Copy a copy for you, I hope it will be useful: on the direction of administrative system reform in agricultural villages and towns. Administrative system reform; Grass-roots democracy: This paper holds that the contradiction at the agricultural township level is rooted in the current financial system and administrative system. This paper holds that the reform of agricultural township administrative system should meet the needs of national governance and rural social development, and the direction should be to improve the basic system construction and strengthen the efficiency of township government through gradual internal reform. Agricultural villages and towns refer to villages and towns whose main industry is agriculture and whose financial revenue mainly comes from agriculture. According to Professor Xu Yong, the reform of township administrative system should not be "across the board", and agricultural townships and industrial and commercial townships should be treated differently. This distinction is mainly based on two reasons: first, the development prospects of the two are different, and the path selection should be different. The development prospect of agricultural towns is small towns. With more and more agricultural population gradually joining the industrial society, the countryside is shrinking, the contradiction between man and land is alleviated, and the prosperity of the countryside is expected to be realized. The development prospect of industrial and commercial towns is small cities, and the direction of administrative system reform should be city system. Second, the background of the two reforms is different. With the gradual deepening of rural tax and fee reform, especially after the abolition of agricultural tax, the financial income of agricultural villages and towns is seriously insufficient, and the necessity of its existence is questioned, let alone its effectiveness; The main problem of industrial and commercial towns lies in the inefficiency and functional distortion of township governments. First, the background and reasons for the reform of the administrative system of agricultural villages and towns 1. The financial revenue of agricultural villages and towns is seriously insufficient under the current financial system 1994. The financial management system established in 1994 redefined the scope of financial power and power of the central and local governments, strengthened the macro-control ability of the central government, and defined the responsibilities, rights and money of governments at all levels. Originally, the central government hoped to determine the financial distribution framework among governments below the provincial level by gradually deepening the system reform below the provincial level. However, due to the deepening of the system reform below the provincial level, there has been no obvious progress in recent years, and the pattern of division of financial power and administrative power deviates from each other. Provincial governments and municipal governments follow the example of centralized fiscal revenue at the central level, leading to an increase in county and township fiscal deficits. At the same time, the basic power of township governments has not decreased, but has increased. In addition to providing regional public goods, implementing the policies of the central government and the tasks assigned by the higher government, township governments should also support local economic development to a certain extent (driven by political achievements and pursuing disposable economic interests). The asymmetry of financial power and administrative power of township government seriously restricts its ability to act. After the reform of taxes and fees, especially since the abolition of agricultural taxes, this contradiction has become more prominent, so that most agricultural township finances that rely heavily on local taxes have become "meal finance", which can only maintain the survival of township governments. There are two explanations for the shortage of fiscal revenue in agricultural towns: absolute shortage and relative shortage. Absolute deficiency refers to the self-financing system and the abolition of agricultural tax, the township fiscal revenue decreased, unable to maintain the basic rigid fiscal expenditure, and the township administrative efficiency was low. Relative shortage means that a large part of the limited financial income of agricultural towns and villages is used to maintain the expanding huge township administrative institutions, while the funds needed to provide regional public goods and perform superior tasks are relatively insufficient. This determines two ways to solve the financial crisis of agricultural villages and towns: increasing the disposable financial resources of villages and towns or reducing the funds used to maintain the operation of agricultural villages and towns governments, and relatively increasing the resources needed for their normal performance of functions. The latter belongs to the category of administrative system reform. 2. Under the pressure administrative system, the administrative performance of agricultural villages and towns is under the unified leadership of the national governance system. As a subordinate institution of the county-level government, the township government's main function is to complete the tasks assigned by the superior. Under the pressure of "one-vote veto" in performance appraisal, township governments have to spend most of their energy and financial resources to meet various standards, such as "universal six", "universal nine", "double basics" in education, "family planning service station", oil roads and villages, and various activity rooms. The decentralization of these powers not only led to the expansion of the functional scope of township governments, but also directly promoted the expansion of township government institutions and personnel. Accordingly, as the basic organization of the state power system, the township government's ability to perform normal functions and provide regional public goods and services has been greatly weakened. In addition, agricultural township governments often show a strong inertia of self-expansion, and often extend their power beyond their functions, leading to the expansion of institutions and staffing. It also shows obvious characteristics of "self-satisfaction" and "self-service", which makes administrative actions tend to pursue economic interests or financial interests. II. Basis and Starting Point of Administrative System Reform of Agricultural Villages and Towns As a part of the national political system reform, the administrative system reform of agricultural villages and towns should not only be limited to solving contradictions and problems at the township level, but also meet the needs of national governance and rural social and economic development. The country needs a stable rural society, and it is based on this that we pay attention to the issues concerning agriculture, countryside and farmers. The state needs to ensure its control over rural