CC BY
48
УДК 316.334.021
TAO XIDONG,
Associate Research Professor, Institute of Sociology, SASS
THEORY AND pRACTICE OF TRANS-BOuNDARY GOVERNANCE
IN CHINA1
"Governance" is one of the modem social management practices that involve the cooperation and interaction of government, society, enterprises and the public. Observed from the perspective of "boundaries", "Trans-boundary Governance" and includes cross-border (geographic) governance, cross-sectoral governance and governance of public-private partnerships. Cross-border governance focuses on addressing the problems of geographical segmentation and restriction, with the key lying in the construction of regional political systems and cross-regional coordination systems. Cross-sectoral governance focuses on solving the problems of non-cooperation among government bodies, multiple management and segmental management. Governance of public-private partnerships focuses on solving the problems of insufficient and inefficient public services, appropriately adjusting the competition mechanism according to the types and features of public services. At present, China's reform has entered into the deep end, where strengthening the coordinated operation of governmental systems and its networked cooperation with social system through the construction China's balanced development of economy and society.
Keywords: public governance, China, trans-boundary governance, strategic choice.
ТЕОРИЯ И ПРАКТИКА ТРАНСГРАНИЧНОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ
В КИТАЕ
«Управление» является одной из современных практик социального менеджмента, которое включает сотрудничество и взаимодействие правительства, общества, предприятий и общественности. С территориальной точки зрения, «трансграничное управление» включает в себя трансграничное управление, межсекторальное управление и управление государственно-частного партнерства. Трансграничное управление фокусирует внимание на решении проблемы географической сегментации и ограничений, в основе которых находится строительство региональных политических и межрегиональных координационных систем. Межотраслевое управление акцентирует внимание на решении проблем сотрудничества между государственными органами и отраслевым управлением. Управление государственно-частного партнерства сконцентрировано на решении проблем неэффективности услуг, предоставляемых государством, и соответствующей регулировки механизма конкуренции. В настоящее время реформа в Китае находится на этапе завершения координации системы управления с социальной системой посредством сбалансированного развития экономики и общества Китая.
Ключевые слова: государственное управление, Китай, трансграничное управление, стратегический выбор.
1 This paper in Chinese was first published in Chinese in Academic Monthly, vol. 8, 2011.
A project supported by National Social Science Fund of China: one of the major preliminary achievements of "The Analysis of Urban Regional Trans-boundary Governance Model in the World and China's Experience" (09CJL044).
"Boundary" is a well-known concept, but in different disciplines and contexts, it has different meanings and connotations1. The most familiar one is geographical boundary, such as national boundaries, provincial and municipal boundaries. How to resolve all trans-boundary conflicts and streamline the trans-boundary cooperation mechanism has been the major subject of long-term research in such disciplines as International Political Economy, Political Geography, Regional Politics, etc. Especially in recent years, with the globalization of economic activities, a new kind of spatial organizational structure that crosses traditional geographical boundaries is taking shape, such as global city regions, cross-border regions, sub-nation regions, global digital market, free trade groups, etc. It is in this context that how to build a trans-boundary organizational and management system that crosses administrative boundaries has become a hot issue for academic researches home and abroad and has generated many relevant theories [1; 2; 3; 4]. Although many scholars have made great contribution to the theories and practice models of cross-boundary governance, researches on the integrity, normalization and practicability of trans-boundary governance system remain inadequate. This paper intended to build a relatively holistic theoretical framework on trans-boundary governance from three dimensions on the basis of current research findings from home and abroad, and to deconstruct and analyze the profound theoretical connotations of these theories and their significance and revelation to China's public governance.
1. The Three Dimensions of Trans-boundary Governance and the Governance Mechanisms
In all those studies on cross-administrative-boundary governance made by scholars, there is a core idea, i.e., constructing and improving a horizontal coordination mechanism without changing the existing administrative divisions to resolve regional conflicts, balance regional interests and build regional communities of interests through negotiation, dialogue and compromise. Apparently, it is one of the most common, universal and understandable phenomenon of trans-boundary governance, but not the entire contents of trans-boundary governance. In fact, cross-administrative-boundary governance is only one important part of the "trans-boundary governance" system this paper intends to construct. Observed from an interdisciplinary perspective, trans-boundary governance should focus on the idea of cooperative management concept that encompasses multiple domains, multilateral interactions and networked operation. It should be a set of new governance theories that is adapted to economic globalization, industrial integration and organizational reforms and which at least includes three aspects, namely, cross-border governance, cross-sectoral governance and governance of public-private partnerships (figure).
