Research Article

Knowledge Mapping Analysis of Grassroots Social Governance Research in China Using Cite Space

He Tiancheng^1,2*, Guo Sijia³ and Wangjiayang⁴

¹Faculty, School of Marxism, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

²Doctor, Department of Political Party and State Governance, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China

³Graduate Student, School of Humanities, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

⁴School of Materials Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

Submission: February 05, 2024; Published: February 20, 2024

*Corresponding author: He Tiancheng, School of Marxism, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

How to cite this article: He Tiancheng*, Guo Sijia and Wangjiayang. Knowledge Mapping Analysis of Grassroots Social Governance Research in China Using Cite Space. Acad J Politics and Public Admin. 2024; 1(2): 555558. DOI:10.19080/ACJPP.2024.01.555558.

Abstract

The Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee put forward the concept of “social governance” for the first time, which not only makes the new leap of the concept of social management to that of social governance come true, but also marks the further transformation of new era of China’s social governance to the new pattern of social governance modernization. Timely classification and analysis of China’s grass-roots social governance research, and scientifically understanding of its evolution logic and current hot spots, contribute to strengthening and innovating grass-roots social governance in the new era to provide theoretical reference. Visually analyzing the 1199 research literatures on grassroots social governance on CNKI with CiteSpace software, the research discovered that from the perspective of domestic research, the research on grassroots social governance has already received extensive attention from the academic community, with many high-quality research results emerging continuously.

The academic community has completed the conceptual transformation from “management” to “governance”, and the research trend from “phenomenon observation” to “problem-oriented”. Nevertheless, some studies oversimplify the definition of governance as multi stakeholder management, yet ignore the deeper elements such as value consensus, relationship coordination and behavioral interaction. At the same time, some studies fail to completely consider the institutional background and actual national conditions with Chinese characteristics in their theories, resulting in excessive use of Western discourse to explain China issues in grassroots social governance studies. In the future, it is necessary to overcome the problems of vanity and disconnection between theory and reality in these studies. In the context of Chinese-style modernization, empirical research should be carried out in combination with specific grassroots social governance practices, the in-depth research on the relationship mechanism behind grassroots social governance, and the construction of grassroots social governance evaluation system suitable for the actual situation in China.

Keywords: China; Social governance; Grassroots; Knowledge map; Current situation and issues

Introduction

In recent years, China has continued to promote the important decisions of the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity, as well as that of social governance. Since the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the term “social governance” has started to be used instead of “social management” in central committee’s documents, and this shift reflects the innovative practice of the socialist governance theory with Chinese characteristics and marks a new stage in China’s reform and development. From the time that the reform and opening up is carried out, Chinese scholars have diversified the theories of governance based on the actual needs of China’s economic and social development, combined with Chinese context and practice, and gradually formed a Chinese governance theory on the foundation of local and draws lessons from foreign countries. This theory has distinct characteristics, such as expanding research fields, increasingly diverse research methods, and strong practical research results. Over the years, research on grassroots social governance has formed different fields, including global governance, regional governance, national governance, government governance, social governance, grassroots governance, rural governance and so on. The issue of grassroots social governance is not only a social and political issue that the CPC and the state attach great importance to, but also an important issue that is widely concerned by all sectors of society in China. Social governance at the grassroots level has two important contents: one is the guarantee of social order and social vitality, both of which are people-centered in nature. Social order essentially involves the alleviation of conflicts of interest, and it is a matter of responding to the needs of the people. Social vitality involves social participation. Only by promoting social participation can social vitality be better stimulated. This involves the people as the main body; the other is the publicity of social vitality.

In recent years, social governance at the grassroots level across the country has been carried out under the guidance of Party building. However, we should be soberly aware that with the continuous development of China’s economy, earth-shaking changes have taken place in the economic and social landscape at the grassroots level. Grassroots people’s demand for a better life is growing day by day, shifting people’s pursuit of material and spiritual culture from “quantity” to “quality”. The capacity of social governance at the grassroots level is crucial to the development and stability of society. If the capacity of grassroots social governance is not improved and there is no effective governance mechanism, it will be difficult to cope with various complex issues in a rapidly developing economy and society, and it will be difficult to balance the interests and needs of all parties . In order to better understand the research status of grassroots social governance, we made a visual analysis of the literature on grassroots social governance in CNKI from January 2006 to December 2023 by using CiteSpace analysis software. This paper systematically and comprehensively analyzed the evolution logic and hot topics of grassroots social governance research from different dimensions such as author, publishing institution and keyword co-occurrence.

Literature Sources and Research Methods

The data in this study are mainly from academic journals of CNKI database. The search criteria are article title = grassroots social governance or grassroots governance and source category =CSSCI (precise matching). The invalid literature of book reviews and conferences was eliminated, and 1199 valid literature were selected as the basis for data analysis. See Table 1 for details. Use the CiteSpace (version v.6.1.R3(64.bit)) visualization analysis software developed by Professor Chen Chaomei to visually analyze valid literature and draw visualization maps. The time period in TimeSlicing was set from January 2016 to December 2024. YearsPerSlice (time slice) was set to 1 year, Links (association strength) was set to Cosine, TOPN was set to TOP50, and TOPN% was set to 10%.

Knowledge Graph Analysis of Grassroots Social Governance Research in China

Annual distribution of literature

The Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee clearly put forward the new concept of “modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity” for the first time and put forward new requirements for innovating the social governance system and improving the level of social governance. The 19th CPC National Congress proposed to build a social governance pattern featuring joint contribution, joint governance and shared benefits; The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee made a comprehensive layout for the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity on the whole, emphasizing “strengthening and innovating social governance, improving the social governance system featuring Party committee leadership, government responsibility, democratic consultation, social coordination, public participation, legal protection, and scientific and technological support.” Building a community of social governance in which everyone has responsibilities, responsibilities and benefits “; The Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee defined the task of social governance innovation during the 14th Five-Year Plan period and the vision of social governance innovation in 2035; The Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party’s Centurylong Struggle formulated at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in 2021 and the Opinions on Strengthening the Modernization of the System and Capacity of Governance at the Grassroots Level issued by the CPC Central Committee and The State Council have further clarified the reform goals and directions for the modernization of social governance with Chinese characteristics. The report of the Party’s 20th National Congress takes “Deepening the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity” as one of the main goals and tasks of China’s development in the next five years and paints a beautiful picture of the continuous improvement of the modernization level of national governance. This shows that China is constantly advancing on the road of national governance modernization and puts forward new requirements and higher standards. Based on the above policy statements of the Party Congress on grassroots social governance, combined with the number, trend and comparison Figure 1 of grassroots social governance research papers from 2006 to 2023, it can be seen that there is a great correlation between the academic community’s research on grassroots social governance and national policy changes.

Distribution of Authors

Analyzing the distribution of authors can provide a comprehensive and targeted understanding of the research status of experts and scholars in the relevant research field. By studying their published literature, we can quickly understand the latest research results and frontier trends and find out the research direction and innovation points. Run CiteSpace to draw the author knowledge graph with 175 nodes, 47 lines, and 0.003 density (Figure 2). According to Price’s law, which establishes the core author method, the number of core author publications Mp=0.749＊√Npmax (where, Npmax is the number of papers of the author with the most publications in the statistical period, Mp is the minimum number of papers of the core author). The author with the largest number of publications is Zhou Qingzhi with 12. Through calculation, Mp≈0.749×3.464=2.595 according to the integration principle of 3, it can be considered that the author with more than or equal to 3 published papers in this field is the core author. The statistical results show that there are 51 core authors, as shown in Table 2. The size of author nodes is proportional to the number of published papers, the lines between nodes indicate the cooperation of authors, and the thickness of line segments is proportional to the closeness of cooperation. As can be seen from Figure 2, the authors are relatively independent, and no research cooperation team of a certain scale has been formed.

