What is the difference between rural communities and administrative villages in China?

I. Real-world confusion: a cognitive trap

The upsurge in rural community building that arose alongside the large-scale “delivery of public services to the countryside” adopted three construction models according to the size and spatial distribution of villages, namely “one village, one community,” “several villages, one community,” and “one village, multiple communities.” Across most of the country the “one village (administrative village, the same below), one community” model was adopted, and this was especially so in the southern region.

In our annual field research on community building we always encounter a puzzling problem: when conducting interviews under the “one village, one community” model, the village head will state unequivocally that a rural community and an administrative village are not the same thing, and that “money solicited from outside is managed by the community, while the village's own money is managed by the village itself.” We wondered: isn't the village here simply the community, and the community simply the village? How is it that a distinction between “community” and “village” is so firmly drawn? To put it more abstractly, what exactly is the relationship between a rural community and an administrative village? Are they two different categories? Or the same thing? Or do they overlap?

At present, there are mainly three viewpoints on the relationship between rural communities and the pre-existing administrative villages:

The first, represented by the rural grassroots, especially village-level cadres and ordinary villagers, holds that the rural “community” and the rural “administrative village” are two different categories pointing to two different domains. The rural community governs basic rural public-service affairs, and it is “managed” by the government; the administrative village governs villagers' self-governance affairs, and it is “managed” by the village itself. The above remark by the village cadre reflects this.

The second, represented by the government, holds that they are the same thing: where a community is established with the administrative village as the unit, the rural community is the administrative village, and the administrative village is a rural community. Whether it is called a rural community or an administrative village, its functions combine rural public services and villagers' self-governance. The report of the Seventeenth National Congress pointed out: “We must improve the dynamic mechanism of grassroots self-governance under the leadership of grassroots Party organizations, expand the scope of grassroots self-governance, improve the democratic management system, and build urban and rural communities into social communities of life that are well managed, provide satisfactory services, and are culturally rich and harmonious.” Clearly, here the rural community and the administrative village are discussed as a single whole.

The third, represented by academia, sees the “different categories” theory and the “two in one” theory coexisting, with no consensus reached. The “different categories” theory holds that, judging from the management system and operating mechanism of rural communities and administrative villages, the two differ in terms of the responsible subject, the basic operating unit, and the content of work [1]. The “two in one” theory holds that the basic functions of both the rural community and the administrative village are construction, management and service, and suggests forming the two into an organic whole and merging them into one, changing the “×× Village Villagers' Committee” into the “×× Community Villagers' Committee,” and that the rural community and the administrative village must absolutely not be separated, otherwise the whole community will be thrown into chaos [2].

II. The crux of the problem: the nature of the self-governing body

In my view, the main cause of the cognitive confusion over the rural “community” and the “administrative village” is the “mass self-governance” nature of China's rural self-governing bodies, which take the administrative village as their unit.

Shen Yansheng pointed out that so far there are only three main theories of self-governance: social self-governance, local self-governance, and mass self-governance [3]. Villagers' self-governance in the administrative village is a kind of mass self-governance, a grassroots mass self-governance in which villagers manage themselves, educate themselves, and serve themselves. The villagers' self-governance organization -- the villagers' committee -- is not a state organ or administrative organization but a self-governing organization outside the state administrative system; a mass self-governing organization mainly governs the internal affairs of the self-governing body, that is, “village affairs,” and the self-governing body may decide on almost all matters it is involved in, with the state power finding it difficult to enter or intervene; the self-governing body does not directly govern governmental affairs outside self-governing affairs, that is, “government affairs.” If state affairs are to enter the self-governing body, or if it is desired that the mass self-governing organization help the government take on “government affairs” into villages and households, the consent of the self-governing body must be obtained, and the grassroots mass self-governing organization has only an obligation to “assist.” The person in charge of a self-governing organization is not a civil servant, does not leave production, does not draw a salary, and is given an appropriate subsidy by the self-governing organization.

