In the early 1980s, Comrade Deng Xiaoping, the chief architect of China's reform, proposed that in the 20 years before the end of this century, we should pay close attention to four tasks. The first is to carry out institutional reform, and made the famous conclusion that "institutional reform is a revolution". In the following 20 years, our party put forward the task of institutional reform in the reports of five consecutive congresses, and the National People's Congress also adopted the institutional reform plan of the State Council at the fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth congresses. Five large-scale institutional reforms have been carried out within the scope of party and government organs and institutions at all levels throughout the country. It can be said that almost every government in the past 20 years has started a new government with a new round of institutional reform. Although every reform goal has its focus, every reform achievement will bring new atmosphere and new progress to the government. However, unlike other reforms, the results of each institutional reform are difficult to consolidate for a long time, and there is always a cycle of "simplification-expansion-simplification-re-expansion". It is true that every institutional reform is a product under certain historical conditions and the result of the interaction between subjective and objective, history and reality. We cannot deny the inevitability and rationality of its reform just because of the "simplification-expansion" cycle. It should be noted that the 20-year course of institutional reform, whether it is a successful experience or a failed lesson, is undoubtedly a huge and valuable asset for China public administration, which is marching towards the 2 1 century and shouldering the historical mission of building a well-off society in an all-round way.

First, the key to the success or failure of institutional reform is to choose a good goal orientation.

In the historical process of China's comprehensive reform and opening up, institutional reform has always had concrete and extremely rich connotations. It is not only an important part of political system reform, but also an important part of economic system reform. It involves not only all aspects of administrative management, but also the relevant contents of the party and state leadership system; There are both the reform of the shortcomings of the old system and the innovation of the new system and mechanism. Therefore, the goal of institutional reform in the past has the characteristics of multiplicity and uncertainty. For example, the main goal of 1982 institutional reform is to solve the problem of leadership system in economic construction, but at the same time, the aging of leadership team must be considered. This requires institutional reform to solve three problems at the same time: first, in order to strengthen centralized leadership over economic work and improve work efficiency, it is necessary to reduce redundant staff by streamlining institutions and solve the problems of multi-head management, buck passing and unclear responsibilities; Second, it is necessary to adapt to the needs of economic construction, abolish the life tenure system of leadership positions, and solve the problem of replacement and rejuvenation of leading bodies; Third, in view of the situation that the knowledge quality and professional management level of government cadres are not suitable, it is necessary to strengthen the training of cadres. These three tasks are intertwined, which actually increases the complexity and arduousness of the reform. Judging from the historical conditions at that time, the problems faced by institutional reform included not only the old problems accumulated for many years, but also the new contradictions raised by reform, opening up and economic construction, as well as the limitations of our understanding of reform and the limited practical tolerance of cadres for reform. So the effect of this reform is not obvious.

Judging from several institutional reforms after 1988, the central government has gradually focused on the strategic transformation of government functions, which is undoubtedly a very correct strategic choice. However, in the specific reform practice, the transformation of government functions is a very complicated social system engineering, which is different from the internal reform of the government, but to solve the relationship between the government and the market, the government and enterprises, and the government and society, and to promote the reform of the administrative system in adjusting the above relationships. With the establishment and perfection of the socialist market economy, it will be a long and arduous process. For example, 1987, the report of the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China made a normative statement on the position and role of transformation function in institutional reform, that is, "in order to avoid embarking on the old road of' simplification-expansion-simplification-re-expansion', this institutional reform must grasp the key of transformation function." 1the State Council's institutional reform plan adopted in March, 1988 requires that "the general requirements of this reform are to change functions, simplify administration and decentralize power, adjust internal structure and streamline personnel". This "reform" is not a simple simplification or merger, but a transformation of functions. According to the principle of separating government from enterprise, we should transfer the functions of directly managing enterprises, put down the functions of directly managing money and things, and strengthen the functions of decision-making, consultation, regulation, supervision and information, so that the government can gradually change from directly managing enterprises to indirectly managing enterprises. At the same time, some functions of the original administrative organs will be transferred to various associations. "Although this reform put forward the goal of transforming government functions and determined to solve the problem of separating government from enterprises, the goal of economic system reform at that time was not very clear, and the debate on the relationship between plan and market was in a stalemate, so the institutional reform thinking standing on it could not be very clear. The transformation of government functions is basically a vague concept. Simplifying administration, decentralizing power and invigorating enterprises have not changed the relationship between the government and the market, but the division of labor between the government and enterprises in economic construction is different. It can be seen that the conditions and opportunities for reform are not mature, the target positioning is too high, and the actual operability is lacking. The expected goal is still unattainable.