Distribution of research institutions

In order to understand the research institutions of grassroots social governance research experts, show the geographical distribution of research groups in this field, reflect the core institutions in this research field, and draw the common knowledge map of research institutions, see Figure 3. Through the analysis, it can be concluded that the core of research is concentrated in colleges and universities. Such as School of Public Administration of Renmin University of China, Zhou Enlai School of Government Administration of Nankai University, School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, School of Sociology of Wuhan University, School of International and Public Affairs of Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Sociology and Public Administration of East China University of Science and Technology, School of Politics and Public Affairs Management of Sun Yat-sen University, School of Public Administration of Zhejiang University, and Politics of Central China Normal University School of Studies, School of Politics and Public Administration of Wuhan University, School of Public Administration of Nanjing Agricultural University, School of Administration of Jilin University, China Rural Research Institute of Central China Normal University, School of Government Administration of East China University of Political Science and Law, etc (Table 3).

Hot Spots and Evolution Analysis of Grassroots Social Governance Research in China

Keywords, as an important part of the literature, are the core and essence of the literature. With the help of CiteSpace software, the co-occurrence, emergence and cluster analysis of keywords are carried out, aiming to comprehensively and intuitively show the hot spots and evolution of the research on the modernization of social governance under the leadership of the CPC.

Co-occurrence map analysis of keywords

High-frequency keywords can reflect the main content and cutting-edge trend of research in this field from January 2006 to December 2023. By conducting statistical analysis on keywords using CiteSpace, a knowledge graph was drawn with 298 nodes, 695 connections, and a network density value of 0.0157 for cooccurrence of keywords (Figure 3). There are two important metrics in the keyword co-occurrence knowledge graph: Frequency and Centrality. Frequency reflects the number of times that the keyword appears in all keywords, the more times, the larger the node. The centrality reflects the position of the keyword in all keywords. Through the analysis, the “embedded structure” with grassroots governance as the center, social governance, system innovation, party building guidance and community governance as the secondary center, and rural revitalization, national governance and community governance as the nodes is formed. High-frequency keywords represent the common concerns of many scholars in this field. The Frequency and Centrality of keywords are extracted, and the top13 co-occurrence frequencies of high-frequency keywords are plotted (Table 4).

Keyword Emergence

The intensity and duration of keyword emergence are helpful to further observe duration of keyword popularity, research hotspots and future research direction prediction. According to the time data of the knowledge graph of keyword emergence (Figure 5), research on “community construction” and “villager autonomy” appeared first. In terms of intensity, the following keywords are “targeted poverty alleviation”, “governance”, “Fengqiao experience”, “media integration”, “community autonomy”, “community construction”, “institutional change”, “rule of law” and “Party leadership”, etc. However, the duration of popularity of all keywords except “community construction” is less than 5 years, which reflects the policy-oriented characteristics of research in this field to a certain extent. It also validates the annual distribution of the literature mentioned above. Especially since the 19th CPC National Congress in 2019 proposed to build a new pattern of social governance featuring joint contribution, co-governance and shared benefits, The key words of emergency intensity are “Fengqiao experience (3.0)”, “media integration (2.82)”, “Party leadership (2.01)”, “social mobilization (1.65)”, “responding to complaints” (1.62), “epidemic prevention and control” (1.62) and “collaborative governance” (1.41).

Keyword Clustering Map

Because of the fragmentation of knowledge graph analysis of keyword co-occurrence, it is not conducive for readers to grasp the overall situation of the research knowledge structure. The clustering map of keywords can clearly indicate the research concerns in this field, as shown in Figure 5. The ModularityQ Value and Silhouette Value is the main criteria for measuring the cluster analysis map, where ModularityQ =0.861 and Silhouette = 0.968. When the value of ModularityQ is greater than 0.3, it indicates that the cluster structure is significant and the clustering effect is good, and the division of keyword clustering modules is reasonable. Clustering in Silhouette>0.5 will be considered reasonable, and clustering in Silhouette>0.7 will mean that clustering is convincing. The closer the Silhouette value is to 1, it indicates that the internal modules of the cluster have a certain similarity, and the research direction, focus and main content of the literature in each cluster have a certain network homogeneity [3]. The results show that the cluster structure is significant and can be used for cluster analysis. Keyword clustering is mainly carried out in 14 aspects including “grassroots governance”, “grassroots society”, “ethnic areas”, “villagers’ self-governance”, “social governance”, “emotional governance”, “community governance”, “rural governance”, “digital governance”, “immediately respond to lawsuits”, “system innovation”, “moral governance”, “modernization”, “rural governance” and “precise poverty alleviation”. In order to further sort out the relevant information of keyword clustering, grasp the subsystem information contained in each cluster. The first 5 keywords with the largest value of the cluster label are listed, and the keyword cluster table is obtained (Table 5).

Based on the analysis of keyword cluster graph and keyword cluster table information, the academic research on grassroots social governance is summarized into the following six main contents. First, research on the concept of grassroots social governance. At the end of last century, governance theory was very popular in the West. The governance theory emphasizes the cooperation among between diverse entities such as the government, enterprises and non-profit organizations to jointly solve public problems and improve the efficiency and quality of public management through consultation, cooperation and participation. It has also triggered some domestic scholars’ reference and discussion. As far as China’s grassroots social governance research is concerned, what really plays a role is the implementation and promotion of the Party and the state’s relevant policies on social governance. In particular, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee mentioned the concept of social governance in the party document for the first time, and attention was given to the top-level design of the national system, which quickly became popular in the political and academic circles. Therefore, it can be said that grassroots social governance is not only an academic concept, but also a policy concept. “This not only creates a good atmosphere for the research in this area, but also brings difficulties to the research because of the different and even fuzzy understanding of concepts and boundaries in policy practice and academic research.”

Generally speaking, the debate on the terminology of grassroots social governance mainly focuses on two aspects. On the one hand, it is a discussion on the “governance” semantics of grassroots social governance. Although there is only a word difference between the two concepts of “governance” and “management”, in the interpretation of many scholars, they have far-reaching significance. By comparison, it is widely believed that social management is a traditional model, while social governance represents a modern paradigm. Social management emphasizes closure, conservatism and centralization of power, while social governance emphasizes openness, diversity and decentralization, with a broader vision. Scholars place greater emphasis on diversity in social governance. By viewing governance as a mode of action involving multiple actors, they have introduced more diverse and integrated perspectives and measures. These views provide new ideas and directions for us to understand and explore grassroots social governance. In addition, many scholars have also noted possible difficulties and challenges in the practical application of grassroots social governance. In the specific implementation process, how to achieve effective communication and collaboration among all parties, how to ensure the scientific and fair decisionmaking, and how to ensure the implementation effect of policies are all problems that need to be solved. Therefore, we need to further explore and practice to better adapt to the needs and challenges of social governance at the grassroots level.

The second is the “social” debate of grassroots social governance. Because the concept of social governance is not rigorously used in policy, people’s understanding of grassroots social governance is divided. In the rapidly developing contemporary society, more and more scholars no longer limit their vision to a specific field but pay more attention to how to solve various problems in grassroots society through public governance. For example, Wang Zongli and Yang Fan believe that as an important field of social science research, grassroots governance links the relationship between the state and society, the hierarchical relationship of the government, and micro behaviors in the social field, which is the “rich mine” for interpreting China’s governance. In order to achieve effective governance, the modernization of grassroots governance needs to pay attention to summing up successful practical experience and principles in the path selection, including in the governance structure, it should establish a system framework of centralized unity and relatively flexible governance measures, system stability and mechanism flexibility, management range and management level, administrative subsidence and villagers’ autonomy, and mutual nesting.