1 Boundary, or "#-"(jie), has multiple meanings in ancient Chinese with the main meaning indicating border and frontier; the edge of a field is call "#". It is also defined as dividing line or scope, e. g., "the boundary dividing right and wrong is the boundary of everyone's duty"; "if one's desire has no boundary, conflicts will surly arise". It is defined as adjoining or bordering, e. g., "three kingdoms share boundaries with Qin and thus are afraid of invasion". It is also defined as to separate or alienate, e. g., "to set boundaries between Jingyang and the Marquis Xiang and instigate the former to revolt against the latter and replace him".
The Framework of Trans-boundary Governance's Three Dimensions
First, from the perspective of Political Geography, trans-boundary governance refers to the collective action and process of coordinating and addressing cross-border regional public issues, e. g., cross-border environmental pollution, cross-border crime, infectious diseases, through such means as dialogue and negotiation, by establishing cross-border governance agencies or coordination organizations that can override the authority of local governments, under the present structure of cross-border urban networks or cross-border market system. Such cross-border governance occurs both at the international level, such as global governance, international governance, sub-regional governance, and the EU governance, and in a nation among different ranks of government, such as the Inter-state Agreement [5], the Council of State Governments [6, p. 570], and Association of Bay Area Governments of the US and China's Yangtze River Delta Urban Economic Coordination Committee. Such trans-boundary governance in essence refers to that, though still confined by existing administrative borders, regional administrative governments reconcile to the trends and features of cross-border development in regional economy and public affairs, and actively promote regional political reform and seek to establish a new type of cross-governmental relations that is compliant to the times, in order to improve their capacity of collective action and to expand regional collective interests.
Second, from the perspective of Organizational Theory, trans-boundary governance refers to the coordinated governance process of different functional depart-
ments within a government, in accordance with the theories of industrial chain, value chain or service chain, following the principles of continuity and integrity of operation flow, carrying out cross-sectoral and cross-functional-boundary labor division, cooperation, negotiation and coordination, constructing the "boundaryless management" or "seamless management" operation mechanism, integrating all governmental departments, personnel and other resources, providing quality and efficient information and services to the public with one single interface, and completely eliminating the cross-sectoral cooperation predicaments of non-cooperation among government bodies and multiple management for the purpose of resource sharing.
Third, from the perspective of Management Science of Society, trans-boundary governance refers to governance crossing the boundaries of government, market and the community, for attaining multi-lateral win of economic growth, political democracy and social development by adopting the forms of government outsourcing services, government selling, contracting, franchising, and subsidy to establish public-private partnerships among government, enterprises and the community where organizations including social organizations and enterprises could fully participate in the process of public services supply and social management and resources of government, society and market are integrated to give full play to their respective advantages in accordance with the principles of trust, communication, cooperation, partnership and contract. The campaign of "New Public Management" or "New Public Service" observed by the West nowadays is in essence a type of social governance process in the model of public-private partnership.
According to the three dimensions introduced above, the core of trans-boundary governance is the government itself. The key lies in how to make the government comply with today's requirements for social and economic development, accelerate government reforms, and construct a crisscrossing policy system to improve its efficiency and capacity of public services in the cooperation network with neighboring governments, communities, markets, etc. and to resolve the major trans-boundary issues together with all those parties. In other words, trans-boundary governance requires our government be a cooperative, public service-oriented and limited government, which accords with China's current practical requirements of comprehensively promoting innovation-driven and transitional development government. Observed from the theoretical point of view, "trans-boundary governance" assimilates and covers the essence of such management theories as traditional Bureaucracy Theory, new public management theories, and virtual government management theories with the distinct features of being contemporary, inclusive and integrated. It becomes a new governance model aimed at addressing major practical issues. In fact, the theories and methodology of trans-boundary governance have been successfully applied in western developed economies. For example, to deal with cross-administrative-region conflicts, the U. S. government established "Interstate Agreement" [5] and "Interstate Commerce Commission", the EU established the "Association of European Border Regions (ARFE)" [7]; to achieve cross-sectoral governance, countries or
regions like the United States, Europe and Japan have perfected their cross-sectoral governance system, such as "Super Ministry System" or "joint conferences among ministries"; and to achieve governance of public-private partnerships, they have developed and improved a mature public-private partnership system (PPP) where social organizations has become an important endogenous driving force pushing their economic and social development.