Judging from the effect of institutional reform, the three institutional reforms of 1993, 1998 and 2003 were relatively successful, and one of the most important reasons was that the reform objectives were determined realistically. The institutional reform of 1993 was carried out under the condition of clearly establishing a new system of socialist market economy. Transforming government functions according to the requirements of socialist market economy is the key to the success of this reform. Reform according to this goal is no longer the withdrawal and merger of institutions and the increase or decrease of personnel, but the reorganization of the system. It is to return the functions that belong to the enterprise to the enterprise, the functions that belong to the market to the market, the functions that belong to the society to the society, and the functions that belong to the grassroots to the grassroots. On this basis, redefine and merge the functions belonging to the government, and implement comprehensive management according to the principles of separation, simplification, unification and efficiency of government and enterprise. This reform also emphasizes the value judgment that the government should serve enterprises and society. In a word, it is "small organization, big service" or "small government, big society". "Small organization, big service" vividly shows the dialectical relationship between government management mode and service economy construction function. On the one hand, the government has reduced the affairs that should not be managed, simplified administration and decentralization, laid off employees, reduced institutions and fewer people; On the other hand, the government's function of serving economic construction has been expanded and strengthened in this reform and streamlining process.

1998 institutional reform still adheres to the goal orientation of government function transformation, but this time the focus is to optimize the government organizational structure as the specific goal: to establish an administrative management system with high efficiency, coordinated operation and standardized behavior, to improve the national civil service system, to build a team of high-quality professional administrative cadres, and to gradually establish an administrative management system with China characteristics that adapts to the socialist market economic system. In accordance with the principles of simplification, unification and efficiency, we will adjust government institutions and implement streamlined administration. Strengthen macro-control departments, adjust and reduce professional economic departments, appropriately adjust social service departments, strengthen law enforcement and supervision departments, and develop social intermediary organizations. According to the principle of consistency of power and responsibility, we should adjust the responsibilities and authority of government departments, clearly divide the division of functions between departments, and hand over the same or similar functions to the same department to overcome the disadvantages of multi-head management and multi-head administration. In accordance with the requirements of governing the country according to law and administration according to law, strengthen the legal construction of the administrative system.

In 2003, it was clearly put forward that the goal of deepening the reform of administrative management system is to establish an administrative management system that is compatible with socialist market economy and socialist democratic politics, standardized in behavior, coordinated in operation, fair and transparent, clean and efficient; It is clear that the orientation of government functions is four functions: economic regulation, market supervision, social management and public service. The focus of institutional reform is to deepen the reform of state-owned assets management system, improve macro-control system, improve financial supervision system, continue to promote the reform of circulation management system, and strengthen the construction of food safety and production safety supervision system around the theme of government function transformation. By optimizing the internal organizational structure of the government, we can promote the centralized integration of similar management functions, break the division of departments, and build a new functional system and coordinated operation mechanism.

Second, the difficulty of institutional reform is to straighten out the relationship between public power and power.

The government is a complete and open system, which consists of several elements. Its external relations with society, economy, culture and other aspects are complicated, and there are also various internal relations. If the transformation of functions is mainly to reform and adjust the relationship between the administrative management system and all aspects of the external society, then straightening out the relationship is mainly to reform and adjust the relationship between the internal components of the administrative management system.