Second, the research on the development process of grassroots social governance. This kind of research can be generally divided into two parts. One emphasizes the “state-party-society” perspective. For example, Wu Xinye believes that the perspective of “state-party-society” is an important interdisciplinary perspective to understand the governance and operation of modern states and is relevant to the construction of China’s social governance community. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, state construction and social construction are carried out simultaneously, and the Party’s transformation of society has formed a new pattern of interaction in the social governance community. From the perspective of historical experience, the century-old interaction between the Party and society reflects the special regularity of their relationship. Through action strategies such as social mobilization, social integration and social empowerment, the CPC has accumulated independent impetus for the building of a social governance community, promoted the transformation, development and growth of society, and in turn strengthened the Party’s leadership. In this process, the people-centered values are the core “variable” that maintains the interaction between the Party and society, and the ideological basis for shaping the identity of the social governance community. Wang Yonggeng Lichun and Zhang Ruicai believe that one of the fundamental reasons for the tremendous achievements achieved by the CPC and the country in various fields is the successful implementation of comprehensive reforms with social reform as the main body. Our form of social governance has undergone profound historical changes, from the pursuit of order values and the practice of state-led, to the advocacy of administrative management, to the strengthening of social management and innovation in social governance, and gradually achieved a profound transformation in the social field, from state-led to construction-oriented, and finally to service-oriented.

At the same time, China has accumulated valuable experience in social governance changes, and these experiences have important implications for further promoting reform in the field of social governance. Based on the perspective of political party governance, Pan Zequan explored how the Communist Party of China leads grassroots social governance and believed that only by reinterpreting and reflecting on the Chinese experience of grassroots social governance with the “party-state-society” paradigm can we fully understand the transformation and mechanism innovation of grassroots social governance under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. The research finds that the CPC, through the party organization network, through the functional embedment, structural embedment and resource embedment in embedded governance, “party absorbs society” and “party absorbs administration” in absorption politics, mission-oriented party in integrated political party governance, political socialization and social governance community cultivation, etc. Realizing that party governance leads grassroots social governance and national governance. Zang Leizhen and Pan Chenyu’s research found that the practical exploration and valuable experience of social governance over the past 70 years have provided an important historical mirror for better building the pattern of social governance and realizing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity, and also provide a historical context for comprehensively summarizing the achievements of social development under the leadership of the Communist Party of China over the past century. From a macro perspective, China’s social governance system has undergone a transition from “control and control” to “governance”. The study of this transition process often ignores the complexity and systematism of the institutional change, which is not conducive to a “panoramic” grasp of the overall picture of the social governance system change. Therefore, it has become an urgent research method to use the normative theoretical framework to summarize and sort out the evolution of China’s social governance system.

On the other hand, a large number of scholars adopt the traditional “state-society” perspective to study grassroots social governance issues. For example, Tang Wenyu elaborated the historical generation and direction interpretation of the modernization of Chinese style grass-roots governance from the perspective of the evolution of the relationship between the state and society, and believed that in traditional China, grassroots governance can be summarized as negative governance on the whole, emphasizing the passive inaction of the state and the natural governance of society. With the modernization process since the late Qing Dynasty, the state power gradually sank to the grass-roots level, and the grass-roots governance model began to change from the traditional to the modern. Since its birth, the Communist Party of China has been continuously integrated into the modernization process of China and opened the modernization process of Chinese-style grass-roots governance with a new look. Since reform and opening up, especially since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC has opened up and pointed out a new path for the modernization of Chinese-style grassroots governance through innovative breakthroughs in theory and practice. The core concept and value of this new line is “people-centered”. Wei Liqun divided the reform in the field of social governance in China since the reform and opening up into three stages: breaking through the highly centralized planned economic system and social management mode, and relaxing the control in the social field; Establishing a governance framework that ADAPTS to the market economy and exploring a new path of social governance; The stage of realizing the modernization of social governance [1-20].

Yi Zhenli summarized that China’s exploration of the law of social governance has gone through three stages: the single mode management stage of social governance; The exploration stage of comprehensive governance; The stage of co-construction, cogovernance and shared benefits. According to the internal logic of the relationship between the state and society, Wang Zongli divides the process of grassroots social governance in China into three stages according to the control type, management type and governance type. Fan Fengchun divides urban grassroots social governance into three periods: “organization” in the period of urban control, “disorganization” in the period of urban management and “re-organization” in the period of urban governance. Peng Xiuliang and Guo Yanmei vertically divide the change of grassroots social governance pattern in New China in the past 70 years into three stages: one-dimensional social control (1949 -1982), all-round social governance pattern (1983- 2011), and collaborative co-governance pattern (2012-present). Zhao Xin and He Haibing retrace the evolution track and internal mechanism of urban grassroots social governance in China from the perspective of “system - life”, and we find that grassroots social governance has roughly experienced four evolutionary stages: “regulation type”, “instruction type”, “leading type” and “empowerment type”.

Third, many scholars often combine vertical or horizontal historical backgrounds and social transformation when discussing grassroots social governance. It is more common to examine the change of grassroots social governance mode on the basis of grasping the structural transformation of China’s social field from a diachronic perspective. This change not only involves the change of environmental factors, but also reflects the change of social structure and people’s lifestyle. Therefore, we need to deeply understand the relationship between environmental change and social change, so as to better adapt to the needs of the development of The Times and promote the modernization of social governance at the grassroots level. For example, Ke Zunqing believes that since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China’s urban grassroots society has undergone a shift from individual construction to social construction, which is also in line with the trend of social management to social governance. Wu Xinye believes that the Party building leading practice of grassroots social governance has been carried out in full swing, and now it has completed the stage work of “organization coverage” and is entering the 2.0 era of Party building leading governance innovation. Heng Xia believes that with the change of urban-rural dual social structure and the group differentiation, the traditional grass-roots management is disabled and ineffective, coupled with the vitality of society itself has not been fully released, resulting in frequent and high incidence of social contradictions and problems at the grass-roots level, and it is inevitable to turn to a new grassroots social governance model. Lu Fuying and other scholars have noted that since the reform and opening up, there has been a structural change from urban -rural duality to urban-rural triality in Chinese society, which has also generated the possibility space of grassroots social governance innovation.

In addition, many scholars choose a specific perspective from the background of grassroots social governance to consider it. For example, Yang Jianhua innovatively discusses the modern transformation of traditional grassroots social culture from the perspective of “culture” and believes that grassroots social governance must respond to this cultural transformation and make modern adjustment. Zhang Zhengsheng and Niu Xiaodong, on the other hand, noted that due to the influence of Eastern culture, China’s urban grassroots governance has developed a characteristic of relational governance. In addition, Chen Yu, Luo Tianzheng and Sun Xiaokun also noted that the “pseudoinnovation” phenomenon of “innovation for innovation’s sake” emerged endlessly in the practice of grassroots governance, which destroyed the ecology of grassroots governance. The research found that there was a situation of innovation flooding grassroots governance. Yao Shangjian proposed that the current misunderstanding of grassroots governance is mainly reflected in three aspects: macro-objectives, territorial management and personnel positioning [21-40].

Fourth, research on the leadership entities and their models of grassroots social governance. Grassroots social governance is a dynamic and systematic work, and the research on its main body is naturally a topic of deep concern in the academic circle. The relationship between the state and society is a basic category of social science research, and its specific application in the Chinese scene is always accompanied by different dimensions of reflection, among which the political party approach constitutes a perspective with great academic potential. In recent years, the academic circle has made necessary adjustments to the analysis category of state-society relations and tried to break through the traditional dualistic theoretical structure of state-society relations theory by introducing a new analytical perspective -- the embedding of political parties. For example, Yuan Fangcheng and Yang Can found that the continuous development of autonomy and autonomy of rural society has profoundly changed the form of the relationship between political parties and society, autonomous forces of rural society. At the same time, the autonomy and decentralization of rural society make the mature development of social self-government forces need to continue to seek the guidance and regulation of political parties. Kong Fanyi and Ruan Hewei proposed that the leadership of party organizations in grassroots social governance depends on three mechanisms: political mobilization, structural embedment and resource integration.

