Mapping the evolution of the central government apparatus in China
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852317749025 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
Mapping the evolution of
the central government
apparatus in China
Liang Ma
Renmin University of China, China
Tom Christensen
University of Oslo, Norway
Abstract
The structure of political and administrative institutions is important for achieving
public goals. It is not fixed, however, but may change as a result of environmental
and cultural processes or because of changes in leadership. Structural changes in the
central government apparatus feature prominently in the recent strand of reform and
change literature, but we know little about structural changes in contexts other than
Western democracies. In this article, we analyze the main types of and possible reasons
for structural changes in the central government apparatus in China over the past
70 years. We find interesting patterns of structural change in line with administrative
developments. Using the multiple perspectives of organization theory, these can
be primarily explained by political cycles or action taken by the central leadership,
but they have also been influenced by cultural elements, economic growth, and
societal transformation.
Points for practitioners
We document the key patterns of organizational restructuring in China’s central
government from 1949 to 2016. Political cycles and economic reform and development
are found to be the key drivers of structural evolution. The results show that the
political will of top leaders plays a crucial role in navigating structural reforms,
yet institutional reforms are still largely confined to rhetoric and symbolism without
substantively transforming the landscape of government architecture. Sustained
Corresponding author:
Tom Christensen, University of Oslo, Department of Political Science PO Box 1097, Blindern Oslo 0317,
Norway.
Email: tom.christensen@stv.uio.no
International Review of Administrative
Sciences
2020, Vol. 86(1) 80–97
!The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020852317749025
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
structural reforms are difficult to achieve successfully, which suggests that alternative
avenues may be required to streamline administrative processes and improve
interagency coordination.
Keywords
central government, China, evolution, organizational structure, public sector reform
Introduction
Political science is a 2000-year-old tradition of studying a special type of formal
organization, namely, the public institutions in the political-administrative system
(Wolin, 2009). In his study of the federal government in the US, Gulick (1937) arrived
at the basic insight that public goals could be realized through a systematic structural
design of the public apparatus. Schattschneider (1960) pointed out that ‘organization
is mobilization of bias’, meaning that certain formal organizational structures
systematically organize in certain actors, problems, and solutions (Schattschneider,
1960), while others are organized out (Weaver and Rockman, 1993).
This structurally oriented strand of studies is also reflected in the extensive reform
literature, which primarily focuses on the New Public Management (NPM) and post-
NPM reforms of the past three decades (Christensen and Lægreid, 2001). The focus
of analyses in these studies is both how various reform waves are based on ideas
about the formal structure of public organizations – NPM focuses on devolution and
fragmentation while post-NPM espouses centralization and coordination – but also
how executive leaders and other stakeholders struggle to preserve or change certain
government structures (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011).
Internationally, the most researched type of public organization, whether the
focus is on development, functioning or effects, is the government agency.
The COST Action and the Cobra data base which have compared 23 European
countries and later included countries from most parts of the world, is the most
impressive effort so far in this field (Verhoest et al., 2012). The birth, survival, and
death of government agencies in the US (Lewis, 2002), the Netherlands (Boin et al.,
2010), the UK (James et al., 2016), and Norway (Rolland and Roness, 2010, 2011,
2012), for instance, have been extensively examined. The recent strand of studies
tracing the creation, change, and termination of central government organizations
must be understood in terms of both the long-term structural tradition and the
short-term focus on agencies (Kuipers et al., 2017).
Historically, the structure of institutions in the political-administrative system is
important for achieving public goals. This structure may, however, change as a result
of environmental change, gradual and long-term cultural processes or conscious
efforts by political and administrative executive leaders. Over the past decade the
reform and change literature has emphasized structural changes in the central
Ma and Christensen 81
To continue reading
Request your trial