"Limited Promotion":a Study Of Local Government Innovation From The Perspective Of Institutional Generation

In China’s reform practice,the promotion of new policies,systems and programs is an important activity of governments at all levels.The policy experiment of hierarchical system and the independent innovation of local government are the key ways to produce the new policy and system,and local government is the key subject to generate the object of promotion.Local government innovation plays an important role in promoting reform and dispersing reform risks.In the opinion of some scholars,some local government innovation does not have much practical utility,and many local innovation often cannot spread and is difficult to sustain.China’s local government innovation has an obvious problem of unsustainable innovation.In the actual investigation,the local government reform has the phenomenon that the effective innovation experience which maintains a certain continuity can not achieve the effect after being promoted.This paper tries to discuss this phenomenon,and on this basis,analyzes and discusses the characteristics and conditions of the sustainability of local government innovation.In the case of the reform of the self-promotion committee in County D,the process from grassroots innovation to local government promotion can be divided into the village-level exploration stage of innovative organization establishment,the system integration stage of the county and town level of standardized organization,and the county-led comprehensive promotion stage.In the first stage,the town government gives the administrative village more space for innovation,and the method of combining the establishment of self-management committee and the promotion of new rural construction has achieved great results.In the second stage,the experience of the self-management committee,which attracted much attention,began to be promoted in the town.At the same time,the county and town governments constantly upgraded it in the process of learning from the experience of the self-management committee.Thus,the self-management committee transformed its working experience into the system of grass-roots self-governance organization,and its advantages were constantly strengthened and shaped.In the third stage,the self-management committee system after promotion exposed corresponding defects,but due to the shift of the focus of work of county,town governments and village committees,the problems were not solved in time,and the self-management committee that could not correct itself became a mere formality in the end.Based on the innovation and promotion process of the Self-Administrative Committee,this article finds that the difference in the distribution of government attention is the key factor that affects the large gap in the effectiveness of the reform of the Self-Administrative Committee.The county and town governments tend to focus on the advantages and institutionalization of grassroots innovation experience while ignoring the applicability and defects of innovation.The promoted new system does not have normalized application conditions when the government’s attention is distracted and shifted.,So that it becomes a formality in the end.The bottom-up innovation promotion process has advantages and institutionalization characteristics,but both also have corresponding disadvantages:innovation can only be promoted on a larger scale if it has advantages,but this advantaged process restricts the adaptability of innovation results;Local governments have the awareness of institutionalizing innovation results,but the institutional model they create is actually a "pseudo-institutionalization" of innovation,which does not promote the sustainability of innovation.Local government innovations that have received "superior support" conditions can continue,but they may face the problem of ineffective innovation after promotion.If the adaptability of the promotion object is evaluated,giving the grass-roots executives "adapt to local conditions" room for adjustment will be more conducive to the exertion and maintenance of the effectiveness of local government innovation.