What can we learn from China's grassroots governance？

The fifth plenary session of the 20th Communist Party of China Central Committee takes place from October 26 to 29. As the Party renews its emphasis on full and rigorous self-governance, a key challenge is how to translate decisions made at the top into action across a country of more than 1.4 billion people — and hold those responsible for implementation accountable.

China's experience offers a practical answer: connect local communities to public institutions, bring organizations together to solve shared problems, and make officials accountable for their responsibilities. The underlying lesson is relevant far beyond China — the strength of governance lies not only in making decisions, but in delivering results where people live.

Start where people's lives unfold
For most people, governance is not an abstract concept. It is the quality of public services, the resolution of neighbourhood disputes and the speed with which everyday problems are addressed.

China's grid-based management system seeks to bring government closer to these concerns. By dividing communities and villages into smaller units, it gives frontline workers a clearer picture of local needs and provides channels for residents' concerns to reach the relevant authorities.

Beijing had 61,900 grids in 2024, according to the Mercator Institute for China Studies, while Xinhua-affiliated Outlook Weekly reported more than 4.5 million grid workers nationwide.

The significance goes beyond numbers. A problem noticed early is often easier to resolve. A local worker familiar with a neighbourhood may be better placed to identify a recurring dispute, connect residents with the right department and follow up on the response.

For governments everywhere, the principle is straightforward: effective public administration begins with understanding people's needs at the level where those needs arise. National strategies matter, but their value ultimately depends on how they improve everyday life.

Make cooperation a governing strength
Local problems rarely respect administrative boundaries. A residential parking shortage, for example, may involve community officials, property managers, businesses and several government departments. Each may control part of the solution, but none can resolve the issue alone.

China's Party-building co-construction approach seeks to bridge these divides by bringing Party organizations from communities, government agencies, businesses and other institutions together to share resources and coordinate action.

Its wider significance lies in treating cooperation as an organized capacity rather than leaving it to informal goodwill. When institutions communicate, pool resources and align responsibilities, they can address problems that fall between departmental mandates.

This is a lesson with international relevance. Governments in many countries face fragmented public services, overlapping responsibilities and complex urban challenges. China's experience highlights the value of building durable channels for coordination — and of focusing that coordination on concrete outcomes for residents.

Make responsibility tangible
Cooperation alone is not enough. Someone must ensure that commitments are carried through.

An undated photo shows an autumn view of a community in Daxing district, Beijing. [Photo: CGTN Radio]

The fifth plenary session's focus on full and rigorous Party self-governance brings this question into sharper relief. China's discipline inspection and supervisory institutions investigate misconduct and help enforce rules governing officials. Such oversight forms part of a broader effort to strengthen discipline and ensure that public responsibilities are taken seriously.

The governance lesson extends beyond any single institutional model: accountability should connect authority with responsibility. Clear duties, effective supervision and follow-through can help ensure that decisions do not stop at the point of issuance.

Oversight can also contribute to institutional learning. Understanding why a task was delayed or a service fell short can help distinguish individual negligence from procedural problems and identify ways to improve implementation. In this sense, accountability is not merely about enforcing standards; it can also help public institutions perform better.

For other countries, the broader principle is that integrity and effectiveness belong in the same conversation. Public trust depends both on the proper exercise of authority and on whether institutions deliver on their commitments.

The last mile is where governance counts

China's grassroots governance brings together three connected capabilities: identifying problems early, mobilizing organizations to address them, and holding officials responsible for their work.

Together, these practices speak to a challenge shared by governments around the world: closing the gap between policy decisions and people's lived experience.

No country's institutions can simply be copied elsewhere. Political systems, social conditions and public expectations differ. But practical lessons can travel, even when institutional arrangements cannot. (end)