such as efficiency, responsibility and goal realization are the focus of its attention. The difference between it and the new public administration is that public administration pays attention to the process, procedure and compliance with regulations, while the new public administration pays more attention to the results. At present, under the traditional public management mode, the concept of management has not reflected the real meaning in the work of local governments in China. On the premise of separating the party from the government and organizing the civil service system, management is still a rational tool of mechanical dogma on the technical level. It has not improved the efficiency of the government, and management still depends on the combination of the internal structure of administrative institutions and traditional administrative models. Since the reform and opening up, although it has experienced the streamlining of government institutions and the transformation of government functions, it is still an urgent task for the government to find effective governance tools to improve the administrative level of the government. Practice has proved that in the process of government management innovation, advanced countries have learned from the relevant theories of neoclassical economics (such as public choice and cost transaction theory) and the new experience gained by enterprises through management practice, and formed the government innovation theory-new public management thought. Through the continuous practice of management innovation in various countries, it has become a mature theory. For the interior of administrative institutions, management is no longer the technical management and method in the traditional model, but the basis for establishing new government political ideas and changing the original organizational structure model.