According to the realistic situation of social differentiation in China during the transition period and the practical experience of party building leading grassroots social governance, Chen Xiuhong analyzed the action logic of grassroots party organizations in promoting grassroots social governance based on the reality of social differentiation in China during the transitional period, combined with the practical experience of party building leading grassroots social governance, and proposed a theoretical analysis framework from “embedding” to “integration “. Li Shuoyan and Wang Mingtang found that the integration of social organizations is essentially an extension of the relationship between the party and the masses, and the party projects the will of the state onto the society through social organizations. Future studies on statesociety relations should shift from the perspective of structural analysis to the perspective of conceptual analysis. Ren Yong and Wang Pan believe that the Party plays an important role in the governance of community public security, and how to improve the governance of community public security through the embedding of political parties is a topic worthy of study. Fu Jianjun’s research found that the main scene of Party and mass governance has shifted from revolution and production to the reconstruction and optimization of living space, realizing the institutionalized interaction between the CPC and the masses has become a new goal, and grassroots consultative democracy is regarded as a complementary program to achieve this goal [41-60].

Fifth, research on innovative models and methods of grassroots social governance. Li Qingrui and Cao Xianqiang studied 60 cases of social governance Innovation Award from 2020 to 2021 by using the rooted theory method and found that top-down field party-government integrated governance and bottom-up legalized multi-subject autonomous governance constitute two practical paths for grassroots social governance. Wu Xiaolin sees the great potential value of socialization of social governance in leveraging the transformation of national governance system. Ding Zhiping’s research found that the effective operation of cadres sinking has formed an effective governance technology in China’s grassroots governance practice in a certain sense, Is an important representation of China’s local governance landscape. The enhancement effect of the cadre sinking mechanism on grassroots governance ability can be investigated from the micro level of grassroots and individual, the middle level of policy formulation and implementation, and the macro level of political identity and mobilization. Wang Shikai and Chen Yanchao proposed that, with the joint promotion of the central and grass-roots governments as well as the people, consultation was embedded in the grass-roots governance structure and promoted the transformation of rural governance. However, the institutional system with consultation as the core has not matured. Only through the practice of wider scope and deeper level can conditions be provided for the stereotyping and maturity of the consultative institutional system.

Innovation in grassroots social governance is a dynamic forward process, and this process of replacing the old and the new does not occur naturally but needs to go through the role of complex dynamic mechanisms. These dynamic mechanisms include, but are not limited to, the adjustment of policies and regulations, the development of social economy, the change of social structure, the change of cultural concepts, and the influence of scientific and technological progress. These factors interact with each other to promote the continuous development of social governance at the grassroots level to adapt to the constant changes in social development and people’s needs. Therefore, we need to study these dynamic mechanisms in depth in order to better promote the innovation and development of grassroots social governance. Feng Meng believes that there are three major driving forces for promoting innovation in grassroots social governance: social appeal, cognition and resources, of which social appeal is the primary driving force. Starting from Engels’s “historical synergy theory”, Zhang Yong summarized driving force of macro level innovation in grassroots governance, and believed that grassroots social governance, as the product of a specific stage of historical development, was driven by economic, political, cultural and social historical synergy. Different provinces and cities across the country have also formed empirical practices of grassroots governance practice innovation in their own explorations. Academic circles have conducted a lot of studies and summaries around typical cases and models such as Zhejiang’s “Fengqiao Experience” and Beijing’s “immediately handling complaints”.

Wang Shilong pointed out that the basic approach of “Fengqiao Experience” is to improve the three-tier governance system of central legislation, local legislation and social norms, and form a state of grass-roots social system supply that combines topdown and bottom-up . Jing Yuejin, Yang Kaifeng and Yu Xiaofeng believe that although the “Fengqiao Experience” originated in a special historical period 60 years ago, it has developed more and more strong vitality in the newera after continuous expansion and innovation. In different historical periods, the connotation, extension and form of “Fengqiao Experience” have been very different, but its essence of relying on the masses to resolve contradictions at the grassroots level has not changed, and it has become a typical sample to observe the modernization process of China’s grassroots social governance. Ma Chao, Jin Weiling and Meng Tianguang found through their in-depth analysis of the “take action immediately” reform case in Beijing that this new model of grassroots governance is constructed by four mechanisms: integration of resources led by party building, active response to enhance identity, normal interaction to maintain effectiveness, and technology embedding to promote smart governance. Wang Jingbo and Zhang Zeyu believe that this model is different from the public management movement and government reform measures in Western countries, and the reform of immediately handling complaints is closely aligned with China’s macro policy changes, focusing on the needs of national governance system and governance capacity building in the new era, and accurately identifying and creatively solving the pain points, difficulties and blocking points in grass-roots governance of super large cities in the new era. It also puts forward feasible practical plans for government reform and social governance. In addition. With the deepening of the practice of technology-enabled social governance, some scholars have discussed the digitization of social governance [61-80].

The development of digital technology has not only changed people’s way of life, but also profoundly affected the ways and means of social governance. Through digital technology, social governance can be more efficient, precise and transparent, and data can be better collected, analyzed and utilized to better respond to various social problems. Therefore, some scholars have begun to explore how to apply digital technology to social governance. Chen Xiaoyun pointed out that the wide and deep application of technology in social governance has made technology go beyond the existence of general tools and become a new paradigm of social governance, that is, technological governance. Moreover, to some extent, technological governance even represents the development direction of a new grass-roots social governance. Of course, technology is constantly evolving, and how new technology applications are embedded in grassroots social governance and what social governance effects are brought about by scholars, these are often new research topics, such as big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain and other emerging technologies are widely discussed by grassroots social governance researchers. For example, Xu Jialin and Zhao Cheng Fei believe that China is still facing some difficulties and problems in strengthening the construction of digital government and promoting the overall wise governance of the government, such as the phenomenon of “information island”, the lack of “institutional supply” of data opening, and the advantages of digital technology in the process of administrative system reform are not fully played. Yang Rongjun believes that to build the basic paradigm of urban and rural grassroots smart governance system, it is necessary to pay special attention to and focus on solving the practical constraints such as digital transformation, information security, digital divide and development imbalance, and actively seek an innovative path to resolve.

Zhang Mingjun proposed that in order to strengthen the capacity building of smart governance at the grassroots level, it is necessary to participate in social governance at the grassroots level by means of scientific and technological support, so as to improve the modernization of the grassroots governance system and governance capacity. Ren Yongetal. believe that in the aspect of data-driven social governance, the interaction of multiple subjects of government, market and social organizations in data governance is its main model in the future. For example, the urban operation centers of various districts in Shanghai, which have been transformed from grass-roots grid governance and comprehensive governance centers, assume the digital tasks included in social governance. Gao Qiqi and Que Tiannan believe that blockchain technology helps to establish a trust mechanism among various urban governance subjects, which on the one hand makes clear the rights and responsibilities of people and things in the city, reduces the cost of urban governance, and on the other hand promotes the improvement of urban governance efficiency.

