On June 10, in the edible fungus industrial park in Zhoujia Village, Gansu Province, local villagers harvest black wood ear mushrooms. Photo: IC PHOTO

---

In the ongoing evolution of rural governance in China, how to address the urgent challenges of the new era has become the central issue in determining whether the governance system and its capacity can be modernized—and whether comprehensive rural revitalization is achievable. Since the reform and opening up, China has pursued rural governance reform in tandem with national modernization goals and rapid urbanization. At each stage, reform efforts have aligned with broader modernization objectives. Through continuous experimentation and practice, a new and distinctly Chinese model of socialist rural governance has emerged.

Four pillars of transformation

First, at the outset of reform and opening up, there were no ready-made solutions to rural challenges, nor any top-down models to follow. As a result, respect for grassroots experimentation and farmers’ own initiatives became essential, promoting what was called the “greatest democracy” by devolving power “to the farmers.” Since the 1980s, the rich practices of spontaneous grassroots organizations have been absorbed into the national governance framework, fueling innovation in rural governance institutions. From the “household responsibility system” pioneered in Xiaogang Village, Anhui, to the election of village committees in Hezhai Village, Guangxi, these examples of grassroots ingenuity have made rural governance a wellspring of institutional reform. The central government has recognized and supported such efforts, refining them over time and expanding them nationwide. 

This process led to the emergence of a new governance mechanism centered on people-oriented principles, a transformation in government roles, and an emphasis on rule of law. These became shared goals and values across society, reflecting a broader reform consensus.

Second, while top-level design has consistently driven institutional reform in rural areas, successful implementation has relied heavily on grassroots experimentation. To ensure reforms are effective and locally adaptable, rural communities have been granted space for exploration and experimentation. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, rural reform pilot zones have served as comprehensive platforms for promoting reform trials, with grassroots communities acting as “testing grounds” for deepening institutional change. 

Examples include the “three transformations” trial in Liupanshui, Guizhou, where reforms converted resources into assets, funds into shares, and farmers into shareholders; the “paid use of homesteads” initiative in Yujiang District, Jiangxi; Pingluo County’s pilot of “paid homestead withdrawal” in Ningxia; the “happy villages” micro-governance model in Zigui County, Hubei; and Zhejiang’s “Fengqiao Experience” and “Million Project.” These seemingly independent practices have evolved into experiments in deepening institutional reforms, influencing and guiding broader governance reforms nationwide, and advancing the modernization of rural governance in China.

Third, the success of rural governance demonstration zones is attributed to their focus on innovative models and mechanisms in rural practice. By summarizing and promoting successful local experiences, these zones have produced scalable models that can be replicated elsewhere. Since the launch of the rural revitalization initiative, local governments have been actively working to implement the CPC Central Committee’s strategic plan for modernizing the national governance system and enhancing governance capacity. By leveraging the leadership role of demonstration zones with proven experience, they have developed various governance models tailored to local characteristics and specific conditions.

These include systems for co-construction and shared governance, mechanisms that coordinate rural governance with economic and social development, organizational systems for rural governance, and hybrid models combining party leadership with local autonomy, rule of law, and moral governance. Improvements in grassroots governance and village-level supervision have also been made. Innovations in villagers’ deliberation, modern rural governance tools, and new approaches have promoted positive interaction among government, social participation, and villagers. This has created a new pattern of rural governance based on co-construction, co-governance, and shared benefits.

Finally, rural governance serves as a vital interface between national policy and local needs—a kind of “bulletin board” for policy effectiveness. Through targeted pilot programs and detailed implementation efforts, the government not only showcases governance achievements but also tests the practicality of policies in real-world conditions. Pilot projects accelerate the translation of broad policy into actionable local initiatives, helping identify and resolve concrete challenges and pushing governance modernization forward. 

During this process, by establishing and improving performance evaluation systems, governance processes and outcomes are made transparent to the public. Systematic reviews of pilot successes and failures allow for continuous policy refinement, creating a feedback loop that enhances policy effectiveness. As a result, effective governance models are replicated more broadly, effectively stimulating the intrinsic vitality and potential of rural revitalization and ensuring that policy implementation maintains its momentum and capacity for self-improvement.

Structural contradictions unpacked

As China enters a new stage of modernization, deep shifts in social structure have exposed a series of structural contradictions in rural governance—particularly in public functions, decision-making, and service delivery.

