The development of digital technology in China closely revolves around various issues in national and social governance. At all levels, digital technology has been actively used to improve governance capabilities, and "one network for all" and "one network for unified management" has produced a good demonstration effect, and digital governance has become an important means of social governance in China. However, while technology empowers social governance, digital formalism problems such as "digital traces", "data punching" and "fingertip idling" have gradually emerged, resulting in the governance dilemma of technology presence and efficiency exit. In December 2023, the ** Cyber Security and Information Commission issued the "Several Opinions on the Prevention and Control of "Formalism on the Fingertips", which provides guidance for strengthening the standardized and standardized management of digital applications and promoting the high-quality development of digital government affairs.
Technology empowerment requires multiple considerations.
Technology enablement is the use of digital technologies to empower a field or industry with more capabilities and potential, thereby increasing efficiency, improving governance, and driving innovation. In the field of public service and social governance, it is mainly reflected in: First, the refinement of governance. The huge population size is a significant feature of Chinese modernization, which also means that there is extremely complex and rich governance information, and data collection with the help of various digital terminals can change the traditional sample-based experience and cognition, and improve the level of refinement of governance. The second is the convenience of services. The outstanding feature of digital technology is that it has broken the limitations of time and space, so that "Internet + government services" have achieved outstanding results in reducing time and force. Third, scientific decision-making. After the technology is embedded in the governance platform, through information openness, data sharing, and organizational interaction, the scientific level of complex decision-making is driven by "algorithms" to ensure smooth implementation and efficient governance.
However, technology has always been just a tool, and the design, implementation and application of tools are the key factors that determine the impact of technology on social governance. On the one hand, "technology superposition" is not the same as "technology application", and the main body of technology and tools is an important factor. As an embedded resource, digital technology needs to consider its adaptability to the governance subject and governance scenarios when entering the grassroots governance, and whether these new technologies can really be used well in the grassroots work. On the other hand, "technology presence" is not the same as "governance presence", and the regulatory environment to ensure digital governance is an important factor. Digital governance is more of a governance behavior than a technical behavior, but in the context of digital technology widely penetrating into the whole field of governance, to a certain extent, it has brought the illusion of "technology omnipotence", and the attention of social governance has gradually shifted to whether digital technology is applied, ignoring the establishment of institutional rules to ensure digital governance, and ignoring the cultivation of a suitable social environment.
Technology empowerment should pursue governance effectiveness.
The value goal of technology empowerment is to pursue the effectiveness of governance, ensure that social governance is stable, orderly and vibrant, and also take the satisfaction of the masses and the significance of the effectiveness as an important basis for measurement.
Technology empowerment needs to focus on the digitalization of "big scenes". The key to digital governance is to focus on the difficult and blocking problems in social governance, take the needs of the masses as the main line, enter the market with "small incisions", drive the participation of multiple subjects, upward and downward data circulation and cross-level collaborative guarantees, carry out cross-scenario collaborative governance, create "big scenes" that meet the expectations of the masses, and promote integrated scenario reform, so that the grassroots people can have more experience and gain in technology empowerment.
Technology empowerment should be adapted to local digital capabilities. Technology-enabled social governance cannot one-sidedly emphasize the instrumentality of digital technology, but more importantly, evaluate local digital capabilities and whether there is endogenous power for digitalization. In the process of undertaking and transforming, we should coordinate the local economic development, human environment, and technical capabilities, combine system construction, operation ecology, and talent support, and adapt to the technical means that are compatible with local digital capabilities through controllable costs and appropriate functions.
Technology empowerment should focus on limits and boundaries.
With the deepening of the digital transformation of society, the field of technology empowerment is constantly expanding, and the boundaries of technology empowerment are constantly expanding, but the expansion of technology may also bring challenges to social governance. Technology empowerment means that while giving full play to the positive effects of digital technology, it is also necessary to clarify its limits and boundaries to prevent, control and eliminate negative effects to the greatest extent, focusing on several relationships.
Handle the relationship between technology and governance. The selection of technology and tools is closely related to the social governance scenario, and the adaptation of technology and governance is a prerequisite for technology empowerment. On the one hand, technical tools are "targeted" at governance transactions or scenarios. If there is a problem of "inaccurate targeting", the technology will be detached from reality, which is not conducive to the improvement of governance efficiency. On the other hand, the concept of governance "guides" the application of technical tools. Digitalization is not a simple application pile-up, but a reform driven by demand, and a revolutionary transformation of model processes, experience logic, risk management, etc., in this process, technology is only a means but not an end, and relevant governance entities need to find ways to change the system and mechanism.
Handle the relationship between demand and efficiency. The effectiveness of technology empowerment can be evaluated from two dimensions: scenario requirements and outcome benefits. If digital technology is needed in the governance scenario, digital technology ultimately brings better governance benefits. Or digital technology in the governance scenario is uninvited and has produced a lot of effectiveness, which is what we need. If the governance scenario needs digital empowerment, but it does not play its due benefit, it loses its important functionality. If the governance scenario does not need digital technology, it will not produce much benefit, but digital technology is applied, which makes digital technology a decoration. When coordinating the relationship between demand and efficiency, it is necessary to avoid moving towards the opposite side of technology governance.
Handle the relationship between leadership and participation. Digital governance is not only the responsibility of the main body of governance, but also requires the joint participation of social subjects, and the effectiveness of digital governance cannot be fully utilized without the important governance body of the masses. Strengthen the demand-side mining of digital governance, investigate the needs of townships, communities and other grassroots units, start from solving the problems of the masses' "urgency, hardship and longing", provide methods and means of digital governance, pay attention to public participation and transparency, establish an open communication mechanism, absorb the opinions of grassroots cadres and the masses, and continuously adjust, optimize, supplement and improve. It is necessary to absorb the participation of multiple forces in society, not only as a provider of digital governance, but also as an integrator of governance services and a service provider of digital society, innovate the supply-side reform of digital governance, fully tap the excellent resources in the society, fully mobilize the potential forces in the community, introduce them into digital governance, and continuously enrich the power of digital governance participation.
Handle the relationship between efficiency and scale. Digital governance should not only focus on development momentum, but also improve the efficiency of government services, urban operation, and social governance. It is also necessary to pay attention to the feelings of the masses, grasp the scale of various services and governance, and achieve inclusive and inclusive development. On the one hand, we will promote digital governance in response to the common needs of society. With the full use of data analysis and intelligent technology, we can refine the characteristics of common requirements, and respond quickly and deploy quickly. At the same time, strengthen cross-departmental collaboration and information sharing, continuously evaluate and adjust governance strategies, and ensure the scientific accuracy of strategies. On the other hand, it is oriented to individual needs and achieves inclusive development. Build inclusive digital infrastructure to ensure greater access to digital services and information. At the same time, it helps to upgrade their digital skills, ensure that they participate in the digital process and share in the fruits of development, bridging the digital divide and promoting social equity and inclusive development.
*: Study Times.