Sixth, research on Party building leading grassroots social governance. The research results in this area mainly focus on. Wen Hong and Li Fengshan studied on the topic of how Party building leadership improves grassroots governance ability based on the dynamic capacity model of “adaption-absorption-reconstruction” and found that the mechanism of Party building leadership for improving grassroots governance ability has dynamic evolution and correlation properties, and its essence is a multi-level and gradual improvement process of adjustment ability, absorption ability and reconstruction ability. Chen Donghui analyzed and listed the typical models of grassroots party organizations leading social governance, analyzed the restrictive factors and explored the realization path. Zhu Qing discussed how grassroots party building innovation and social governance innovation can be deeply integrated. Dai Yanjun demonstrated that grassroots party building is a favorable guarantee for grassroots social governance. Han Tianwei believes that grassroots party organizations leading grassroots governance need to improve governance ability and build a diversified governance structure with its core. Liu Houjin believes that the party building leading community governance needs to be transformed into governance effectiveness in the process of overcoming community governance problems, innovate the content and methods of community mobilization, stimulate collective action on the basis of operating social capital, formulate and implement various systems and measures conducive to community development, and promote the modernization of community governance system and governance capacity. Ju Xiaoying, Mou Yucang and Han Tianwei agree that only in this way can scientific and standardized grass-roots governance be realized.

Yang Yan and Wang Jiangwei analyzed the realistic dilemma of grassroots party building leading urban community governance, and actively explored the innovative model of grassroots party building leading community governance and selected 46 cases to analyze the type of practice and feasible path of grassroots Party building leading urban community governance in China. In the study of rural governance, Jin Ling and Ma Liangcan believe that it is very meaningful to bring the political party back to the center and realize the transformation from the perspective of “statesociety” to “party-state-society”. This perspective shift involves an in-depth exploration of the interactive game relationship, interest linkage mechanism, governance operation logic, governance relationship structure and its impact on rural governance among grass-roots party organizations, grass-roots political power organizations and rural society. Using the three-dimensional analysis perspective of “party-state-society”, we can overcome the theoretical defects of “state-society”, and more fit and effectively explain the organizational relationship, realistic picture and practical logic of China’s rural governance. It is helpful to enrich and expand the localization cognitive vision of rural governance research.

An Analysis of the Evolution Path of the Research on the Modernization of Social Governance Under the Leadership of the Communist Party of China

In order to further study the keywords within each cluster, CiteSpace is used to generate the research evolution path (Figure 6), combined with the keyword emergence knowledge graph (Figure 4), and in connection with the historical background of the modernization of grass-roots social governance under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the research is divided into three stages: the initial stage, the development stage and the maturity stage. The first stage (before the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012) is the starting stage of the research. In 2004, the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Strengthening the Building of the Party’s governing Capacity officially proposed to “strengthen social construction and management and promote innovation in the social management system” and “establish and improve a social management pattern featuring leadership by Party committees, responsibility by the government, social coordination and public participation”, which clarified the leadership system for social management. In October 2006, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee deliberated and adopted the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues Concerning the Construction of a Harmonious Socialist Society, which laid out specific ways to strengthen social management from three aspects: improving the social management pattern, improving the social management mechanism, and improving the social security prevention and control system. Earlier representative studies during this period, such as Peng Bo in the article “State Power and Urban Space: The Transformation of Urban Grassroots Social Governance in Contemporary China”, proposed that establishing and adjusting spatial strategies of urban governance is an important task for modern countries. In the reform of urban community management system, three different kinds of national spatial strategies have emerged, namely the “party state”, “administrative state” and “socialized state” models. Based on the observation and interview of the 2006 Shanghai Neighborhood Committee general election, Jing Ngaijia and Liu Chunrong preliminarily summarized the favorable changes in the grass-roots governance pattern under the condition of direct election and the problems that need to be solved and put forward policy suggestions on the government’s guidance and management of direct election of neighborhood committees.

In 2007, the report of the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China put forward the requirements of building a more sound social management system from the perspective of realizing the new requirements of building a well-off society in an all-round way, and put forward the new requirements of “stimulating social creativity to the maximum extent, increasing harmonious factors to the maximum extent, and reducing disharmonious factors to the minimum”, and proposed that the whole people should carry out social construction focusing on people’s livelihood. As a result, the social system reform was officially put on the work agenda of the Party committee and the government, reflecting the gradual maturity of social management ideas. Therefore, the number of published documents has increased significantly after 2007. Representative studies include Qi Weiping and Chen Pengji’s case analysis of H Community in Shanghai. The study believes that deliberative democracy can provide an effective interest integration mechanism and a consultation and communication mechanism for public participation in urban grassroots governance and can also promote the positive interaction between the government and citizens, thus achieving good governance.

Qian Yuying believes that the social development and changes in social structure caused by urbanization will inevitably bring problems to the governance of grassroots society, thus leading to the transformation of grassroots governance. To build a more inclusive community as the goal, to build a future-oriented grassroots governance mechanism, is an important way to cope with challenges and promote the healthy development of urbanization. Cheng Youzhong and Zhang Yong believe that urban and rural grass-roots governance is the foundation of the whole country and social governance, and currently China is facing many difficulties in the process of urban and rural governance. In various ways to improve the urban and rural grass-roots governance system, the government shoulders important responsibilities. Taking the reform of Lugu Community, the first community-level community in Beijing, as a case study, Chen Xuellian analyzed the development dilemma and causes of the traditional urban grass-roots management system, the “neighborhood system”, and proposed that the “community system” should be used as the institutional carrier to explore the grass-roots governance mechanism of diversified cooperative cities. Based on a random sampling survey of 144 communities in three major Chinese cities (Beijing, Chengdu, Xi ‘an) in 2007, Chen Jie and Lu Chunlong found that two dimensions of common social capital (inclusive social trust and open social network) have a significant positive effect on the governance of community residents committees; And the two dimensions of specific social capital (limited interpersonal trust and closed social network) have a significant negative effect on the governance of community residents committees . It can be seen that the initial stage of the research is in the transition stage from traditional social management to modern social governance in China, and the research mainly focuses on the new changes in the concept of grassroots social governance, the predicament of grassroots governance practice, and the case studies of grassroots social governance in big cities such as Beijing and Shanghai.

The second stage (from the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012 to the 20th CPC National Congress in 2022) is the development period of the research. With the continuous exploration of the social governance theory and practice by the Party and the government, the understanding of the task of social governance is getting deeper and deeper, the grasp of the law of social governance is getting more and more accurate, and the application of social governance means is getting more and more scientific. After experiencing “social control” and “social management”, it has entered the development stage of “social governance”. In 2013, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee adopted the “Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reform”, and a special chapter deployed “Innovating the social governance system”. This is the first time since the founding of the CPC that the concept of “social governance” has been put forward in an official party document. The 19th CPC National Congress in 2017 proposed a social governance structure featuring joint contribution, joint governance and shared benefits; At the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in 2019, it was proposed to build a community of social governance in which everyone has responsibilities, responsibilities and benefits.

In 2020, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee clarified the task of social governance innovation during the 14th Five-Year Plan period and the vision of social governance innovation in 2035. The Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party’s Century-long Struggle formulated at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in 2021 and the Opinions on Strengthening the Modernization of the System and Capacity of Governance at the Grassroots Level issued by the CPC Central Committee and The State Council have further clarified the reform goals and directions for the modernization of social governance with Chinese characteristics. Compared with the first stage, the research content of this stage is more abundant, mainly focusing on the diversification of the main body of grassroots social governance, innovation of grassroots social governance, dual structure of urban and rural governance, development of social organizations, and legalization of grassroots social governance. The representative studies are as follows: He Xinfeng believes that community social organizations are one of the important subjects in the field of grassroots social governance, and it is necessary to promote the reasonable positioning and benign interaction of multiple community governance subjects. Di Jinhua and Zhong Zengbao grasp the form of traditional Chinese rural grassroots governance from the perspective of “turning from subject to rule”, comment on the evolution of “subject research” in traditional rural grassroots governance and explore the rise of “rule analysis” and the differences between it and “subject research” in terms of research presupposition, research focus and logic, and research interests. Li Qiang and Wang Ying believe that with the change of society, the pattern of interests is becoming more and more diversified, and the problems of grassroots communities are emerging in an endless stream. The traditional idea of social management which mainly relies on administrative power can no longer adapt to the development of The Times. Therefore, innovating social governance and improving community-level governance have become the key to further deepening reform. Zhou Qingzhi proposed that grassroots social autonomy is the collective exercise of autonomy by members of society through communities.