society and its ability to absorb resources (including maintaining and strengthening legal resources) through the actions of its grass-roots government. In rural society, the value that farmers care most about is that they have money, which is the guarantee of their basic rights to ensure personal equality and dignity under the existing gap between the rich and the poor. The reform of the administrative system of agricultural villages and towns needs a broad perspective to examine the necessity and functional orientation of the township government. Paying too much attention to the contradictions at the township government level may solve the contradictions, but it may not meet the needs of national governance and rural social and economic development. Therefore, this paper discusses the necessity of the existence of agricultural township government. Abolishing the township government may solve some contradictions at the township level, but it cannot meet the needs. This move is not so much the liberation of farmers as the abandonment of farmers by the government. With the reduction of farmers' burden, social problems in rural areas also return to farmers. The essence of this plan is to let farmers govern themselves, but if we look at the current social situation and rural reality, we will find that this is not realistic. If we recognize the necessity of the existence of agricultural township government, then its necessity should be based on the new administrative functions. In other words, the agricultural township government must provide sufficient and reasonable reasons for its continued existence: based on the needs of national governance and rural social and economic development, the agricultural township government should perform the following basic functions: First, provide regional public products and public services. This is the legitimate basis for the existence of township grass-roots governments. Township governments must be responsible for public affairs within their jurisdiction, such as public security, rural education, small water conservancy facilities, rural road construction, social relief, community environment, health and epidemic prevention, etc. Second, carry out the tasks assigned by the higher government and perform basic management duties. Under the unitary system, the vertical administrative system has the function of integrating society. This function is realized by the township government that directly implements the policies and instructions of the higher authorities in the vast rural areas. Township governments must also perform basic management duties, such as household registration, disaster relief, population and family planning, and land management. Third, serve rural economic development. Township governments undertake complex management responsibilities and tasks, but they cannot and should not be responsible for economic growth targets, but they should intervene to promote rural economic development. Decentralized individual farmers are undoubtedly at an absolute disadvantage in front of the market. According to Olson's theory, it is not easy for scattered farmers to realize self-organization. On the one hand, agricultural township government can promote the self-organization construction of rural economy, on the other hand, it can provide farmers with market information and financial and technical support by using its own resource advantages. If the transition from the traditional rural society to the civil society depends on the alliance of farmers and small * * * against the big * * and the government,] then, in the period when the small * * is lacking and in urgent need of development, the grass-roots government and farmers need to cope with the market together and develop the small * * * with their bodies. Fourth, guide the work of villagers' committees according to law, coordinate the relationship between villages through planning and other means, and help solve the public affairs of rural communities. To sum up, the reform of agricultural township administrative system should be based on the needs of national governance and rural social and economic development, and should not be limited to solving contradictions at the township government level. What agricultural villages and towns need is an effective and promising grass-roots township government, not a township government with low cost but low efficiency. Third, the path choice of administrative system reform in agricultural villages and towns 1. The premise of implementing the gradual reform within the system is to affirm the necessity of the existence of township governments and correctly locate their functions. Only when the township government has the power and ability to perform its functions can it discuss its effectiveness. Michael mann believes that government power can be divided into two categories: absolute power and basic power. Autocratic power refers to the power that the government elite can implement without normal consultation with the state social groups. The autocratic power of the government is measured by its coercive degree and extensiveness. "Basic power refers to the ability of the government to actually go deep into the people and the state society and reasonably implement its political decisions throughout the jurisdiction." Basic power is measured by effectiveness. At present, the shortcomings of agricultural township governments are that they have more autocratic power and less basic power. So far, a series of policies and measures implemented by the government have basically solved the problem of excessive autocratic power. Gradual reform within the system is to solve the contradiction between financial revenue and expenditure of agricultural villages and towns and the contradiction between the performance of basic functions and political achievements by gradually reforming the shortcomings of the current financial system and administrative system. The essence of this plan is to give priority to solving the problem of insufficient basic power of township governments, that is, to establish effective township grass-roots governments. This choice is mainly based on the following understanding: the main contradiction of agricultural towns is not the contradiction between farmers and township governments, but the contradiction between inefficient township governments and rural society that urgently need effective township governments. Farmers need strong grass-roots governments to protect their interests and rights, guide rural economic development and achieve material prosperity. 