In terms of institutional coordination of economic, political and social activities, there are four available mechanisms: anarchy, market mechanism, hierarchy (government), and self-organizing governance [8]. But as to which is the most effective one, academia circle has not come to a conclusion. In fact, different trans-boundary issues need different trans-boundary governance mechanisms. The author held the opinion that trans-boundary governance mainly emphasizes three mechanisms. First, rules and regulations. For any governance process involved in cross-border, cross-sector or cross-sectoral governance, with the exception of multi-agent and "one-time" informal cooperation bonded by projects, most activities are permanent and continuous to a certain degree. They need rule systems and regulation frameworks that have common binding force, such as principles, norms, standards, laws, agreements, treaties, covenants, regulations, procedures, policies, etc., to reduce the social costs of trans-boundary cooperation and trans-boundary governance of different parties and to improve the expectations of stakeholders participating in the governance. Second, social capital. Actually, trans-boundary governance belongs to the category of governance. Besides the formal institutional interactions, a large number of informal and loose interaction and cooperation are also needed. And the continuity of such informal cooperation relies on the personal relationship among the leaders (managers) of different organizations or departments, which, to some extent, determines whether the trans-boundary cooperation can be established and how it goes and ends. Moreover, it is unrealistic and impossible to establish formal institutional systems of trans-boundary cooperation binding all organizations despite their diversified features, especially in some of the grassroots communities where the efficiency of addressing public affairs depends more on the geographical connections and social capital of the heads of concerned departments and of the leaders of non-governmental organizations formed during their long career, rather than detailed regulations and policies. Therefore, the author believed that, whether it is in the context of traditional Chinese culture, or in western countries' civil society system, political culture and psychology factors are important factors must be considered in trans-boundary governance. Social capital centered on "interpersonal communication" is an internal force that guarantees the efficient operation of trans-boundary governance. Third, organizational network. In practice, when faced with trans-boundary conflicts, conflicts of interest or social needs, organizations cannot solve the problem solely through the unilateral cooperation with a certain government, enterprise or social organization. Normally, they need to seek multiple and multilateral trans-boundary cooperation relations centering themselves with all kinds of governments, departments and public or private organizations around
them, and optimize and maximize their interests of trans-boundary cooperation in an organizational system network. Each organization is a node in this crisscrossing and intertwined organizational system network.
In trans-boundary governance system, in addition to give prominence to public-private partnership, how to manage the intergovernmental relations (including relations among governmental departments) is also a key and essential factor that can determine whether the trans-boundary governance is successful or not. The author believed that intergovernmental management and partnership are two important management tools for trans-boundary governance. First, Intergovernmental Management (IGM). Intergovernmental Management is a kind of intergovernmental activity of "multi-party governance" [9] originated in western countries in 1980s. It is a type of cross-regional, cross-sectoral and reciprocal model of governmental relations based on cooperation. It proposes to transform the governmental system from the traditional pyramid structure into a flat one and to weaken the authority of government by transforming its management model from unilateral management to multilateral (involving government, enterprises, citizens, social groups, etc.) democratic participation. Intergovernmental Management emphasizes not only the relationship of all levels of governments, but also the collaboration between public and private sectors. It seeks to establish equal relations and resolves disputes mainly through negotiation, dialogue and network participation [10]. Second, partnership. Trans-boundary governance mainly relies on the supply chain partnership (SCP) in corporate management, i.e. the coordinative relations between two or more separate members within a supply chain, to ensure achieving a specific goal or effectiveness. In terms of trans-boundary governance, one core concept and approach of addressing all trans-boundary issues is to establish strategic partnership among different interest bodies in accordance with demanded and proper principles, to achieve information sharing and network interaction. Specifically, in the actual process of trans-boundary governance, the first step is to assess the needs and possibility of establishing strategic partnership according to the supply chain or industrial chain of the service; the second step is to set up standards and choose service suppliers and partners; the third step is to establish partnership by signing contracts or by certain informal forms of organization; the fourth step is to improve the mechanism and strengthen cooperation, interaction and exchange to constantly resolve the trans-boundary issues that arise.
2. Cross-border Governance and the prospects for China's Regional Structure
The first thing that needs to be clarified is what brought about "trans-boundary governance", a major strategic issue. Julio Rios, a Spanish scholar, said: "Geographic boundary is a factor of separation, a kind of segmentation, a threat, a type of isolation and non-contacts. Generally speaking, boundary can control the entrance of outsiders, blocking the unwelcome" [7]. However, it cannot completely cut off the inherent interaction and contacts of culture, history and language. It is thus obvious that political boundary, to some extent, has control function, but with the decentralization of economic and social development, such traditional function will surely
be weakened and the dynamics and process of spatial expansion will also change accordingly. Actually, cross-border economic activities with mainly the flows of capital, labor, goods, raw materials and travelers have existed for a very long time. In 19th century, the phenomenon appeared mainly between suzerains and colonies. But since the world entered the 20th century, due to privatization, deregulation, breakthroughs in digital technologies, the open of domestic economy to foreign funded enterprises and increasing participation of domestic economic entities in the operation of global market, a country's role as spatial unit has began to weaken and it was replaced by new organizational structures, such as sub-national units, global urban regions, cross-border regions, supranational global digital markets and free trade groups [11, p. 2-3]. With the further development of economic globalization, many new trans-border issues have arisen in recent years around the globe, including nuclear proliferation, network security, energy management, migration, cross-border pollution, terrorism, infectious diseases, and climate change. The development of the world is more multi-polarized, mobilized and complicated where a country cannot cope with global challenges on its own, government itself cannot resolve cross-border issues and the traditional governance model of governments defined by national boundaries is no longer effective, which has directly brought about new strategic choices that encompass governments and non-state action bodies and encourage their close cooperation, including "cross-border cooperation", "global governance", "world governance".