Local self-governance is the form of self-governance adopted by most modern states today. It means that, within the scope permitted by national sovereignty and based on the wishes of the residents of a district, the self-governing organs of a territorial public body that is a legal person relatively independent of the state handle certain local affairs on their own. In Europe, as early as the 12th and 13th centuries, the residents of some cities obtained charters from kings or nobles to establish self-governing municipalities, enjoying varying degrees of autonomy. Before the 19th century, the characteristics of local self-governance were: corporate self-governance had begun to take shape, but self-governing bodies such as municipalities and parishes had not yet obtained the status of public-law persons and stood outside the state's administrative divisions and administrative organizations, being regarded under English common law merely as private bodies [3]. After the Industrial Revolution, two important changes occurred in the local self-governance system. On the one hand, local self-governing bodies became local public bodies (public-law persons) authorized by public law and were incorporated into the state administrative system, becoming a level of local government of the state, with the local self-governing body and the state administrative organization merged into one. Britain, the “mother of local self-governance,” is a typical example. On the other hand, the spirit of local self-governance was continuously expanded and popularized in the political system and social life of nation-states, the scope of self-governance became broader and its content fuller, and county, city, town and village councils were generally established in accordance with the law, with county, city, town and village heads and council members produced by direct election, and the social foundation of self-governance becoming broader. Unlike mass self-governance, first, in terms of organizational nature, a local self-governing organization is not only a self-governing organization but also a level of political power, or a local self-governing legal-person body, holding the status of an independent subject within the state power organizational system. Second, in terms of governance affairs, correspondingly, a local self-governing body must be responsible for two major blocks of affairs: one is the “delegated affairs” assigned by a higher level of political power or stipulated by national law, that is, “government affairs,” and the other is the self-governing affairs granted to the local self-governing body by national law, that is, higher-level “government affairs” plus its own “self-governing affairs.” Third, in terms of personnel status, the leaders and staff of a local self-governing body are state personnel, civil servants or managers employed by the state, draw state salaries, and hold “paid posts” [4].

The “village” in Japan's local self-governing bodies corresponds to China's “administrative village.” In legal status, Japan's “village,” like cities and towns, belongs to the “basic local public bodies,” and the “village” is in fact the most grassroots unit of political power organization in rural Japan. Each village is a local government, its head and staff are all civil servants, and the village head is produced by election. The “village” must undertake the “delegated affairs” of the self-governing body at the next higher level; higher-level “matters delegated for handling” follow the principle of legalism, but account for a considerable proportion. “Taking Sakaki Town in Nagano Prefecture as an example, such work accounts for about 70%-80% of the town's total work” [5].

Comparing the two, the “tangle” between China's “community” and “administrative village” arises precisely from this: because villagers' self-governance and its organization in China's administrative villages are only of the nature of a grassroots mass self-governing organization, and do not also possess the nature of a grassroots political power organization. Therefore, the duty of the administrative village is to govern the village's own self-governing affairs, and to manage the self-governing body's public resources and collective assets well through villagers' self-governance, while the governance of all kinds of governmental affairs should rightly be the duty of the government; and rural community building is precisely the government stepping forward and funding the construction of a socialized service system centered on the governmental public service system. It is a typical “government affair” and does not belong to village self-governing affairs; hence the responsible subject and operating subject of rural community building is the government; from this it follows that the rural “community” and the “administrative village” are two different categories, pointing to two different domains of governance, having two different governing subjects, and bearing two different governing duties; the rural community governs rural governmental public services, and the administrative village governs villagers' self-governing affairs. A relationship like China's rural “community” and “administrative village,” so inextricably entangled, does not exist in countries that implement local self-governance. The reason is simple: their grassroots self-governing bodies both play the role of government and act as self-governing organizations. As far as the implementation of governmental public services in a self-governing district is concerned, although it is a local self-governing body, as a level of grassroots government it is unquestionably the subject that organizes and implements them.

