In September, the plan for administration system reform in Shenzhen that has attracted great attention was announced, and 31 new institutions were established as part of the “Super-Ministry System” reform. Following the “Super-Ministry System” reform, 17 commissions and bureaus in Shenzhen are to delegate and entrust over 100 governmental functions to social organizations, according to a media release yesterday. By now, social organizations have received copies of “Survey on Social Organizations on Taking up Governmental Functions and Responsibilities” from the Shenzhen Administrative Bureau of Non-Governmental Organizations. The government will take the survey result into consideration when selecting social organizations to delegate functions and responsibilities to.

This partial delegation of government functions to social organizations is key to the guideline of Shenzhen’s current administrative reform. In line with previous statement, the government is to resolutely quit its roles unnecessarily presumed before. Even if the market is experiencing temporary downturns, the government will leave the leading role to social organizations and enterprises, and provide only necessary support.

The overall reform is to cancel, alter, and delegate over 300 administrative ratification items governmental functions in total, including the 100 functions being delegated this time.

But the Shenzhen government can only succeed if social organizations are capable to shoulder up the delegated responsibilities, and only if relevant laws and regulations can provide adequate support. Another potential concern is how to prevent social organizations from becoming “government branches” as they adapt to their new roles.

If government administrative system reform only aims to change the internal distribution of administrative power but does not weaken the disproportionally strong administrative branch, its effect can only be increased administrative efficiency, but not increased social justice. Neither can the reform be effective if it does not extend to the governance of social organizations but simply shifts the administrative power from the government to de facto government branches.

The current system has been repressive to the growth of social organizations. Citizens who would like to establish social organizations have to register through bureaus of Civil Affairs. To register, the organization needs to be affiliated with a governmental branch. Without such affiliation, an association can only acquire legitimate legal standing by registering through the Administration for Industry and Commerce as a corporate without tax exemption or the legal status as a non-profit. As a result, many Government-Operated Non-Governmental Organizations (GONGOs) have become the dominant “non-governmental organizations”. Such GONGOs, not surprisingly, resemble government branches more than real non-governmental organizations that should be open, rigorous, and autonomous.

However, the GONGOs that closely connected to government—in history, in terms of structure, in personnel make-up or even in directly affiliating with government branches—have been selected as the major undertakers for government to delegate its functions during the reform. They have gained an edge over real non-governmental organizations through a de facto unfair competition. Additionally, the GONGOs that have long been under protection of the government are often severely handicapped in their capabilities, operational mechanisms, professionalism in service and creativity, which make them bad candidates for undertaking the reform that focuses on innovation.

The government also needs to change its mentality regarding its relationship with social organizations. Instead of regarding itself as the “sponsor” of all social organizations, it should establish mutual respect with them and cooperate with them as equals, in accordance with the goal of achieving a balance of “government, market and society”.

Hence, the emphasis of the reform should be placed on removing administrative barriers that impede the growth of social organizations. As the government still takes the dominant position in policy reform, its mentality and decisions are vital to the success of the reform.

Columnist Li Jianhua sees this reform as one greatly benefiting the growth of social organizations. He notes that many of these delegated governmental functions involve “training and qualification of professional personnel” such as qualification assessment of accountants and tour guides, and quality evaluation such as hotel star classification, tourist attraction star classification, and travel agency qualification assessment.

Li notes that Chinese social organizations are relatively backward and are yet to acquire substantial influence, partially due to the overly imposing government restrictions. By taking up too many functions that could have been delegated to social organizations, the government left little space for the growth of social organizations. The reform, then, will be in line with both the governmental function reform and the need to strengthen social organizations.

To Li, Social organizations are autonomous non-profit organizations that represent certain public interests, and therefore competitive in nature: they compete with each other for “social recognition”, “social praise” “member satisfaction”, “social impact” and so on. Hence, for any event – an environmental cause, a charity event, or a hotel star classification assessment – there will very likely be several social organizations competing for the chance to undertake. Reasonable competition among social organizations can promote their growth, vigor, and make social organizations more useful in helping the society function and grow. Hence, the government should promote competition and avoid monopolizing when delegating its functions out to social organizations.

Li notes that trustworthiness of a social organization comes from its performance in organizing activities. Li suggests that China should take faith in the public’s judgment, in the capability of autonomous organization of the society, and in social organizations’ self-discipline and administration, all of which are core to the idea of an autonomous society with sufficient self-government.

(Translated by Yichen Chen and proofread by Hong Liu of Harvard University. Original abridged from  http://gd.news.sina.com.cn/news/2009/09/21/665724.html and http://www.chinanpo.gov.cn/web/showBulltetin.do?id=39801&dictionid=1940)