This poor family's "front door" fire: leaders please do not come again.

This poor family's

Original title: [solution Bureau] a real problem behind the photos of a hot network

Recently, a poor family's "front door photo" fire is the following:

"Leaders: I have already lifted out of poverty, please do not disturb again."

According to Shimadzu's understanding, the poor cadres who came to the door on that day actually paid for a pot of oil and a bag of rice from their own pockets, and "private cars" came across the mountains and mountains to visit, but ended up with a closed door.

Arguably, poverty alleviation is a good thing and a great thing to do now. But why is there such a black humor scene?

In fact, similar scenes are not uncommon in Shimadzu's two-year survey of poverty alleviation.

The masses

In essence, poverty alleviation is a typical "mass work".

Mao Zedong once wrote, "No matter what work we Communists do, there are two methods that must be adopted: the combination of general and individual, and the combination of leadership and the masses." After that, mass work continued to become a new national governance tradition in New China. Although the current state governance constantly emphasizes standardization, procedural and specialization, many of the central work at the grass-roots level is still highly dependent on mass work.

In other words, whether the masses can be fully mobilized and the intention of the Party and the government translated into the will of the masses is the key to the simple and efficient completion of grass-roots work. After all, grass-roots administrative power is limited, mass work can be a necessary supplement; grass-roots affairs also need to meet with the masses, meet with the masses, contact, has become the only way of mass work.

As far as poverty alleviation is concerned, the fulfillment of its task lies not only in the local Party Committee and government, but also in the people's willingness and efforts to get rid of poverty. At present, accurate poverty alleviation has become the central task in poverty-stricken areas, and is regarded as "No. 1 Project" by all localities. The allocation of administrative resources is sufficient. The real problem is how to effectively transform poverty alleviation resources into the driving force and conditions for the masses to get rid of poverty.

This must be achieved through mass work. It should be said that poverty alleviation suffers from the embarrassment of "the government moves but the masses do not move" in the picture above. There may be many reasons, but the core is the misplacement of mass work. We can expand it in detail.


For example, the most difficult problem for the grassroots is to identify the target of poverty alleviation.

Since the last eighty years, the work of poverty alleviation is basically a development policy. The focus is on improving infrastructure in poor areas, developing local economies and achieving poverty reduction goals. In this policy context, the work to be done around the country is to determine the "incidence of poverty"; who is placed in the poor households, it does not matter. In fact, at the grassroots level, when reporting poor households, they were mostly random declarations.

However, on the premise that poverty alleviation resources will be "accurate to the household", poverty alleviation work needs to spend a lot of energy on "identifying" poor households. Generally speaking, in practice, "absolutely poor households" are very few, easy to identify, the difficulty lies in the determination of "relatively poor households". In some areas, the actual incidence of poverty is far lower than the policy, so some non-poor households have to be forced into the ranks of poor households.

When this happens, there will be a situation in which the poverty-stricken population meets the policy requirements, but the masses are not satisfied and grassroots cadres are busy dealing with various contradictions. Shimadzu encountered this situation when he was investigating in a poverty-stricken county: the township Party Committee and government wanted to determine the poverty-stricken population from facts, but the county poverty alleviation office did not allow it, because the state policy stipulated that they "must have enough poverty-stricken people". This is ironic.

Compared with this "poverty", there is also a phenomenon of "being a poor household". After all, one of the consequences of precise policy implementation is that poor households will benefit, so people intuitively view precise poverty alleviation as a "welfare distribution".

Why does poverty alleviation work find the wrong target of poverty alleviation and the wrong masses in the mass work, thus resulting in negative effects? This requires reflection on whether the poverty alleviation method is misplaced.


For most poverty-stricken areas, there are two basic causes: one is that the family expenditure is too large, including education, health care, housing and so on; the other is that the family income is too small, mainly due to the lack of labor force, employment opportunities and so on.

At present, in most areas, social security policies and financial aid policies almost eliminate the large expenditure of poor families, but family income can not be achieved in this way.

Generally speaking, many local governments will implement industrial poverty alleviation and help poor households to get rid of poverty by developing industries. The problem is that under the conditions of market economy, industry itself means risks; therefore, grassroots units often implement industrial poverty alleviation through flexible means based on past experience.

For example, find some enterprises or cooperatives to obtain bank discount loans in the name of poor households; these enterprises financing the development of production, while enjoying preferential policies, and then returned to poor households in the form of "dividends". Here, the poor households actually did not participate in the labor, but they gained advantage from nothing.

