Besides urbanization rate, how do cities differ from rural areas in terms of the prioritization of public service supply? What changes may be expected in government practices concerning the livelihood of urban population under the “new normal” circumstances? These are issues worth consideration.

Addressing the imbalance of public service supply requires the courage of “overtaking in the corner”

Businesses and companies in cities have switched to the “metropolis mode” where 24 hours convenience stores and ATMs are ubiquitous to cater to the fast life pace of urban population and to facilitate the readily-made transactions. With the huge influx of people, there comes to the cities, however, not only business opportunities, but also public service needs different from those in rural areas. Today city governments often focus too much on urban prosperity (for instance, developing buildings and houses) to take enough effort to improve people’s livelihood. That’s why metropolis cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou are constantly flooded after heavy rains. The frequent occurrence of urban diseases in these three cities (the leading cities of the Bohai Bay city group, the Yangtze River Delta city group and the Pearl River Delta city group respectively)indicates that the three cities are ahead in China’s urbanization process and therefore encounter problems earlier than other cities. And to some extent it also helps alert city managers to the upcoming “city century”. Considering those issues frequently covered by newspapers, such as traffic jam, limited access to public nursing home for the elders and the construction of underground pipelines, you may notice these issues all concern people’s livelihood and are all related to the migration of a dense group of people as well as a large population base. For instance, waste disposal facility and other “not-in-my-back-yard” infrastructure, underground pipelines serving a huge population and the basic needs of a dense group including education, medical service and care-for-the-old are the very basis for the existence and development of a city. These concerns, if left unaddressed, shall without question hamper the sustainable development of the city.

Undoubtedly, China’s economy is slowing down in recent years and the engines for economic growth have become increasingly dynamic. On one hand, with the aging population, reduced number of rural surplus labor and slowing factor-driven growth, China’s economic development will depend more on the quality of human capital and technological advance. On the other hand, the infrastructure is getting inter-connected and investment opportunities for new techs, new products, new formats, and new business models are emerging in large numbers. As the Chinese say it, when the water subsides, the rocks emerge. This is exactly what the current situation is: When economy goes down, troubles and opportunities go up. Under the “new normal” circumstances, it is necessary to shift from factor-driven and investment-driven modes to innovation-driven mode so as to balance public service supply. It won’t be easy to innovate. Governments need both courage and skills to make a difference at the critical moment or the so-called “overtaking in the corner ”.

Multiple providers and “Internet plus livelihood” being the main tools for livelihood innovation

Innovation is the key to livelihood issues under the “new normal” circumstances and should be implemented in the following three aspects. First, cross-sector cooperation shall be carried out. Specifically, governments, enterprises and non-governmental organizations shall work together to become the multiple providers of public services. A case in point would be the cooperation between Shanghai government and China Mobile, Tencent and Alibaba in the “Smart Livelihood” program. Secondly, a shift from regulation to service shall be needed. Governments shall make full use of market tools to provide more efficient public services. This may be realized through government purchase, venture philanthropy, and the issue of new financial products such as social impact bonds. Thirdly, “Internet Plus livelihood” shall be prevalent. The internet has evolved from a tool or channel into a part of the country’s strategic infrastructure and is already making its way into real economies. The development and integration of information technologies with ITC at the core will not only facilitate the development of real economies, but also allow the public to participate in public service planning. Through the internet technology, the public can have dialogues with service planners and inspectors on a much more equal basis to get served better with limited resources. The Shanghai government has carried out several related practices, including the virtual old-age care program at Hongkou District and the E-health project at Minhang District.

Private enterprises and non-governmental organizations have become important partners for governments in recent years. They play supplementary roles in certain aspects. And in fields such as the Internet they have already surpassed governments and state-owned enterprises. Moreover, though China’s economy has made substantial progress, funds are still limited and traditional management tools become ineffective when faced with emerging new troubles. For example, consider the predicament we find ourselves in when cracking down on unlicensed vehicles. Therefore, big hope is pinned on the multiple providers system of public services characterized by cross-sector interactions and complementary suppliers. However, the lessons learned in infrastructure development with private tools such as BOT(a typical tool for the multiple supply of public services) in the past shall always be kept in mind. Even though multiple providers of public services and “Internet Plus” are important vehicles for livelihood innovation, governments shall realize that mechanism innovations are only tools and they cannot solve all the problems. Applicability of the tools shall be stressed when they are utilized. Therefore, governments shall pay much attention to details including project design, signing of the contract and procedure monitoring.

Relying on “Smart City” and using technologies to break monopoly

With the influx of large numbers of people and the frequent occurrence of new troubles, city managements are faced with many uncertainties and the traditional management concepts prove to be ineffective under the new circumstances. As a new generation of information technology and the Internet develop rapidly, the concept of “Smart City” comes into being. Compared with all the existing concepts of health city, eco-city, safe city, sanitary city and civilized city, a smart city that features the integration of population, intelligence, and consumption is clearly more preferred by the Chinese government. The“2014 Smart Tourism” program helped put this highly-favored concept into specific projects and allowed citizens the first experience of the benefits gained from the use of information technologies in urban public services. Based on the theory that “where there are complaints, there are demands and business opportunities”, now the breakthroughs may lie in areas with many problems, a low level of information application and low public satisfaction, such as city transport and medical service. The government can use technologies to break the monopoly in these areas and provide the public the kind of reform benefits they have already been seen in industries like retail, catering and logistics. The government can utilize the concept of “Smart City” to make progress in globalization, urbanization and informatization at the same time and to innovate public service supply. Through creating more platforms and connecting more specific groups, the government can offer the public an interaction mechanism to meet the demands of diversified groups and better serve the public with the big data.

Click newspaper.jfdaily.com/jfrb/html/2015-07/20/content_114359.htm for the original text