Relationship between Local Government Management and Community Autonomy in China

Ying Liang

Abstract


The relationship between local government management and community autonomy is not well articulated in the literature. The survey provides status with knowledge about the processes, structures of local government. Local government in China has emphasized numerous interactive features in manage community and resident. In the Yangzi Delta cities, new reform-oriented policies have emphasized autonomy as an important trend for improving governmental performance, and build a stronger popular method for local governments. Ultimately, the autonomy is effective because they work alongside other reforms in local society. By eliciting residents feedback and increasing governmental transparency, especially the relationship between local government management and community autonomy, the autonomy management have become important information sources and managed methods for government managers, but they are more likely to be effective in improving administrative operations, so the study of this paper is necessary.

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Alter, R., Lewiecki, M., Renz-WhitmoreMand Albright, D. (2008). Accountable public involvement: Partnership approach to proposed transportation project. Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2077 46–53.

Bickerstaff, K. and Walker, G. (2001). Participatory local governance and transport planning. Environment and Planning. A 33(3) 431–451.

Bovens, Map (2005). Public accountability. In: Ferlie, E., Lynne, L. and Pollitt, C. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bozeman, B. and Straussman, J. (1990). Public Management Strategies: Guidelines for Managerial Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coglianese C. (2009). The transparency President? The Obama administration and open government. University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Coglianese, C., Kilmartin, H. and Mendelson, E. (2009). Transparency and public participation in the federal rulemaking process: Recommendations for the new administration. George Washington Law Review. 77 924–972.

Curtin, D. and Meijer, A.J. (2006). Does transparency strengthen legitimacy?. Information Policy. 11(2) 109–123.

Downes, E.J. and McMillan, S.J. (2000). Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification key dimensions. New Media and Society. 2(2) 157–179.

Etzioni A. (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant?. Journal of Political Philosophy. 18(4) 389–404.

Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of transparency. In: Hood, C. and Heald, D. (eds.) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henderson, L.J. (2007). Metropolitan governance: Citizen participation in the urban federation. National Civic Review. 79(2) 105–117.

Ho, Atk. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review. 62(4) 434–444.

Hood, C. (2006). Transparency in historical perspective. In: Hood, C. and Heald, D. (eds.) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jennings, M.K. and Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly. 67(3) 311–334.

Jun, K.N. and Weare, C. (2010). Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: The case of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Available online 9 June 2010.

Knott, J.H. (1993). Comparing public and private management: Cooperative effort and principal – agent relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 3(1) 93–119.

Laffont, J.J. and Mordimort, D. (2002). The Theory of Incentives: The Principal – Agent Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

La Porte, T.M., Demchak, C.C. and Friis, C. (2001). Webbing governance: Global trends across national-level public agencies. Communications of the ACM. 44(1) 63–68.

Lewis, J.R.T. (2010). Tide of security secrecy, tide of transparency. In: Shea C.M. and Garson G.D. (eds.) Handbook of Public Information Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

McMillan, S. (2000). Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: Function, perception, involvement and attitude toward the web site. In: Shaver, M.A. (ed.) Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Masters Z., Macintosh A. and Smith E. (2004). Young people and e-democracy: Creating a culture of participation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 3183 15–22.

Meijer, A.J. (2009) Understanding computer-mediated transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 75(2) 255–269.

Moe, T.M. (2006). Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 22(1) 1–29.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Piotrowski, S.J. and Borry, E.L. (2009). Transparency and local government websites. In: Reddick, C.G. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Strategies for Local E-Government Adoption and Implementation: Comparative Studies. Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.

Pratt, J.W.P. and Zeckhauser, R.J. (1991). Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pyndick, R.S. and Rubinfeld, D.L. (1991). Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Roberts, N. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction. Public Administration Review. 57(2) 124–132.

Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration. 34(4) 315–353.

Romzek, B.S. and Dubnick, M.J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review. 47(3) 227–238.

Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values. 25(1) 3–29.

Tolbert, C.J. and Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review. 66(3) 354–369.

Welch, E.W. and Fulla, S. (2005). Virtual interactivity between government and citizens: The Chicago Police Department’s citizen ICAM application demonstration case. Political Communication. 22(2) 215–236.

Welch, E.W. and Wong, W. (2001). Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on website openness. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. 11(4) 509–538.

West, D.M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review. 64(1) 15–27.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

(c) Washington Institute of China Studies

We encourage you to visit CEOpedia - The Management Online