Apparently, cross-border governance is the collective governance of the trans-boundary issues that all concerned parties face at different levels, including global governance at international level and regional governance at national level. But in whichever level of cross-border governance, the core issue is to address disputes and conflicts of interest along the administrative borders. This is because the administrative division, as a reflection of political power on geography, represents the geographic boundary of certain political interests. In the context of economic globalization, there are all kinds of conflicts of interest along the borders of countries and even townships, including the flow of key factors around the globe, contests over strategic resources, ecological pollution and the integration of infrastructure, industrial competition and policy competition. Cross-border governance is a process of horizontal interaction and close collaboration among multiple subjects and needs effective governance mechanism. For example, in terms of global governance at the international level, since world power is being transferred from the developed world to the developing and emerging economies and from national and governmental organizations to non-state action bodies, developed countries, developing countries, emerging economies and non-state action bodies (including transnational non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, churches and other religious organizations, multi-national cooperation, business groups, interest groups, etc.) will all become the multiple subjects of cross-border governance. Some nonstate action bodies will take the role of international cooperation promoter, while others the intruder. Facing with such an extremely complicated international deve-
lopment situation, cross-border governance demands a set of legitimate, democratic and multivariate negotiation mechanisms and new international rules, but also the close cooperation among multiple subjects. The recent financial crisis has shown that heterogeneous nations and global and regional organizations can cooperate with each other to avoid a new round of economic depression.
Since the implementation of reform and opening up policy, due to the decentralization-oriented and market-oriented financial system reform, local governments have long been one of the most important subjects undertaking the job of regional economic organizations and the interests of regional economy. Competition among local governments brought about great progress and development of China's regional economy in general. In particular, provincial economies, municipal economies and county-level economies divided by administrative borders have witnessed an exceptional growth and progress. Such institution of vertical regulation is a great contributor to China's continuous and rapid economic growth. However, during the process, as political reform lags behind economic reform, different levels of local governments are too powerful in economic function, and administrative borders still heavily hinder the horizontal development of regional economy. And there is no unified institution or policy to support the horizontal trans-boundary cooperation and coordination among adjacent governments and the existing administrative system is not compliant with the market-oriented regional development pattern. Therefore, administrative border is still a major obstacle for China's regional economic development. In recent years, with the market-oriented and information-oriented development and under the guidance of related regional planning policies from the central government, regions represented by metropolitan circles including Beijing-Tian-jin-Tangshan area, Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta have broken through the barriers of administrative borders and constructed global city-regions or regional economic communities, which has become the change and new trend of regional economic organization and development. The new trend of regional cross-border integration and development demands new regional political pattern and new institutions adapted to the requirements of economic development and integration, that is, a complete set of cross-border governance system. At the same time, cross-border pollution affecting some basins in China is also a realistic problem of great importance. Contests over water resources and water pollution in some cross-border areas (e. g., the pollution of Taihu Lake located in the adjoining area of Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanghai), has become a destabilizing factor endangering social stability. In this sense, to establish an effective cross-border governance system is the inevitable institutional choice for China's regional economic development at the present stage. A set of cross-border governance system that combines vertical and horizontal approaches and encourages public-private cooperation and interaction, can effectively resolve major realistic issues, such as the lack of integration of inter-regional infrastructure, vicious industrial competition among cities, administrative barriers against economic factors, cross-border ecological pollution and cross-border crimes, and enhance the overall cooperation capacity, competitiveness and cohesion of a re-
gion. It could fundamentally adapt a region to the internal requirements of market-oriented economic development, create an institutional system or a new regional political pattern favorable to the agglomerated, integrated and large-scale development of regional economy, and better accommodate the system to the actual needs of economic development. Specifically, China can construct a new cross-border regional governance system with 3 levels and in 3 domains (table 1).