The goal of the modern transformation of social governance is to construct three relatively stable governance models, bureaucratic (government) governance, market (company) governance and community (society) governance. Xu Xuanguo and Xu Yongxiang believe that the “three-community linkage” is of great significance to the innovation of grassroots social governance, which in essence reflects the interaction logic between the state and society in grassroots governance practice and contains obvious interaction between the government and the community. Jing Yuejin examines the historical changes that China’s rural governance has been experiencing since the new century from a macro perspective and tries to understand the policy and academic significance of these changes for rural governance around the topic of village cadres’ administration and villagers’ autonomy. Huang Xiaochun and Zhou Li ‘a focus on the institutional changes that have occurred at the forefront of urban grassroots governance transformation in recent years and explore a new mechanism of superior “division” departments and subordinate “block” and “pairing competition” that has emerged in the field of grassroots governance. Combined with practical cases, the paper analyzes the operation mechanism and organizational logic of “pair competition” and compares it with traditional governance mechanisms such as “promotion tournament” and “project system”. Yin Haodong et al. based on a case of the construction of a county-level poverty alleviation project database, constructed an analytical framework of hierarchy and relationship rationality, and analyzed the behavior logic of the grass-roots government in the process of “packaging” and “contracting” of the project system. It provides theoretical reference and empirical materials for the follow-up research of the project system and precise poverty alleviation.

Yu Jianxing and Ren Jie believe that autonomy, rule of law and rule of virtue in China’s grassroots social governance are not simple addition and combination of autonomy, rule of law and rule of virtue, but should be regarded as an organic whole. Chu Chen Ge also noted that the “Fengqiao Experience”, atypical representative of grassroots social governance in China, is also the integration of “three governance” at its core. And believes that standardization plays an important role in its practice. Tang Wenyu believes that since the reform and opening up, China’s grass-roots governance has gradually formed a new model of “party integrated governance” in practice. This is closely related to China’s modernized development path of “party centrism” and the limited control of resources by the Communist Party of China under the market system. Zhu Lingjun believes that unlike the basic logic of social governance in other countries and regions, the leadership of the Party is a prominent feature of grassroots social governance in contemporary China. Pan Zequan and Ren Jie believe that the Chinese empirical logic of the change of grassroots social governance in China and its modern transformation reflect the dual-track coordination from movement governance to normal governance, movement governance to bureaucratic operation, participatory governance under the co-governance of multiple subjects and the transformation of grassroots network governance in the interactive field of actors. Wang Sibin discussed the exploration of social governance and grassroots social governance under the pattern of national governance in the 70 years since the founding of New China.

According to the practical experience of Party building leading grassroots governance, Chen Xiuhong explained the action logic of Party building leading grassroots governance and constructed a holistic governance interpretation framework. In summary, compared with the previous stage, the development period of the research pays more attention to the reform and innovation of the operating mechanism of grassroots social governance, focuses on solving the fragmentation problem of grassroots social governance, and grasps the structural problems of grassroots social governance in China from a more macro level. The social governance system with party committee leadership, government responsibility, democratic consultation, social coordination, public participation, legal guarantee and scientific and technological support has been interpreted from different angles.

The third stage (from the 20th CPC National Congress in 2022 to present) is the mature stage of the research. The report to the Party’s 20th National Congress pointed out that “we will comprehensively promote the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-style modernization.” On the great journey of promoting Chinese-style modernization, the modernization of grassroots governance is the key and foundation for the realization of Chinese-style modernization. It has become a hot topic to study the grass-roots social governance in the context of Chinese modernization. Hao Yuqing believes that without the modernization of grassroots governance, there can be no modernization of China, and it is impossible to fully build a modern socialist power. Upholding the leadership of the Communist Party of China is the essential feature of grassroots governance, adhering to the people-centered concept is its fundamental orientation, the governance pattern of co-construction, co-governance and shared benefits is its basic path, and the realization of human modernization is its fundamental goal. Xu Yong put forward that the modernization of Chinese-style grass-roots governance includes three aspects: first, the modernization of the state’s grass-roots social governance; Second, the modernization of selfgovernance at the grassroots level; Third, in building a governance pattern featuring joint contribution, joint governance and shared benefits, we should promote positive interactions between the state and society and form the basic direction of modernization of Chinese-style grassroots governance . Tang Wenyu believes that the modernization of Chinese-style grass-roots governance is rooted in the historical evolution of China’s grass-roots governance. Especially after the 18th CPC National Congress, through innovative breakthroughs in theory and practice, the CPC has further opened up and pointed out a new path for the modernization of Chinese-style grassroots governance, and the core concept and value of this new path is”people-centered”.

For example, Jing Yuejin and others believe that although the “Fengqiao Experience” was born in a special historical period 60 years ago, it has developed more and more strong vitality in the new era after continuous expansion and innovation. In different historical periods, the connotation, extension and form of the “Fengqiao Experience” have been greatly different, but its essence of relying on the masses to resolve contradictions at the grassroots level has not changed, and it has become a typical sample for observing the modernization process of China’s grassroots social governance. Yu Zhaofei and Dai Bingjie discussed the historical formation and enlightenment of the “Fengqiao Experience” from the perspective of moving towards the coordinated governance of grassroots society. Yu Xiaofeng believes that after 60 years of testing, the “Fengqiao Experience” has always maintained the characteristics of people’s character, participation and innovation, grasped the source, built the system, sought long-term effect, promoted “new development” with “great peace”, and become a model that can be promoted and emulated in the modernization of grassroots social governance.

Research Review and Outlook

From the perspective of domestic research, the academic circle’s research on grassroots social governance issues has received extensive attention, and many high-quality research results continue to emerge, which have provided important enlightenment for the research of this paper. On the basis of indepth study of relevant literature, we can find and summarize some trends and characteristics of grassroots social governance research and the direction of future development: First, in terms of the research content of grassroots social governance, the academic community has completed the conceptual transformation from “management” to “governance”. However, some studies oversimplify the definition of governance as multi-subject management, but ignore the deep elements such as value consensus, relationship coordination and behavioral interaction. At the same time, some studies fail to fully consider the institutional background and actual national conditions with Chinese characteristics in their theories, resulting in excessive use of Western discourse to explain China issues in grassroots social governance studies. Therefore, in order to overcome the problems of vanity and disconnection between theory and reality in these studies, it is necessary to strengthen theoretical research, carry out empirical research in the context of Chinese-style modernization, combined with specific grassroots social governance practices, and deeply study the relationship mechanism behind grassroots social governance; Secondly, in terms of the research content of grassroots social governance, the academic circle has shown a research trend from “phenomenon observation” to “problem orientation”.

Problem-oriented research is based on the logic of theoretical concerns, and it is also the objective need of further theoretical innovation. In recent years, many scholars have paid deep attention to and thought deeply about grassroots social governance issues in different periods and scenarios and have achieved many enlightening research results. However, the object of social governance is only the logical starting point of the whole social governance, and grassroots social governance itself is a complex system, which still needs to go deep into the network of social governance actors based on systematic thinking, and there is still a lot of research space to focus on the capacity and actions of specific social governance subjects. In the research paradigm of grassroots social governance, in recent years, the academic community has begun to make necessary adjustments to the analysis of the relationship between the state and society, trying to break through the traditional dualistic theoretical structure of the relationship between the state and society by introducing new analytical perspectives such as the embedding of political parties. However, the academic circle has not yet paid enough attention to the reflection on the dimension of political party, and relative to its importance, the relevant research has received disproportionate attention, leading to the dilemma of theoretical reconstruction of the theory of state-society relations.