2. The direct election of township heads is the most common and typical in Sichuan Province. Directly elected township heads generally have to go through the procedures of nominating candidates, running candidates and voting by voters, which is essentially equivalent to modern democracy in the West. There are two main reasons for advocating direct election of township heads: first, they are worried about the corruption of grassroots officials in townships; Second, I believe that the elected government can bring more justice and promote the development of rural society. The essence of advocating grass-roots democracy in villages and towns is to give priority to solving the problem of excessive authoritarian power in agricultural villages and towns, and think that democracy can solve the problem of insufficient grass-roots power. Democracy in the modern sense, according to Schumpeter's point of view, is only a procedure to produce politicians or decision makers. "The democratic method is the institutional arrangement for making political decisions, and some of them gain the decision-making power by winning the votes of the people". In Schumpeter's view, democracy, as a form or procedure, has its fundamental weaknesses: election is essentially a vote management activity, and the sale of votes is inevitable; The campaign struggle often makes the handling of public affairs inefficient; Elections may not be able to elect qualified politicians or decision makers. These weaknesses are almost universal at the agricultural township level. As a form of political operation, democracy cannot guarantee that the result of its operation will be beneficial to political construction and social justice. Moreover, the lack of basic power in agricultural towns and villages stems from the dislocation of township government functions and the lack of material resources to guarantee power. Even if the township heads are directly elected, the elected township heads cannot break through the restrictions caused by the current system and do nothing. Carrying out democracy at the grass-roots level in villages and towns can't solve the problem of insufficient power at the grass-roots level in agricultural villages and towns, and can't realize the effectiveness of agricultural township government. If a government cannot perform its basic government functions, no matter what form it takes, its people will not benefit from it. The ultimate goal of democracy is to ensure the interests and demands of the majority. If this goal cannot be achieved, democracy, as a form of government organization, will only become a form itself, and it will lose its instrumental value as a means to protect citizens' rights and interests. In fact, democracy originating from the West needs the support of specific social conditions. As Huntington said, "Modern democracy is the product of western civilization, which is rooted in social pluralism, class system, civil society, belief in the rule of law, experience of representative system, separation of spiritual authority from secular authority and insistence on individualism, all of which began to appear in Western Europe more than a thousand years ago. One or two of these elements may be found in other civilizations, but as a whole, they only exist in the West. If these elements are ignored, the democracy gained may be just a form. Although the debate about whether democracy is an end or a method has never stopped, the "democracy" promoted at the township level has obvious instrumental color. Let's not talk about whether the conditions for direct elections in agricultural towns and villages are really available. Even if the Western-style elections are realized, the nature of modern liberal democracy is more thorough due to the limitations of institutional conditions, that is, "changing rulers" (Huntington's language). Under the current system, a large number of elements are engaged in the retreat of grassroots democracy, and at the same time, the state's control over rural society will gradually shift to the hands of emerging political elites and economic elites in rural society. In the current rural areas of China, these elites can only be two types of people, one is the rich in rural society; One kind is people who have close relationship with the higher government or have other social or organizational resources. Whether such "democracy" is conducive to justice and promoting rural economic development is debatable. More importantly, this is far from the needs of farmers in China. What farmers urgently need is not votes, but banknotes, not a short-term display of individual voting rights, but economic security for objective life. The inequality of farmers is more due to the constraints of economic conditions. Not only is it difficult to realize the true connotation of democracy through the form of democracy, but it also clearly exposes the falsehood of this so-called "democracy". Throughout the process of democratization in western countries, we can see that democracy is the product of struggle and compromise between classes or strata in the process of social and historical development. The significance of its establishment and development is not sacred, it is only an institutional product derived from social needs in social and historical development. The essence of modern democracy is an institutional arrangement that can achieve compromise. Democracy is respected because its development adapts to and maintains the development and harmony within capitalist society. The fundamental purpose of western democracy and its development is not to protect the rights and interests of all citizens, nor to ensure the realization of the people's sovereignty concept. In fact, freedom and democracy in the west can't actually guarantee people's sovereignty. According to the current national conditions, China should explore democratic forms that meet the needs of national governance and social development. The connotation of democracy is lofty, but the form of democracy is not unique. In fact, the quality of the government lies not in the popularity of the right to vote, but in whether the government can properly respond to the needs of the people and achieve the purpose of national governance and the well-being of the people. The author is more in favor of Mr Li Pengcheng's point of view. "From the perspective of maintaining the concept of value democracy, it seems that we should attach importance to the purpose value of democracy. If people in a society can enjoy the welfare life freely and equally, instead of deliberately pursuing the free and equal value of' political participation'. Perhaps it can emancipate our minds and design governance methods that can better promote the realization of this goal. This should be the true value of democratic politics. " To sum up, the reform of agricultural township administrative system should meet the needs of national governance and rural social and economic development, and its basic direction should be to strengthen the efficiency of township governments. Gradual reform within the system is not necessarily the best scheme, but it is indeed a controllable and feasible scheme with the lowest risk cost. The rural problems are so complicated that it is impossible to solve the fundamental problems at once. It takes a long time to solve rural problems, so it is necessary to recognize the value of agricultural township government and review and discuss more radical reform programs. Since reform is a long-term process, it is worth considering and discussing according to needs, which may not be considered as rational conceit.