In Depth: China Mulls Changes to Grassroots Governance

China’s grassroots governance system consists of neighborhood committees in urban areas and villagers’ committees in rural regions, totaling approximately 119,000 and 489,000 entities, respectively[para. 1]. Introduced into the constitution in 1982, these committees’ operations have been regulated by specific laws since the late 1980s[para. 2]. Presently, legislative bodies are considering reforms, with draft amendments to the Neighborhood Committee Organization Law and Villagers’ Committee Organization Law released for public consultation following a legislative review on June 24, 2024[para. 3][para. 4].

Historically, neighborhood committees emerged in 1954 as self-governing resident organizations, focused initially on those outside dominant “work units” that provided welfare and housing in cities[para. 5][para. 6]. Rural villagers’ committees similarly rose in status following the dissolution of agricultural communes, assuming roles like land allocation[para. 8]. As economic reforms weakened work units from the late 1970s, committees took on more governance and social service responsibilities[para. 7]. Further urbanization and migration patterns, especially people living outside their hukou (household registration) areas, have eroded social bonds and public participation, complicating grassroots self-governance[para. 10]. Despite these challenges, committees’ mandates have grown, now encompassing property disputes, social stability, support for vulnerable groups, poverty alleviation, and rural revitalization, requiring additional resources and personnel[para. 11][para. 12].

Recent governance innovations include grid-based management, piloted in Beijing in 2004 and subsequently adopted nationwide, dividing communities into smaller, digitally monitored units overseen by full-time managers[para. 13][para. 14][para. 15]. The Communist Party and State Council have supported modernizing committees and expanding the grid-based system, with legislative updates prioritized for 2024–2025 following directives from major party congresses and plenums[para. 16][para. 17].

A significant aspect of pending reforms is clarifying the committees’ relationship with government bodies. Past criticisms, especially during Covid-19 lockdowns, have centered on committees acting as extensions of local governments, sometimes exercising powers beyond their legal remit[para. 20][para. 21]. The new drafts emphasize that while committees may assist government tasks, the latter must be properly funded and the delegating departments held accountable for outcomes[para. 22][para. 23]. Legislative suggestions include ensuring committees aren’t overburdened by offloaded tasks without sufficient support[para. 24].

Another focal point is regulating the interaction between neighborhood committees, homeowners’ committees, and property management firms. Legislators and scholars support empowering neighborhood committees to guide, participate in, and supervise homeowners’ bodies for better community planning and dispute mediation, given frequent resident-property firm conflicts[para. 25][para. 26][para. 27][para. 28][para. 29][para. 30]. The draft law also promotes cooperation with social organizations, social workers, and volunteers in community governance, advocating for more diversified partnerships beyond government-funded services[para. 31][para. 32].

The current draft constitutes the first major law revision since 2018, aiming to improve elections, democratic management, and public oversight for both neighborhood and villagers’ committees[para. 33][para. 34]. The draft includes provisions for transparent elections (including voter registration, nomination procedures, and legal remedies), democratic management, public disclosure, and rigorous selection/disqualification criteria for candidates (such as party expulsions or criminal convictions)[para. 35][para. 36][para. 37].

Further, the reforms seek to increase the inclusion of non-local and long-term residents in election processes, reflecting China’s push for urban-rural integration[para. 38][para. 39][para. 40]. Scholars argue that integrating the two laws underpins the broader modernization and legislative trend toward unified urban-rural grassroots governance[para. 42].

Contact details for the reporter and editor are provided at the end of the article[para. 44].