Table 1. The proposed Structure of China's Cross-border Regional Governance System
National level Provincial level Municipal level
Government domain "State Administration of Regional Development" The regular meeting of governors (in central, western, eastern and northeastern China, area centering Fujian, Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan area, Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Huaihai Economic Zone, etc.) and regional departments cooperation agreements Joint conferences of mayors, urban coordination meetings, city alliances, municipal governments associations, etc.
Market domain Cross-regional enterprise groups Trans-boundary regional industrial associations and large enterprise groups Cross-boundary regional industry associations and urban common markets
Social domain World Forum on China's Regional Governance Regional development forums and trans-boundary social organizations Regional social organizations in urban areas and Global City-Region forums
3. Cross-sectoral Governance and the Construction of China's Joint-up Government
Cross-sectoral governance is the second aspect of the "trans-boundary governance" system proposed in this paper. It refers to the process of integrating or mobilizing all sectors along the value chain, service chain, industrial chain and supply chain and their resources and interests through formal channels, including signing memorandum or agreements, or informal channels, including negotiation and suggestion, on the premise of not cancelling department boundaries and taking the interests of all sectors into consideration, to achieve a specific goal together, when faced with key issues (which are complicated, systematic, and geographic-related to some extend) in public governance. It is the basic tool for making better decisions, bringing better results and innovative methodology to achieve the sustainable development of the whole society. It guarantees that knowledge is shared, all key issues and sectors are properly considered, and decisions are made and actions are taken in the right place through cooperation. When addressing specific issues, it does not replace each single department in terms of their responsibilities over their projects, but all participants will face major potential risks and defects when any of the department or stakeholder does not cooperate and seeks to maximize its own interests. Thus, trust is the key to integrate organizations of different nature and with different goals, management models and motivation mechanisms; and equality,
respect, information sharing and decision-making by consensus are the foundations of cross-sectoral cooperation [12]. In practice, governmental cross-sectoral cooperation includes "Joint-up Government" and "Whole of Government". The core goal of "Joint-up Government" (JUG) is to integrate various organizations that are independent from each other to achieve common goals pursued by the government. Its basic point is that goals of public policy cannot be achieved by separate government departments or through establishing new "super department". Specific policy goals can only be achieved through cross-sectoral cooperation on the premise of without canceling department boundaries. "Whole of government" refers to the cross-sectoral cooperation formed by public services institutions to achieve common goals, or the joint organization established for exceptional problems. The measures taken can be either formal or informal with focus on policy making, project management or service delivery [13].
In terms of development history, cross-sectoral governance originated in developed countries including the Great Britain and the United States after the World War II. Since the 1980s, the "New Public Management Movement" has accelerated the cross-sectoral management reforms of governments in Western countries, Hong Kong, and Singapore. By restructuring and reforming government institutions, they streamlined government organs1, integrated functions and improve the efficiency of management (table 2). For example, after the outbreak of BSE in 2001, Japanese government, in order to protect the rights and interests of consumers, broke through the boundaries segmenting different departments and established the Cabinet Office Food Safety Commission whose major responsibilities were providing food safety risk assessment, instructing and supervising the risk management departments, communicating and publishing risk information, etc. Its members were all non-official experts approved by the Parliament and appointed by Junichiro Koizumi, the then Prime Minister. Their term of office lasted three years. In 1961, to promote the cross-sectoral coordination on environmental governance, the Canadian government set up the "Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment" (CCME), which consisted of 14 environmental ministers from the federal government, 10 provinces and three territories. They convene meetings biannually to discuss environmental issues and negotiate on related policies.
Table 2. The Amounts of Cabinet Government Departments in Market Economy Countries2
Country US UK Canada Germany Spain Russia Australia New Zealand France Japan ROK Singapore
Amount of Departments 15 18 19 14 15 15 16 19 18 12 18 15
1 In typical countries with market economy, there are 14 to 19 cabinet departments.
2 Zha Zhenxiang, "An Empirical Research of the "Large Department System" of Western Countries, Hong Kong and Singapore", The Collection of Essays of the 2nd Session of China's Pilot Zone for Overall Reform Forum-High-level Economic Forum in Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Foundation of People's Republic of China, 2009.
