The Emergence of the Street and Residence Administration System in the Context of the Planned Economy

After the founding of the PRC, the Communist Party of China quickly established an urban social administration system. The vast majority of urban residents were organised by their work units. The remaining residents were under the administration of Street Offices and Residents’ Committees (referred to as ‘RC’). These Residents’ Committees evolved from the ‘Office of the Takeover Committee’. Peng Zhen, the Mayor of Beijing, submitted a Report on Organizational and Funding Issues of Urban Street Offices and Residents’ Committee in 1953, suggesting: ‘Residents’ Committees must be established as self-governing organisations. Street offices-agents were responsible for organising residents who are not employed by factories, enterprises, state institutions and schools.’¹ The report was approved by the Central Committee of the CPC. The Standing Committee of NPC promulgated the Organization Regulations of Urban Street Offices and Organization Regulations of Urban Residents’ Committees in 1954, specifying the concepts, including the nature, status, roles, responsibilities, organisational structure, and relationships with relevant departments and funding sources.²,³

The Functional Transformation of the Street and Residence Administration System in the Context of the Planned Economy

Prior to 1954 Street Offices had limited jurisdiction with simple tasks. From then the regulation specified three tasks for Street Offices, transforming their function:

• ■ to handle residents’ affairs assigned by the city or municipal district government;
• ■ to guide the work of Residents’ Committees, and to collect the views and needs of residents;
• ■ to also deal with household registration, conflict mediation, social relief, urban sanitation, and public health.

In effect, the Street Offices played a supplementary role in the social administration system. Since the 1990s, the role of Urban Street Offices has been greatly enhanced. Currently, the responsibilities of Street Offices cover at least ten aspects:

• ■ economic development;
• ■ urban administration, including sanitation and municipal facilities;
• ■ civil affairs including social welfare, special care and social relief;
• ■ community service, including for the elderly and the disabled and convenience services for residents;
• ■ population administration, including family planning, employment, and floating population administration;
• ■ comprehensive management of the social security provision;
• ■ socialist spiritual civilisation, which includes community culture, community education, community sports, and health care;
• ■ specific tasks assigned by a superior department;
• ■ instructions for the work of Residents’ Committees;
• ■ management of CPC membership on a neighbourhood basis.

In 1954, regulations defined the responsibilities of Residents’ Committees as follows:

• ■ the public welfare of residents;
• ■ conveying residents’ opinions and demands to the local government;
• ■ mobilising residents to be in line with the law and the government’s suggestions;
• ■ assisting national police in maintaining public order, and mediating disputes among residents.

The functions of Residents’ Committees were expanded in 1989, through the Organizational Law of Urban Residents’ Committees. The new responsibilities of Residents’ Committees included:

• ■ explaining to the public the Constitution, laws, regulations, and national policies;
• ■ safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of residents;
• ■ educating people to fulfil their statutory obligations;
• ■ protecting public property, and promoting the spirit of socialism;
• ■ carrying out social service for local residents;
• ■ mediating civil disputes;
• ■ assisting the police in maintaining public order;
• ■ assisting the government with affairs of public health, family planning, social relief, and juvenile education;
• ■ conveying residents’ views, requirements and advice to the government or its agencies.

The Main Features of the Street and Residence System in the Context of the Planned Economy

Supervised by the government, the Organizational Regulations of the Urban Street Offices was promulgated in 1954. It specified ‘the chairman, vice-chairman and members of Street Offices shall be appointed by municipal districts or a municipal People’s Committee of a city’. The chairman and vice-chairman of Residents’ Committees were appointed by the Street Office in charge. The higher-level governments exerted control over Street Offices and Residents’ Committees by personnel management and financial sponsorship.

After the mid-1950s, most Chinese people were employed by all kinds of stated-owned units, and these units took the responsibility of managing the staff. Street Offices and Residents’ Committees were responsible for those who were not employed by these units. Therefore, the Street and Residence Administration System can be regarded as supplementary to the state-owned unit system. Most people who were not employed were old, sick, or housewives. Residents’ Committees were set up to maintain public order, to clean, and to resolve conflicts. It was the basic form of urban administration that played an important role in maintaining public order, mobilising residents, and developing convenient services in the context of the planned economy.

The Emergence of the Community Administration System in the Context of the Market Economy

Along with the transition to a market economy, the social structure in which most people were employed by state-owned units changed. Those who used to be ‘unit people’ now become ‘social people’, or ‘community people’. A lot of social service functions were detached from the state-owned enterprises and government departments. In the early 1990s, based on the international practice of ‘community development’, a number of cities were chosen as the pilot cities in community building.

In December 2000, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued View on the Construction of Urban Communities Nationwide, which defined the community as ‘a social organic entity formed by the inhabitants living in a certain geographical area’, and it stated that ‘the community was under the supervision of Residents’ Committee’.⁴ The CPC Central Committee passed a resolution on Major Issues of Building a Socialist Harmonious Society in 2006. It pledged to ‘turn the urban and rural neighbourhoods into communities that are well managed, characterised by civility and harmony’.⁵

The Basic Structure of the Chinese Urban Community Administration System in the Context of the Market Economy

By the end of 2000, according to View on the Construction of Urban Communities Nationwide, governments at all levels were urged to form an overall framework to promote community building. The Civil Affairs Department would take the lead with Residents’ Committees as organisers, with a brief to encourage the participation of the general public.⁶

At the national level, the Common People Rights Department of the Ministry of Civil Affairs directs from the macro point of view. At the local government level, there is a Steering Committee for Community Building (SCCB) established by the District Committee of the CPC and district government. Two principal leaders from each of the District Committee of the CPC, district government, the district People’s Congress, and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) are appointed as director and deputy director of the Steering Committee. The executive officers from relevant departments constitute the membership of the SCCB. The Community Building Office of the SCCB is co-located with the Civil Affairs Bureau, which is responsible for coordinating with relevant departments (see Figure 4.1).⁷

Figure 4.1: Local Governance of Community Administration

A Prerequisite of the Transformation of Government Functions

Figure 4.2: JingAn District Shi Men Er Road Sub-District Community Service Centre, Shanghai

China’s historical evolution and its administrative characteristics have put government in the central position to provide community service. The practice of government-oriented community service will continue. Sustained progress cannot be achieved in a relatively short period without government support. However, the absence and poor use of government resources in community service is increasingly obvious. Transformation of government functions is necessary and urgent. The government is trying to transition from ‘unlimited government’ to ‘limited government’. The idea of limited government applied to community service is that new suppliers should be encouraged and fostered to take over many community service functions.

Non-governmental Organisations as the Carrier

The Chinese government is actively promoting non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to become the main suppliers of community service. The State Council highlighted the importance of developing NGOs in View on Strengthening and Improving Community Service (hereinafter referred to as the View) in April 2006.

The Basic Principles to Administer Non-governmental Organisations: Cultivation and Supervision

‘Cultivation and supervision’ means encouraging and supporting the development of NGOs. It also means strengthening their management in accordance with Chinese legislation. For example, Shanghai seeks to manage community NGOs through NGO service centres, which constitute a bridge between government and NGOs. The primary function of an NGO centre is to have a formal governmental influence over the local operation of NGOs. The staff of an NGO centre is recruited either by internal transfer (governmental) or open recruitment. The NGO centre is funded mainly by government procurement, supplemented by party membership dues of the CPC.

Figure 4.3: Community Volunteer Service Station