At the same time, although China’s governance theory has initially entered a mature process of localization in terms of theoretical value, it needs to form a relatively systematic, scientific and comprehensive theoretical system of national governance, which can have dialogue and exchange with western governance theories, complement and benefit each other, and thus become an important part of human social governance civilization. There is still a long way to go in the future, especially in the research of the specific mechanism of Governance performance, effect evaluation and cultural construction and other middle-level issues, more in-depth localization process is still needed. For example, the “Worldwide Governance Indicators” released by the World Bank, the indicators in WGI have a clear direction of neoliberal governance, and many of them are not fully applicable to the evaluation of China’s governance level, so it is urgent to realize the localization of governance evaluation standards. In addition, it is also necessary to realize the localization of the supporting mechanisms, policies, culture and other aspects of the governance system. At the same time, it can combine the wisdom of traditional Chinese governance idea and the parts related to national governance of Marxist thought, so as to point out the direction for the modernization of national governance and contribute new content to the achievements of governance thought of human society. In addition, the Western governance theory is based on the economic and social foundation of the postmodern society, which is obviously different from the actual situation faced by China. The application of these theories should be placed in the field of social governance at the grassroots level in China, and the applicability of the theories should be grasped from the aspects of historical logic, practical logic and theoretical logic.

References

1. Wen F, Wang X (2019) A Rational Examination of the Modernization of China's Grassroots Social Governance in the New Era. J Chongqing Technol Business Univ Soc Sci 4: 90-98.
2. Wang S (2019) Social Governance and Grassroots Social Governance under the 70-year National Governance Pattern of New China. Qinghai Soc Sci 6: 1-8.
3. Zhao Q, Xiu M (2022) On the Generating Logic, Significance and Practical Requirements of Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. J Univ Shanghai Sci Technol Soc Sci 3: 286-291.
4. Wang S, Yang F (2022) Research on Grassroots Governance: Present Reflection, Necessary Consensus and Future Imagination. Acad Monthly 7: 80-92.
5. Zhang X (2022) Identification of effective structures, capabilities and methods of grassroots governance. Quest 6: 139-146.
6. Xinye W, Chongqi L (2023) The Communist Party of China in the Construction of Social Governance Community: Historical Experience and Action Strategy. J Shanghai Institute Admin 6: 4-14.
7. Geng L, Zhang R (2020) Changes in China's Social Governance: Historical Investigation, Experience Enlightenment and Future Prospects. J Liaoning Univ Philos Soc Sci 6: 17-24.
8. Pan Zequan (2021) Grassroots Social Governance Led by the Communist Party of China from the Perspective of Party Governance. J Central South Univ Soc Sci 4: 31-40.
9. Zang L, Pan C (2021) The Trajectory, Logic and Dynamic Resistance Mechanism of China's Social Governance System Change: Based on the Perspective of Historical Institutionalism. Learning and Exploration (11): 34-42.
10. Tang W (2023) Modernization of Chinese-style Grassroots Governance: Historical Generation and Direction Interpretation: Based on the Perspective of the Evolution of the Relationship between State and Society. Social Science Front (12): 202-210.
11. Wei Liqun (2018) The Historical Process of Social Governance in China in the Past 40 Years. Front 9: 22-27.
12. Yi Zhenli (2019) Turning the Difficulties of Grassroots Social Governance into Bright Spots. People's Forum 12: 44-45.
13. Wang Z, Lianjun L (2019) The Evolutionary Logic and Main Enlightenment of Grassroots Social Governance in the Past 70 Years of New China. Qinghai Social Sci 6: 9-15.
14. Fan F, Tan L (2019) 70 Years of Urban Grassroots Governance: From Organization, Disorganization to Reorganization. J Shanghai Institute Adminis 5: 14-23.
15. Peng X, Guo Y (2019) Changes in the Pattern of Grassroots Social Governance in the 70 Years of New China. Social Work 6:3-11.
16. Zhao X, Haibing H (2022) Evolution Trajectory and Dynamics of Urban Grassroots Social Governance. J East China Univ Sci and Technol Soc Sci 1: 95-110.
17. Ke Zunqing (2016) Research on the Social Construction of Urban Grassroots Social Governance. Academic Exploration 6: 47-51.
18. Wu X (2017) The New Trend of Party Building Leading Grassroots Social Governance and Its Response. National Governance (33),30-37.
19. Heng X (2020) Theoretical Explanation of the Advantages of Mass Line System in Grassroots Social Governance. Administrative Forum 3: 19-24.
20. Fuying L (2020) Binary to Ternary: Structural Change of Grassroots Social Governance. Soc Sci 5: 72-81.
21. Yang J (2015) Modern Transformation of Traditional Grassroots Social Governance Culture. Research on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics 5: 90-94.
22. Zhang Z, Niu X (2015) Research on the Relational Governance Model and Mechanism of Urban Communities in Oriental Culture. J Tianjin Univ Soc Sci 1: 16-21.
23. Zhou J (2022) From "Co-governance" to "Governance Community": Logical Transformation of Grassroots Social Governance Practice. Chongqing Soc Sci 10: 97-107.
24. Chen Yu, Luo T, Sun X (2023) The Generative Logic of "Pseudo-Innovation" in Grassroots Governance: An Analytical Perspective of Attention. J China Univ Geosciences Soc Sci 1: 147-156.
25. Yao S (2020) What are the misunderstandings in the current practice of grassroots governance? National Governance 15: 15-18.
26. Jing Y (2019) Bringing Political Parties In: Reflection and Reconstruction of the Relationship between State and Society. Exploration and Controversy 8: 85-100.
27. Yuan F, Yang C (2019) Embedded Integration: The Logic of Political Parties in Rural Governance in the Post-Political Party Going to the Countryside. Era Xuehai 2: 59-65.
28. Chen X (2021) From "Embedded" to "Integrated": The Action Logic of Grassroots Party Organizations to Promote Grassroots Social Governance. J Party School Central Committee Communist Party China (Natl Acad Administ) 5: 64-72.
29. Shuoyan L, Wang M (2021) State-Society Relations in Political Party Integration and Grassroots Governance. Comparison of Economic and Social Systems 2: 171-180.
30. Ren Y, Wang P (2021) How to Improve Community Public Safety Governance with Political Party Embeddedness: Based on the Comparison of Two Communities. J Shanghai Institute Administ 4: 101-111.
31. Fu Jianjun (2021) The Transformation of Party-Mass Governance and the Development Logic of Grassroots Consultative Democracy. Exploration 3: 118-128.
32. Qingrui L, Xianqiang C (2022) Party-Government Integration and Autonomous Governance: The Practical Logic of Grassroots Social Governance: A Grounded Theory Based on the Innovation Cases of Social Governance from 2020 to 2021. J Public Administ 3: 110-122.
33. Wu Xiaolin (2018) Thesis on the Socialization of Social Governance: Political Development Strategy Beyond Technical Logic. Administrative Forum 6: 38-45.
34. Ding Z (2022) Cadre Sinking: An Effective Mechanism for the Communist Party of China to Solve the Problem of Grassroots Governance. Public Gov Res 1:38-46.