According to Marx's theory that the economic base determines the superstructure, cross-sectoral governance is an effective management strategy compliant with the requirements of China's modern service economy and integrated economic development and is a flexible institution adaptive to new types of economy. Industrial development trends indicate that at present, China is in a critical period of transition into service-oriented, outsourcing-oriented and specialized post-industrial or service economy where the market is increasingly segmented. Integration, chain development and cluster development of related industries are more prominent; and the development of global consumer electronics and cultural creative industries has fully demonstrated that China is ushering in a new stage of cross-border integration. Modern service economy demands reviewed institutional system of market access, credit, regulation, tax and government administration, and in particular, establishment of a set of cross-sectoral governance institutions adapted to industrial integration. But in general, China's current governance system is still mainly vertically organized sectoral governance segmented by industrial division with characteristics of industrial society. As driven by China's gradual reform, interest separation, localization and fragmentation of reform are severe. Departments with different functions enjoy surplus independence while lack cooperation. In practice, they often "scramble for easy tasks" and "evade difficult ones". Independent action, multiple management, overlapped policies, and information isolation have become incurable and normal management problems. The situation is typical in various areas such as food safety and water pollution control. For example, in food safety issue, "eight ministries together are unable to ensure safety of pork from the same pig". The production, processing, sales and distribution of food industry are segmented intentionally. Naturally, the "segmented and inconsistent" institution can hardly guarantee food safety. In water pollution control, according to Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People's Republic of China, there are altogether nine administration bodies, i. e. environmental department, transport department, water administrative sector, department of land and resources, health department, construction department, agricultural department, fishery department and lake and river water resources protection bureaus. In other words, water pollution control is segmented into nine sections. In addition, in addressing such persistent problems as illegal use of urban land, illegal construction, unlicensed business activities, group-renting and governance of amusement places, though with the pretension of "a holistic approach", management is still segmented by different sectors where each assume its independent responsibility. Such sectoral, fragmented and separated governance system can hardly adapt to China's current economic and social development trends and the request of people. Reform and innovation are needed. Hu Jintao, the General Secretary of CPCCC, proposed in the Report to the Seventeenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China to "strengthen the efforts of institutional integration, to explore and establish large department system that can integrate different functions and to improve the cross-sectoral coordination mechanism". In recent years, China has begun the reform of large department system and has achieved remarkable suc-
cess, but department boundaries still exist and wrangling and conflicts among different departments are still inevitable. Therefore, I believe, in the face of the current "fragmented government", in addition to continuously improving the construction of large department system, China should put more efforts in improving the cross-sectoral coordination mechanism, constructing a "Joint-up Government" where related departments share common goals. They are the fundamental way out for department segmentation and conflicts. Therefore, the following reforms should be emphasized: First, laws and regulations like Law on Governmental Cross-department Relations or Regulations on Governmental Cross-department Relations should be formulated to provide specific regulations for related functional departments of the same government level (central government level, provincial or municipal level, district or township level) on the rights, duties, institutions, personnel, funds and investment, etc. for coordination and cooperation. In particular, financial budget departments should allow related sectors to have easier access of mobilizing funds regarding fiscal years, organizations and budgets to encourage cross-sectoral cooperation of various kinds, and encourage them to increase their cross-sectoral cooperation budget reserves [13]. This measure can provide substantial legal basis and policy support to cross-sectoral cooperation. Second, the system of "Cross-sectoral Joint Conference" participated by related functional sectors should be established and perfected around the common issues and service goals and on the basis of fully respecting the labor division and specialty of different sectors, to strive for common goals, clarify their respective responsibilities, confirm cooperation relations, establish joint-leadership agencies, leading agencies or joint law enforcement agencies, establish robust negotiation, dialogue and communication mechanisms and create the administrative culture of cross-sectoral cooperation and linkage. Third, the cross-sectoral and interagency project of information sharing and e-government should be promoted and implemented in an all-round way: firstly, to guarantee that agencies are consistent in the definition of basic concepts, statistical methods, and information interpretation through document review, specific researches and negotiation, to facilitate their mutual communication, comparison and model administration; secondly, to establish information sharing mechanism among partners and end the information isolation among sectors to achieve cross-sectoral information communication and to provide substantial information foundation and technology support to maintain the operation of cross-sectoral projects. Fourth, provide training of new governance to leaders of important government departments for improving their professional expertise and enhancing their ability in negotiation and cooperation with other organizations. It is to transform the leaders of government departments into promoters, conveners and brokers for accomplishing certain common goals and management tasks, rather than doers.