Grassroots cadres often say that as long as there is a strong labor force in their families, they are basically lifted out of poverty. The trouble is that the poor households are either short of labor or unwilling to go out to work. Even in the case of conditional poverty, with government support, the priority may be consumption, not production.

The author encountered a thing in a poverty-stricken Township survey: during the Spring Festival in 2016, the county came to a huge number of interest-free loans for poor households (50,000 households), the premise is to guarantee the village committee. The county government has demanded that these poverty alleviation loans be completed within a few months. However, the township government is hesitant and the village cadres are generally boycotting.

Why? Because the grassroots cadres decided that the local peasants took the money, they must have built houses and married their wives. It was impossible to really develop production and had no intention of repaying the money. As a result, during the new year, many poor families were reluctant to go out to work, so that they could get the loan. Some "smart" village cadres also fought a protracted war with them, that is, they did not go through formalities and eventually "won" by delaying.

Objectively speaking, under the current conditions, poverty-alleviating cadres mostly do "business": to account for poor households, for poor households to deal with a variety of policies and preferential treatment, to send a variety of benefits to poor households; but obviously, poverty eradication can not be accomplished by this "benefit-giving" method.

The trouble is that most of the working groups now have their own resources to help the poor. Those units with more resources, such as the Finance Bureau, the Transport Bureau and the Development and Reform Commission, have more resources for poverty alleviation, so their work is easier to do; while some "Qingshui Yamen" teams have "self-knowledge", it is better to go less.

For example, a poor village in our investigation is linked by the regiment County Committee. According to the requirements, the Communist Youth League committee visits the poor families every month. Village Secretary for good intentions, every time he said, "do not come, we need to know the situation to ask us." The cadres of the Communist Youth League Committee are very serious: "we will go to the poor families to have a cup of tea and not to eat." The village secretary had to tell the truth: "people often feel that they are not disturbing people. No tea, no ordinary people. "

In other words, poverty alleviation cadres do their own jobs, but to a large extent, are they related to poor families? Therefore, even the poor families will feel bored if they get the benefits.


In fact, returning to the source, all the "precise implementation" of policies need to be based on two foundations: one is that policy information is transparent enough, and the other is that policy information can be calculated.

But in the current rural society, these two conditions are often difficult to establish. For example, some of our major poverty alleviation data platforms integrate household registration, banking, real estate, vehicles, education, medical care, social security and other information, can identify some "false poor households", but the vast majority of the real poor household information is usually vague and difficult to calculate.

Take the most intuitive household income, often even the peasants themselves can not say (seasonal changes, scattered income, etc.); ordinary peasants do not keep an account, their family economic activities are difficult to calculate. Nearly every poor household in Shimadzu's sight was covered with large white paper, which depicted the household income and expenditure of the poor household. This is the aforementioned "accounting" work of the cadres in poverty alleviation.

Shimadzu asked, this is to enable poor households to remember their own family income and expenditure and other key information, so as to avoid the above inspection, poor households can not answer or inaccurate, resulting in poor poverty alleviation work.

"Precision" and "fuzziness" are the realistic problems that China's grass-roots society needs to deal with for a long time. If the key and difficult points of the grass-roots cadres'poverty alleviation work change from "how to make poverty-stricken households out of poverty" to "how to make poverty alleviation work stand the examination of poverty alleviation system", it will become stale and turn to formalism.

In practice, we also see that in order to ensure that there is no mistake at the higher level of acceptance, we can only make repeated visits to poverty, return visits, pull-net survey, complete the work to look back, look back again, the relevant data are constantly checked, compared, and the files are changed and changed.

From this point of view, if we establish a supervision system that can cover the whole process of governance, but fail to achieve effective monitoring of grassroots society, there will always be a contradiction: even if grassroots really do something, really contact the masses, but the starting point and the foothold are to "prove themselves" to do things, how about Can we talk to the masses?

Therefore, in order to do a good job in mass work in the new era, the first thing is to follow the mass line within the administrative "bureaucratic system". The superiors should be cautious in using such means as supervision and accountability, but should go to the grass-roots level, do more ideological work of grass-roots cadres, and make more contact with grass-roots cadres to solve problems in the process of arousing their enthusiasm and subjectivity.

Wen / Lv Dewen (Department of sociology, Wuhan University)

Editor in chief: Yu Pengfei

Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens