Commentary: What China Can Learn From the American County

1. The article compares Chinese and U.S. counties in terms of numbers, population, economy, governance, and offers lessons for China. China had 2,856 county-level institutions in 2024, including urban districts; excluding those and Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, there are 1,867 counties and county-level cities [para. 3]. Sichuan has the most county-level units (183) due to complex geography and dispersed population [para. 4]. The U.S. has 3,155 counties, averaging 63 per state, with Texas having the most (254) and Delaware only three [para. 5]. Notably, 48 states use "county," while Louisiana uses "parishes" and Alaska uses "boroughs," and Virginia has independent cities treated as county equivalents [para. 6].

2. Population distribution is highly uneven in both countries. In China, Shuyang County (Jiangsu) has the highest registered household population at nearly 1.96 million, and Puning City (Guangdong) has the highest resident population at roughly 2.05 million [para. 9]. Conversely, Aksai County (Gansu) has only 10,600 residents [para. 9]. In the U.S., Los Angeles County has 9.76 million residents, while Loving County (Texas) has just 48 [para. 10]. The population gap in the U.S. is nearly 200,000-fold, far larger than China's less than 200-fold [para. 10]. China's county population share dropped from 81.4% in 1990 to 51.5% in 2020, driven by urbanization, aging, and labor migration [para. 11][para. 14]. Over half of China's counties saw negative population growth from 2010 to 2020, and the average county population is about 400,000 [para. 12][para. 13]. In contrast, the U.S. has sustained growth, with 50 counties now over 1 million residents, averaging 108,500 per county [para. 15][para. 16][para. 17][para. 18].

3. Economically, China's strongest county in 2024 was Kunshan (Jiangsu) with a GDP exceeding 550 billion yuan, while New York County (Manhattan) led U.S. counties with $1.006 trillion [para. 22][para. 23]. The top 100 Chinese counties generated 12.81 trillion yuan (10.16% of national GDP), while the top 100 U.S. counties generated $15.94 trillion (55% of U.S. county GDP) [para. 22][para. 23][para. 24]. New York County's output is roughly 14 times Kunshan's, and the combined economic weight of the top 100 U.S. counties is about 8.7 times that of China's top 100 [para. 24]. Per capita GDP in China's top 100 counties is 133,900 yuan (50% above national average), while in U.S. top 100 it is over $113,500, and the average across all U.S. counties is $85,700 [para. 25]. The higher U.S. per capita GDP is partly due to cities falling within counties, whereas Chinese central cities are separate administrative units [para. 26][para. 27]. Geographically, 68 of China's top 100 counties are in the eastern seaboard, while U.S. top counties are also coastal but with less extreme regional disparities [para. 28].

4. County governance differs fundamentally. China's counties are a vital tier in a four-tier government network, acting as "mini-governments" that manage everything from education to economic planning, often using state intervention to spur growth [para. 31][para. 35]. American counties are administrative extensions of state governments in a three-tier system, focusing on foundational services like law enforcement and vital records, while community planning is handled by municipalities or independent school districts [para. 32][para. 36]. Chinese county governance blends traditional kinship with administrative mandates, while U.S. governance champions community autonomy with decentralized bodies such as sheriffs and local boards [para. 33][para. 34]. Economically, Chinese counties compete aggressively through land sales, industrial parks, and investment incentives, whereas U.S. counties primarily provide institutional support and rely on property taxes [para. 35][para. 36][para. 37].

5. Insights for China include strengthening county-level public services, drawing from the U.S. focus on standardized, decentralized delivery to bridge the urban-rural divide [para. 39][para. 40]. Resources should flow to counties to transform them from labor exporters into safe havens with robust healthcare and education [para. 41]. Officials should shift from strict administrative subordination to collaborative partnerships between cities and counties, similar to U.S. intergovernmental agreements [para. 42]. Development models must align with actual resources, avoiding "one size fits all" approaches that lead to redundant industrial parks [para. 43]. Moreover, the operational mindset must evolve away from land finance toward genuine industrial tax bases and transparent governance [para. 44]. Ultimately, counties must offer viable healthcare, schools, and business environments to retain talent [para. 45].

6. The article advocates reducing China's five-tier government to four by eliminating the prefecture-level city tier, allowing provinces to oversee counties directly [para. 47][para. 48]. The author proposes elevating six cities—Shenzhen, Wuhan, Xi'an, Chengdu, Dalian, and Hefei—to directly administered municipalities to radiate economic growth [para. 49]. This would flatten administrative power and improve efficiency, echoing the strength of the U.S. county model [para. 47].