4. Governance of public-private partnerships and the Construction of public-Service Oriented Governments in China
Since the 1970s, a wave of administrative reform has swept across the whole world. How to reshape government functions, properly handle the relationship be-
tween government and society, and provide adequate and effective public service to recipients have become major issues for government governance around the globe. In this regard, new theories and thoughts emerged in Western developed countries, including Public Choice, New Public Management, New Public Service, and Privatization. But no matter in which theory, the core subject, when facing huge public services demands which can not be fulfilled by the government itself, is nothing but the establishment of interactive and cooperative relations among governments, social organizations and consumers for the public services that allow competition, through multiple and scientific cooperation mechanisms and in accordance with the types and features of public products, where capacities of non-governmental organizations or social organizations are fully mobilized, the efficiency of public services are improved jointly, and the needs for multiple and multi-level public service are met. At the same time, it effectively prevented government's continuous expansion and enhanced political democracy, and ability and level for government public service are greatly improved. For the concept, different theories have different titles, such as "third-sector government", "non-governmental organization", "civil society", but the author held the opinion that "Governance of Public-private Partnership", one of the major parts in cross-boundary governance introduced in this paper, that encompasses both public and private domains, is a more accurate reflection of the connotations of cross-domain governance that embraces politics, economy and the society. It refers to any institutions for joint production and supply of commodities and services with the participation of public (political domain) and private sectors (business domain) and non-profit social organizations (social domain), including contracting, franchising, vouchers, subsidies, etc. It can also mean the informal cooperation among enterprises (entrepreneurs), religious leaders, community leaders, leaders of non-profit organizations and local government officials for the purpose of improving urban conditions. Public-private partnerships include community partners (citizens and volunteers), private sector partners and partners from non-profit organizations. Public-private partnership is not only a tool of governance, but also a basic strategy of social governance and the highest level of trans-boundary governance.
Due to their special political ecology, administrative culture and social development stage, western developed countries took the lead of building public-private partnerships between government and society. In various social service fields including infrastructure, urban public management, social welfare, cultural education, and emergency management, through the institution of government procuring public services, they established multiple public-private partnerships, which enabled a large number of social organizations or private enterprises to participate in the production of public services, in turn it greatly improved the efficiency of government's public services and effectively satisfied the demand for social services. For example, after World War II, the US federal government proposed a major policy initiative. Projects like medical and health care, environmental cleanup and restoration, poverty alleviation, job training, interstate highways and sewage treatment plants, etc.
are all managed through public-private partnerships. A direct result of western developed countries' public-private partnerships is that a large number of capable social organization systems (or NGO) with specialized services and a host of specialized teams of social workers were nurtured, making social work a decent job which shares equal importance and social status and with equal salaries with occupations like civil servants, doctors and lawyers. For example, statistics show that there were only 50,000 charities in the U. S. in the 1950s, but the amount surpassed one million by the end of the 20th century. The increase from 50,000 to 1,000,000 was largely a result of the policy support from government; there is a huge team of social workers in the US. By 2004, the number of social workers in the US has reached around 560,000, which means there is one professional social worker among about every 500 American citizens. Western countries have a long history of cooperation established between government and private enterprises, associations and charities, during which they have built powerful social work systems and effective social service systems. These systems have effectively addressed and resolved complicated social disputes and conflicts and have provided endogenous growth momentum to and laid the foundation for economic growth and social development. The global financial crisis in 2008 and the social crises it triggered sufficiently demonstrated that the idea of a complete marketization or complete enterprising social governance is not feasible. Effective social governance should be balanced between public and private components, encompass the cooperation between government and market and between government and the society, and seek balance of interests and social justice in the system of public-private partnerships.
Since the beginning of economic reform 30 years ago, China has created an economic wonder rarely seen in the world, but compared to the rapidly advancing economic reform, the construction and reform of the social system apparently lagged behind, social public services were in shortage and service supply structure was unbalanced and unequal, which has resulted in social inequality and has become a major obstacle harming China's social harmony. A rather typical problem is that the relationship between government and society is not clearly defined, specified and guided by fundamental institutions and policies. As a result, the government often takes the role of producer of public services, the cultivation of and trust in social organizations are inadequate, and a large number of social organizations are out of the public services supply network system making many nonprofit and grassroots social organizations and their professional social workers unable to maintain their sustainable development. Under such circumstances, when facing the rapidly growing demands of the population, governments are often criticized despite their efforts. They are far from becoming public service governments. Fortunately, in recent years, China has attempted experimental reforms in such fields as social organization development, social worker education and establishment of new government-society relationship in some provinces and cities, including Shenzhen and Shanghai (Pudong), which has achieved significant progress, but the key of comprehensively enhancing the construction of public service oriented government lies in the radiation effect created by those separate experiments.