One major challenge is the structural contradiction in rural public functions. This includes mismatches in resource allocation, decision-making systems, and execution efficiency. At their core lies the tension between outdated governance models and modern governance demands, resulting in uneven distribution of resources and inadequate public services. Because different policy actors—particularly local governments—bear different responsibilities, inconsistencies in how public functions are defined and distributed have undermined governance effectiveness. Among these challenges, the overextension of primary-level government roles is particularly acute. Excessive administrative intervention often erodes farmers’ autonomy, weakening mechanisms of self-governance.

A second pressing structural contradiction lies in the realm of public decision-making. As rural society becomes more diverse, decision-making increasingly involves a complex mix of stakeholders—from traditional village elites and external investors to government officials and ordinary villagers. This plurality demands a governance model capable of coordination and negotiation. However, overlapping interests and fragmented authority often lead to gridlock, undermining the scientific rigor and relevance of decisions and failing to meet real needs. 

Historically, rural public decision-making has followed a top-down approach, often marginalizing the voices of villagers. There remains a lack of institutional mechanisms for allocating public resources and delivering services based on villagers’ needs. As a result, stakeholders’ voices are not fully heard or considered, creating an information asymmetry issue. Another structural problem is the quality and efficiency of decisions. Due to the absence of professional support systems and scientific decision-making methods, rural public decision-making often relies on traditional experience and subjective judgment—insufficient in today’s complex and dynamic environment. This approach often fails to deliver sound outcomes, especially on issues such as land use and economic development strategies, ultimately impacting rural sustainability.

A third area of tension lies in the structural contradictions of rural public service provision. In the process of rural revitalization, the government has struggled to effectively meet the growing demand for public services in rural areas. This is primarily due to structural mismatches between supply and demand. A poor understanding of farmers’ needs has led to a disconnect between the services provided and their actual requirements. Efficiency and quality issues are becoming more pronounced. Many regions lack proper management systems and technical expertise, leading to underperformance. Despite various policy efforts by primary-level governments to improve outcomes, implementation is hampered by corruption, inefficiency, and weak oversight, limiting the effectiveness of resource deployment and service improvement.

Resolving structural challenges

Reorienting primary-level governments toward their core responsibilities in social management and public service marks a timely response to the challenges of rural governance modernization. It offers a practical path toward resolving the multiple structural contradictions present in governance practices and meets the pressing need to modernize both the governance system and capacity in rural China.

First, public goods should be designed to meet the most urgent needs of farmers. Resolving structural imbalances in the provision of public goods requires shifting from a government-led model to a needs-based approach. This involves establishing a hybrid decision-making mechanism that integrates both top-down policy direction and bottom-up participation. The aim is to avoid the common pitfall of implementing irrelevant programs while overlooking real community priorities.

Second, governance models must evolve toward a collaborative structure involving multiple actors.

An effective governance framework should combine national institutional foundations with differentiated local mechanisms, enabling a broader range of stakeholders to participate. Such an approach lays the groundwork for a co-governance structure that balances various power dynamics, identifies common interests across rural society, and enhances both efficiency and public involvement.

Third, cadre recruitment and appointment should break free from rigid conventions. Talent is the cornerstone of rural revitalization, and attracting professionals who are knowledgeable about agriculture, committed to rural communities, and empathetic toward farmers requires flexible, merit-based selection and employment policies. Encouraging talented individuals to serve in rural areas through policy innovation will help shift rural governance teams from a closed system to one that is more open, dynamic, and responsive to the challenges of rural depopulation.

Fourth, primary-level Party-building must prioritize public engagement and mobilization. Under the overarching goal of rural revitalization, primary-level Party organizations carry a vital responsibility in rallying community support. Thus, transitioning from a purely directive approach to a more dynamic and participatory model is essential, which requires not only restructuring rural grassroots organizations, but also strengthening trust and interaction between Party organizations and villagers.

Fifth, assessment mechanisms should emphasize outcome-based evaluation. To improve the quality and efficiency of governance, performance assessment should shift its focus from procedural compliance to tangible results. Recognizing and rewarding effectiveness can motivate primary-level governments and officials to meet governance goals more precisely and energize innovation at the local level.

Chen Wensheng is from the China Rural Revitalization Institute at Hunan Normal University.

Edited by YANG XUE