The institutional reform after 1993 emphasizes the importance of straightening out relations and coordinating operation, and clearly regards straightening out relations, changing functions, streamlining troops and simplifying administration as important contents of the reform. If changing functions is the key to institutional reform, then straightening out relations is the focus and difficulty of institutional reform. The essence of straightening out the relationship is the scientific and rational allocation of national public power resources and the organizational guarantee for the coordinated and efficient operation of administration according to law. Its relationship mainly includes: the vertical relationship between the central and local governments and the subordinate organs of local governments; The horizontal relationship between the party and government organs and the internal departments of government organs; The relationship between vertical management departments and local governments. What we usually say is to straighten out all kinds of relationships, mainly aiming at the outstanding problems in the administrative management system, such as overlapping functions, overlapping responsibilities, multi-head administration, wrangling with each other and low efficiency, focusing on straightening out the relationship between the party and government, the relationship between the central and local governments, and the relationship between various departments in the organization, that is, rationally dividing management authority, clarifying their respective responsibilities, and scientifically stipulating work contact methods and procedures.

Although we have spent a lot of energy in rationalizing the relationship, all governments have clearly defined their respective rights and responsibilities in the "three-set plan" of institutional reform, and strive to achieve the same responsibility and rights. But from the overall effect, there is no fundamental way out for this problem. The old relationship has not been straightened out, and the new relationship is still uncoordinated, which can be described as "cutting". There are three main reasons:

First, institutional reform only pays attention to the rationality of the static division of labor and the division of responsibilities and rights in the organizational structure, ignoring the inevitability of mutual connection and coordination in organizational operation. The overall performance is greater than the sum of the parts. The biggest feature of government administration is publicity and the pursuit of social fairness and social benefits. Only the government, as an organic whole of public power, can achieve social equity and social benefits to the greatest extent. The responsibilities and powers of government departments do not exist independently, but depend on and restrict each other. Due to the huge organization and numerous departments of modern administrative organs, even if the division of labor is fine and the responsibilities are clear, it is difficult to avoid overlapping in operation. The idea of our institutional reform is often to overemphasize the advantages of specialization and decompose the responsibilities into parts, but there is no coordination mechanism for "partial" assembly and integration. As a result, the phenomenon of power division and departmental interests has become more and more serious, which has widened the gap between governments and reduced the overall efficiency.

Second, the previous institutional reforms were based on the original management system and management model to straighten out the relationship, rather than from the perspective of building a scientific and reasonable power structure and innovative management model. The current administrative management system is formed under the highly centralized planned economy system. The disadvantages of this system are that each level of government is large and comprehensive, the function allocation is generally rough from top to bottom, and the institutional setup is counterpart; Every industry system is closed, integrating decision-making, execution and supervision, and it is difficult to restrict power. This centralized system strengthens the hierarchical system, which is beneficial to the control of superior and subordinate management, but weakens the balance of power, ignoring the differences in management and decision-making, implementation and supervision functions brought about by uneven development among regions. In the administrative system, the division of power is based on vertical levels and horizontal professional functions, which is a traditional process control model. In the administrative reform of western developed countries, the separation of decision-making, execution and supervision functions is generally adopted. Policy-making organs and executive departments implement performance contract relationship, and the executive departments are relatively independent, implement market-oriented and enterprise-oriented management, and establish a control mode of pursuing results. Although our national conditions are different, it is impossible to completely copy foreign practices. However, with the different functions of decision-making, execution and supervision and the role of decentralization, it is a new idea to establish a coordinated and beneficial relationship between the lower and higher levels of government and departments and establish a moderately decentralized management system. Gradually realize the relative separation of administrative decision-making power and executive power, and implement the centralization and centralization of government decision-making functions. By scientifically standardizing departmental functions, government agencies are set up according to comprehensive functions, and the same or similar functions are entrusted to an administrative department. At the same time, it is necessary to reform the administrative execution system, establish a comprehensive executive body, implement comprehensive management of government affairs, and return the administrative power dispersed to departments to the people's government at the same level in principle. Reform the administrative law enforcement system, establish a capable and unified administrative law enforcement team, and implement comprehensive law enforcement.

Third, in the past, reforms mainly relied on administrative means to straighten out relations. This kind of soft constraint has proved to be unworkable in practice. We have not fully realized the inevitable relationship between the division of power and the distribution of interests. The essence of straightening out power relations is the readjustment of power and interests. This work is far from enough by administrative means, and it must be solved by means of the rule of law. Therefore, it is the basic premise to formulate the law of institutional setup and strengthen the legal construction of institutional reform.