35. Wang S, Chen Y (2021) Rural Grassroots Consultative Governance: Foundation, Motivation and Form. Public Gov Res 5: 30-36.
36. Feng M (2019) The Driving Force and Path of China's Social Governance Transformation. Exploration and Controversy 6: 24-26.
37. Zhang Y (2016) Research on the new driving force of social governance. J Shenyang Agricult Univ Soc Sci 01: 24-28.
38. Wang Sh (2018) Research on the Supply of Grassroots Social Governance System from the Perspective of Fengqiao Experience. China Law 6: 5-22.
39. Jing Y, Yang K, Yu X, Jin B, Ren Y, et al. (2023) Fengqiao Experience" in the New Era: China's Exploration of the Modernization of Grassroots Social Governance. Exploration and Controversy 8: 4.
40. Ma Chao, Jin W, Meng T (2020) A New Model of Grassroots Governance Based on Government Affairs Hotline: A Case Study of Beijing's Reform of "Handling Complaints Immediately. J Beijing Acad Administ 5: 39-47.
41. Chen X (2018) Technology Governance: A New Direction for Grassroots Social Governance in Chinese Cities. J Natl Acad Administ 6: 123-127.
42. Xu Jialin, Zhao C (2022) Promoting the Overall Intelligent Governance of Digital Government. China Social Science Daily. 1^st
43. Yang R (2021) Basic Paradigm, Constraints and Innovation Path of Urban and Rural Grassroots Intelligent Governance System Construction. J Hohai Univ Philos Soc Sci 4: 60-67.
44. Zhang M (2021) The Invisible Value of New Technology Revolution and Modernization of Grassroots Governance Capacity. China Social Science Daily (5^th edition).
45. Ren Y, Meng Z, Zhu Y (2022) Data Governance Drives the Change of the Relationship between Government and Market and Its Future Path. Southeast Acad 6: 74-84.
46. Gao Q, Que T (2020) Space and Prospect of Blockchain in Urban Governance. E-Government 1: 84-91.
47. Chen D (2019) Exploration and Path of Social Governance Innovation Led by Grassroots Party Building. Theory and Reform 3: 181-188.
48. Zhu Q (2019) How to deeply integrate grassroots party building and social governance. People's Forum (07),108-109.
49. Dai Y (2016) Grassroots Party Building is the Guarantee of Grassroots Social Governance. People's Forum 3: 86.
50. Han T (2018) How Grassroots Party Organizations Lead Grassroots Governance. People's Forum 27: 46-47.
51. Liu Houjin (2020) The Mechanism of Grassroots Party Building Leading Community Governance: Taking the Logic of Collective Action as an Analytical Framework. Soc Sci 6: 32-45.
52. Xiaoying J, Yucang M (2018) Grassroots governance needs the party organization to "guide the way". People's Forum 11: 114-115.
53. Yang Y, Wang J (2019) Grassroots Party Building Leads Urban Community Governance: Practical Dilemma, Practical Innovation and Feasible Path. Theoretical Perspect 4: 78-85.
54. Peng B (2006) State Power and Urban Space: Reform of Grassroots Social Governance in Contemporary Chinese Cities. Soc Sci 9: 74-81.
55. Jing Y, Liu C (2007) Direct Election of Neighborhood Committees and Urban Grassroots Governance: An Analysis of the Direct Election of Neighborhood Committees in Shanghai in 2006. Fudan J Soc Sci 1:132-140.
56. Qi Weiping, Chen P (2008) Deliberative Democracy: An Effective Model of Urban Grassroots Governance: A Case Study Based on Shanghai H Community. Theory and Reform 5: 9-13.
57. Qian Yuying (2008) Grassroots Governance in the Context of Urbanization: China's Problems and Solutions. J Soochow Univ Philos Soc Sci 5: 1-4.
58. Chen Xuelian (2009) From Street Residence System to Community System: The Transformation of Urban Grassroots Governance Model: A Case Study of "Reform of Community Management System in Lugu Street, Beijing", East China Economic Management 9: 92-98.
59. Chen J, Chunlong L (2009) Common Social Capital and Specific Social Capital: Social Capital and China's Urban Grassroots Governance. Sociol Res 6: 87-104.
60. He Xinfeng (2014) Analysis of the Ways of Community Social Organizations to Effectively Participate in Grassroots Social Governance. China Administration 12: 68-70.
61. Di Jinhua, Zhong Chan (2014) The Shift from Subject to Rule: A Study on Grassroots Governance in Traditional Chinese Villages. Sociological Research (05),73-97+242.
62. Li Qiang, Wang Y (2015) Outline of Social Governance and Grassroots Community Governance. New Horizons 6: 26-31.
63. Zhou Q (2016) Grassroots Social Autonomy and Modern Transformation of Social Governance. Political Science Res 4: 70-80.
64. Xuanguo X, Yongxiang X (2016) Three Societies Linkage" in Grassroots Social Governance: Connotation, Mechanism and Practical Logic: Based on the Exploration of Shenzhen H Community. Soc Sci 7: 87-96.
65. Jing Yuejin (2018) The Logical Transformation of Grassroots Governance in Rural China: Rethinking the Relationship between the State and Rural Society. Governance Res 1: 48-57.
66. Huang X, Zhou L (2019) Pair Competition": A New Mechanism for Urban Grassroots Governance Innovation. Society 5: 1-38.
67. Haodong Y, Wang S, Guo Z (2017) Targeted Poverty Alleviation and Grassroots Governance Rationality: Deconstruction of Poverty Alleviation Project Library Construction in D County of Province A. Sociol Res 6: 70-93.
68. Jianxing Y, Ren J (2018) Autonomy, Rule of Law and Rule of Virtue in China's Grassroots Social Governance. Acad Monthly 12: 64-74.
69. Chu C (2019) Research on the Standardization of Grassroots Social Governance-A Case Study of " Fengqiao Experience". J Law 1: 17-27.
70. Tang Wenyu (2020) Integrated Governance of Political Parties: An Interpretation of the Model of Grassroots Governance in Contemporary China: A Comparison with Overall Governance and Polycentric Governance. Zhejiang Soc Sci 3: 21-27.
71. Lingjun Z (2020) Research on the basic logic of grassroots social governance led by the party. J Party School Central Committee Communist Party of China (Natl Acad Administ) 4: 37-45.
72. Pan Zequan, Ren J (2020) From Movement Governance to Normal Governance: China's Practice of Grassroots Social Governance Transformation.Journal of Hunan University (Soc Sci) 3: 110-116.
73. Wang S (2019) Social Governance and Grassroots Social Governance under the 70-year National Governance Pattern of New China. Qinghai Soc ci 6: 1-8.
74. Chen X (2021) Holistic Governance: An Explanatory Framework for Party Building to Lead Grassroots Governance. Learning and Practice 12: 93-102.
75. Hao Y (2023) An Analysis of the Chinese Path to Modernization at Grassroots Governance. J Beijing Union Univ (Humanities Soc Sci1: 1-7.
76. Xu Yong (2023) The Direction and Direction of the Modernization of Chinese-style Grassroots Governance. Political Sci Res 1: 3-12.
77. Tang W (2023) Modernization of Chinese-style Grassroots Governance: Historical Generation and Direction Interpretation: Based on the Perspective of the Evolution of the Relationship between State and Society. Soc Sci Front 12: 202-210.
78. Jing Y, Yang K, Yu X, Jin B, Ren Y, et al. (2023) Fengqiao Experience in the New Era: China's Exploration of the Modernization of Grassroots Social Governance. Exploration and Controversy 8: 4.
79. Yu Z, Dai B (2023) Towards Collaborative Governance of Grassroots Society: The Historical Formation and Enlightenment of the "Fengqiao Experience". Administrative Reform 9: 23-31.
80. Yu Xiaofeng (2023) Enlightenment of Fengqiao Experience in the New Era to Promote the Modernization of Grassroots Social Governance. Exploration and Controversy 8: 13-16.