III. Theoretical analysis: the unity of the two

Then, does the mass self-governance nature of the administrative village necessarily lead to the separation of the rural “community” and the “administrative village”? Not necessarily, and indeed quite the opposite.

First, the different nature of the governance matters does not constitute a reason for separating the two.

It cannot be denied that, considering the categories of specific governance matters and the responsible subjects, the community and the administrative village do currently have different emphases. From the perspective of historical development, since rural community building is a major strategic measure taken as China's economic and social development enters the historical stage of integrated urban-rural development, it has indeed introduced some important new content that original village governance did not have, mainly governmental public service projects delivered on a large scale “to the countryside” under the concept of “equalization of basic public services.” But to conclude from this that the rural community and the administrative village are two different things is not sufficiently supported.

First, from the perspective of the governing subject, these two governance matters of different natures, when they land within the scope of an administrative village, are both concretely undertaken and implemented by the village-level organization. Rural community building is indeed a process in which government public resources and public services cover the rural grassroots, but to conclude from this that it does not fall within the scope of village-level governance is clearly biased. Because in reality, as stated above, in the vast majority of rural communities across the country the process by which government public resources and public services cover the rural grassroots is operated relying on the original administrative village's organizational system, or rather is run on its behalf by the village-level organization; the community has not built its own unique organizational system and operating framework. Therefore, the two kinds of affairs are integrated within the village scope and unified in the village-level organization. Why is this so? Because the village-level organization has a dual mission. This dual mission of the village-level organization is not something that exists only today; from the moment villagers' self-governance was legally established, the institutional design endowed it with this: on the one hand, it is a grassroots mass self-governing organization, practicing self-management, self-service, and self-education, independently handling the village's public affairs and public welfare undertakings, mediating civil disputes, and so on; on the other hand, it has the obligation to “assist” the government in carrying out its work. This is what is commonly called the situation under the “township administration and village governance” pattern, in which the villagers' self-governing organization carries both “village affairs” (self-governing affairs) and “government affairs” (government affairs) on its shoulders. Within the village scope, village affairs and government affairs can be divided into two, but the governing subject is always unified. Here a distinction must be drawn between the two concepts of “self-governing affairs” and “governance affairs.” Village-level “self-governing affairs” are “village affairs,” whereas village-level “governance affairs” include not only “village affairs” but also the “government affairs” undertaken. It can be seen that incorporating governmental affairs into the work scope of the administrative village -- for example, at the present stage, most prominently assisting in the supply of governmental basic public services delivered “to the countryside” -- is an inherent part of villagers' self-governance. From this point of view, China's rural grassroots mass self-governance, from the very moment it was born, has not been purely “mass” self-governance, but bears obvious traces of local self-governance. The author calls it “a grassroots mass self-governance system of ‘quasi’ local self-governance with Chinese characteristics” [6].

Second, from the perspective of analytical logic, distinguishing the “community” from the “administrative village” on the basis of different suppliers of public goods necessarily leads to fallacy. The sources of public goods in a locality, or the suppliers of public goods, are often diverse; for example, within a village there are governmental public goods, cooperative public goods, socially funded public goods, and even private public goods. These public goods from different quarters all converge and settle in the same locality and population group, that is, the same grassroots social community of life -- the village. This is what is meant by “a thousand threads above, one needle below.” Within the scope of the administrative village they are integrated into a village-level basic public service system of diverse collaborative structures organically combining government services, villagers' self-services, socially participatory services and marketized services. If the difference in supply subjects were taken as the criterion for division, then there would be more than just the two divisions of “community” and “administrative village.” The key is that the government's delivery of basic public services “to the countryside” refers to the issue of public goods, while community refers to the issue of locality and population; they are fundamentally issues of two different categories, two concepts of completely different natures (as discussed below). Therefore, confusing and equating the issue of public goods (supply) with the issue of territorial society is clearly a great logical error.