From growth targets to people-centered governance: How China measures government performance

What makes a government's achievements meaningful? Is it rapid economic growth, or the difference it makes in people's lives?

In China, the answer has evolved alongside the country's development priorities. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 2012, greater emphasis has been placed on high-quality development and people's well-being. This shift has also brought renewed attention to how government performance is measured – and how evaluation can guide officials' conduct.

Ma Liang, a professor at Peking University's School of Government, sees performance assessment as a key mechanism shaping government behavior. As he puts it, "What gets measured gets done." The indicators used to evaluate officials influence not only how they understand their achievements but also how they allocate resources and set priorities.

An excessive focus on narrow or short-term targets can lead to distorted priorities, inefficient resource allocation and even the manipulation of performance figures, Ma argues. By contrast, a more comprehensive evaluation system can encourage officials to look beyond headline economic indicators and focus on substantive outcomes, including public services and people's well-being.

Beyond GDP: Measuring what matters to people

For decades, economic growth was a dominant benchmark for local government performance. Ma points out that an excessive focus on GDP and growth rates could overlook environmental costs, income inequality and deficiencies in public services.

China's evolving approach places greater weight on people's sense of fulfillment, happiness and security. Social and environmental indicators have become more prominent in development plans and target-based management, encouraging local officials to pay greater attention to public services and people's livelihoods.

The shift is reflected in China's progress in poverty reduction, education and healthcare. Between 2013 and 2020, China lifted nearly 100 million people out of destitution, officially eliminating absolute poverty. According to the Ministry of Education, China's nine-year compulsory education retention rate reached 96.1% in 2025. The National Healthcare Security Administration reported that more than 1.33 billion people were covered by basic medical insurance at the end of 2025. Meanwhile, average life expectancy in China reached 79.25 years in 2025, up 3.85 years since 2012.

These indicators illustrate how development outcomes extend beyond aggregate economic figures to include access to essential services and improvements in living standards.

From targets to public feedback

Performance assessment now also involves how governments respond to people's needs. Ma identifies China's 12345 public service hotline as a channel for residents to voice concerns, with response and satisfaction rates serving as indicators of government performance.

He emphasizes that evaluation is not merely a mechanism for rewarding or penalizing officials. Performance information can also be used to identify problems, inform policymaking and improve implementation.

China's approach combines top-down target setting with bottom-up public consultation. National development priorities are translated into regional and local goals, while public feedback helps governments identify emerging concerns and adjust their priorities. Local experiments can also be evaluated and successful practices adopted elsewhere.

Digital technologies are adding another dimension. Ma notes that big data analytics and artificial intelligence are being used to integrate urban indicators and assess development and governance more efficiently. Such tools can help governments identify patterns and make more informed decisions.

A measure of performance, a guide for officials

The implications extend beyond performance assessment to cadre management and Party governance. Professor Ma argues that officials' understanding of political achievements is shaped by performance evaluation and personnel management. He also notes that holding officials accountable for decisions made during their tenure, even after they leave office or retire, can encourage a longer-term approach to governance.

These mechanisms connect the pursuit of sound governance achievements with the broader goal of exercising rigorous Party self-governance. Comprehensive performance assessments can help steer officials away from short-term gains and toward sustainable development, and supervision and accountability reinforce their responsibility for the decisions they make and the results they deliver. Together, these mechanisms can help curb distorted performance incentives and ensure that officials' priorities remain aligned with public needs and long-term national goals.

Ultimately, government performance measurement is not just about evaluating results. It also helps shape officials' conduct, while oversight and accountability provide institutional safeguards for the exercise of public power. Aligning cadre evaluation with high-quality development and people's well-being is therefore an important part of translating development priorities into lasting outcomes for the people.

Read more: How China Works