The "public-private partnership" governance model proposed here that crosses the three major areas, namely, government, market and the society, was meant for solving two major problems: the first one is the problem of "strong government and weak society" prevailing during China's social development, and the second is the problem of unclear or absent subject in China's social construction. In other words, the model's objective is to establish "public-private partnerships" channels and methods of multiple forms by reforming social system and designing social policy to incorporate a large number of private enterprises, social organizations and other social forces into social governance and urban management systems of our country, to utilize social forces to help the government provide appropriate public services, to better satisfy the current diversified and multi-level social demands and eventually to construct a nationwide system of public service-oriented governments, in which social organizations will become the backbone and main part of social construction and partners of social construction and social management, and social workers will be a professional force for social construction. A comprehensive and public-private partnership based governance system with "strong government and strong society" will be built. But it should be noted that, the governance of public-private partnership proposed in this paper does not refer to the simple method of privatization or marketization and it definitely will not outsource all public services to enterprises or social organizations indiscriminately, or allow unrestrained development of the market. It refers to the construction of selected channels and mechanisms of public-private cooperation according to the types and features of public services, to jointly provide effective public services or public goods. Particularly in the production and provision of such quasi-public services in education, health care, housing and culture, on one hand, it is necessary to adhere to the government's public service functions to provide basic and public services to the general public; on the other hand, the demands of high-income groups can be satisfied by the high-end, high-standard, high-priced and customized services provided by market and social organizations following the idea of marketization. In other words, the supply of public services in the system of public-private partnership governance should combine two channels, namely, public welfare and market. Only in this way can there be effective supply of public services to meet the diversified and multi-level practical needs of the public. For this purpose, reforms and efforts should be made in the following domains: first, officials of all governments from the central level to local levels should transform and emancipate their mindset to have a new idea on the function and effects of social organizations in social management and social construction, and learn to utilize social organizations to help the government solve related social problems and try to build close partnerships with them; second, on the basis of the current success in reform, continue to deepen the transform of government functions, introduce and formulate a system of laws, regulations and policies propitious to the development of social organizations and establish social organization's subject position in social construction in the way of establishing enterprises' subject position through economic reform to let social organizations undertake the subject function of social
services; third, establish and improve a system of government procuring public services, build a standardized and stable third-party service delivery model, and strive to form a full range of public-private partnerships in traditional service sectors and non-traditional sectors (education, prison management and military affairs); fourth, recognize the professional identity of social workers as soon as possible according to law and enhance the professionalized, specialized and systematized development of social workers for the purpose of founding sufficient human resources to provide professional and high-level social services.
References
1. Scott, A. J. Globalization and the Rise of City-regions / A. J. Scott // Europ. Regional Studies. -2001. - Vol. 9, N 7. - P. 813-824.
2. Harrison, J. From Competitive Regions to Competitive City-regions: a New Orthodoxy, But Some Old Mistakes / J. Harrison // J. of Econ. Geography. - 2007. - Vol. 7, N 3. - P. 311-332.
3. Brenner, N. Decoding The Newest 'Metropolitan Regionalism' in the USA: A Critical Overview, in Cities / N. Brenner. - 2002. - Vol. 19, N 1. - P. 3-21.
4. Purcell, M. Metropolitan political reorganization as a politics of urban growth: the case of San Fernando Valley secession / M. Purcell // Political Geography. - 2001. - N 20. - P. 613-633.
5. He Yuan. Inter-state Agreement: an Inter-governmental Coordination Mechanism in the U.S. / He Yuan // J. of China National School of Administration. - 2006. - Iss. 2. - P. 88-91.
6. Beard, C. A. American Government and Politics / C. A. Beard. - Beijing : The Commercial Press, 1987. - Vol. 2.
7. Rios, H. Cross-border Cooperations in Europe: The Spanish diversities / H. Rios ; transl. by Deng Yingjie // World Ethno-National Studies. - 2008. - Iss. 4.
8. Jessop, B. The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: the Case of Economic Development / B. Jessop // Int. Social Science J. - 1998. - Iss. 155. - P. 29-46.
9. Cameron, D. The Structures of Intergovernmental Relations / D. Cameron // Int. Social Sciences J. - 2001. - Vol. 53, iss. 167. - P. 121-127.
10. Wang Weiquan. The Rising and Content of Intergovernmental Management / Wang Weiquan // J. of the Party School of Tianjin Committee of the C.P.C. - 2005. - Iss. 3.
11. Sassen, S. The Global City / S. Sassen ; transl. by Zhou Zhenhua [et al.]. - Shanghai : Shanghai Acad. of Social Sciences Press, 2005. - P. 2-3.
12. Haifeng Li. The Practice and Revelation of Cross-sectoral Cooperation of Canadian Government / Haifeng Li // The Collection of Essays of the Symposium of The Theories and Practice of Service-oriented Government Construction : The 2008 Annual Conference of China Administration Society, 2008.
13. Sun Yingchun. An Exploration of Foreign Cross-cutting Working Mechanism / Sun Yingchun // Chinese Public Administration. - 2010. - Iss. 7. - P. 102-105.
Date accepted 18.10.2015.