Third, the eternal theme of institutional reform is to promote government innovation.

The so-called government innovation is to explore new methods and models of administrative system and institutional reform to adapt to the changes in the new environment and the challenges of new tasks. Government innovation is mainly reflected in the theoretical level, institutional level and technical level. All previous reforms have promoted government innovation to varying degrees and played an important role in establishing a new public administration system.

First of all, in terms of theoretical innovation, starting from deepening the understanding of the relationship between government and market, government and society, the new concept of building a public service-oriented government is put forward. The process of building a service-oriented government is to realize the transformation from government-centered management to public service-centered, and to realize the transformation from government-oriented and official-oriented systems to social-oriented and people-oriented systems. Under the guidance of the value concept of service-oriented government, government transformation is an inevitable goal choice. In the reform in recent years, people have formed an understanding of the value orientation of reform: from omnipotent government to limited government; Change from a power government to a responsible government; Change from closed government to transparent government; From controlling the government to the rule of law.

Secondly, in terms of system innovation, it is the main content of government structure and function innovation. On the basis of previous reform experience, the Central Committee put forward that the goal of China's administrative system innovation is to gradually form a public administrative system with standardized behavior, coordinated operation, fairness, transparency, honesty and high efficiency with Deng Xiaoping Theory and Theory of Three Represents as the guidance, building a service-oriented government as the theme, and focusing on transforming government functions and administration according to law. So that governments at all levels can provide high-quality and efficient public products and services to meet public needs. For example, in order to standardize government behavior, the reform of administrative examination and approval system and administrative investment system has been deepened; In order to strengthen social management and public service functions, governments at all levels have established and improved various emergency mechanisms, which have improved the government's ability to cope with public crises.

Thirdly, in terms of technological innovation, it is proposed to improve administrative efficiency and reduce administrative costs by improving management methods and promoting e-government. E-government is a revolution in the way of government management, and its influence on government management is first manifested in the innovation of government management tools with productivity. The government can use modern information technology and network environment to improve office efficiency and productivity, streamline institutions and personnel, and reduce management costs. Secondly, the use of this new productivity tool will constantly change the government management structure and model and reshape the government business process. This change from management tool innovation to management structure to management mode will greatly change the management concept of the existing government and will inevitably build a government organization form that adapts to the social development in the information age. The implementation of e-government can not only improve the efficiency of government management, improve the transparency of government work, promote the construction of a clean and diligent government, but also make the government use information technology to better serve the public. More importantly, the revolution of management mode brought by this new management mode will eventually change our long-term government management environment and lead us to a brand-new government management world. E-government is "three points technology, seven points management", in essence, e-government is a revolution of government management. It is necessary to improve administrative efficiency and reduce administrative costs on the basis of the government's advanced productivity and management innovation. Instead of simply improving administrative efficiency and reducing administrative costs, only in this way can we fundamentally improve the modernization level of the government and truly establish a "cheap and efficient" government suitable for the development of modern market economy and social progress.

To sum up, the practice of five institutional reforms in China has accumulated five valuable experiences: First, it insists on adapting to the socialist market economic system as the reform goal and taking the transformation of government functions as the key to administrative reform; Second, adhere to the principle of simplification, unification and efficiency, and take streamlining troops and optimizing government organizational structure as important tasks of administrative reform; Third, adhere to a proactive and prudent policy, not only assess the situation, seize the opportunity, unswervingly take the pace of reform, but also fully consider the affordability of all parties and prudently promote reform; Fourth, adhere to the combination of institutional reform and cadre personnel system reform, formulate supporting policies and measures, properly arrange personnel diversion, and optimize the cadre structure; Fifth, adhere to unified leadership, take responsibility at different levels, implement it step by step, proceed from reality and adjust measures to local conditions. After more than 20 years of exploration and efforts, a service-oriented public administration system is taking shape to meet the requirements of the development of socialist market economy.

These three reforms have formed a gradual mode of step by step and deepening the matching. Although a long-term strategic plan has not been consciously formed, the reform theory is not well prepared, and some conditions are not yet available, the overall thinking and target design meet the requirements of economic and social development and reform and opening up.