The Target System and Strategic Methods of Institutional Construction from the Perspective of Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively

Since reform and opening up, the Communist Party of China has consistently placed great emphasis on strengthening institutional construction in its governance, treating the consolidation of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics as an inherent mission of reform, innovation, and development. In 1992, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: “It will probably take another thirty years for us to develop a more mature and well-defined system in every respect. The policies and guidelines under this system will also become more clearly defined.” [1]1 Deng Xiaoping, “Excerpts from Talks in Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, and Shanghai,” January 18–February 21, 1992. In 2013, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee [2]2 The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in November 2013, which adopted the “Decision on Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reforms.” launched a comprehensive deepening of reform with the overarching goal of “improving and developing the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity.” In the New Era, reform has entered a critical phase and a deep-water zone, where various risks and contradictions in governance are intertwined and superimposed, highlighting the complexity, interconnectedness, and difficulty of national governance issues. The fragmented operational characteristics of the governance system and power structure accumulated during the era of decentralized reform have exposed drawbacks such as excessively high institutional costs, poor institutional coordination, and dispersed institutional resources. The new situation has posed new challenges and demands on key aspects of institutional construction, including the operation of power, functional arrangements, inter-departmental relations, institutional settings, and the division of powers and responsibilities. The previous reform methods of piecemeal adjustments, decentralized decision-making, and fragmented repairs have become ineffective, urgently requiring new ideas and new approaches. Since the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has advanced institutional construction by strengthening centralized and unified leadership, adhering to a problem-oriented approach, reinforcing top-level design, respecting grassroots initiative, and emphasizing systemic integration, achieving historic accomplishments. After years of reform, innovation, and gradual accumulation, the socialist system with Chinese characteristics has become more mature and well-defined, and the level of modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity has significantly improved.

改革开放以来，中国共产党在治国理政中始终高度注重加强制度建设，把促进中国特色社会主义制度定型作为改革创新发展的内在使命。1992年，邓小平就指出：“恐怕再有三十年的时间，我们才会在各方面形成一整套更加成熟、更加定型的制度。在这个制度下的方针、政策，也将更加定型化。”2013年，党的十八届三中全会开启了以“完善和发展中国特色社会主义制度、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化”为总目标的全面深化改革。新时代改革进入攻坚期和深水区，治国理政中各类风险矛盾交织叠加，国家治理问题的复杂性、关联性、艰巨性凸显。以往在分权改革时代累积形成的治理体系和权力结构碎片化运行特征，暴露出制度成本过高、制度衔接不畅、制度资源分散等弊端。新的形势对于权力运行、职能安排、条块关系、机构设置、权责划分等有关制度建设的关键环节，提出了新挑战新要求。过去零敲碎打、分权决策、碎片化修补的改革方式已经失效，亟需新思路新方法。新时代以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央，通过加强集中统一领导、坚持问题导向、加强顶层设计、尊重基层首创、注重系统集成，推进制度建设，并取得历史性成就。经过多年的改革创新和渐进积累，中国特色社会主义制度更加成熟更加定型，国家治理体系和治理能力现代化水平明显提高。

In 2024, the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee [3]3 The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in July 2024. reviewed and adopted the “Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese-Path Modernization” (hereinafter referred to as the “Decision”), clarifying that the overarching goal of further deepening reform comprehensively is to “continue improving and developing the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity.” It made systematic reform deployments focusing on seven main lines: economy, politics, culture, society, ecology, security, and Party building, and summarized the valuable experience of reform and opening up, especially the comprehensive deepening of reform in the New Era, through the major principle of the “Six Upholds.” [4]4 The “Six Upholds” (六个坚持) refer to upholding the Party’s comprehensive leadership, upholding the people-centered development philosophy, upholding the fundamental socialist economic system, upholding reform and opening up, upholding the rule of law, and upholding the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Among these, institutional construction constitutes the main thread of further deepening reform comprehensively, with specific requirements to “strengthen top-level design and overall planning, establish the new while abolishing the old, prioritize establishment before abolition, consolidate fundamental institutions, improve basic institutions, and innovate important institutions.” Therefore, from the perspective of further deepening reform comprehensively, it is of great theoretical and practical significance to sort out the current problems in China’s institutional construction, outline the target system for future institutional construction, and propose targeted strategic methods for institutional construction.

2024年，党的二十届三中全会审议通过了《中共中央关于进一步全面深化改革、推进中国式现代化的决定》（以下简称《决定》），明确了进一步全面深化改革的总目标是“继续完善和发展中国特色社会主义制度、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化”，聚焦经济、政治、文化、社会、生态、安全和党建七大主线作出了系统性的改革部署，并以“六个坚持”的重大原则总结了改革开放以来特别是新时代全面深化改革的宝贵经验。其中，制度建设构成了进一步全面深化改革的主线，具体要求“加强顶层设计、总体谋划，破立并举、先立后破，筑牢根本制度，完善基本制度，创新重要制度”。因此，在进一步全面深化改革视域下，梳理我国目前制度建设存在的问题，勾勒出未来制度建设的目标体系，并针对性地提出制度建设的策略方法，具有重大的理论和实践意义。

I. Analysis of the Necessity of Advancing Institutional Construction from the Perspective of Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively

一、进一步全面深化改革视域下推进制度建设的必要性分析

Institutions are norms and standards that guide and constrain people’s behavior and activities, characterized by compulsion, stability, long-term nature, and universality. Emphasizing and strengthening institutional construction is a valuable experience our Party has summarized from long-term practice. As early as 1990, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: “Issues of the leadership system and organizational system are more fundamental, overarching, stable, and long-term.” Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, China’s institutional construction has successively gone through periods of establishing national order, promoting comprehensive development, and modernizing national governance. Through long-term exploration and practice, contemporary China has gradually formed an institutional normative system composed of the constitution, laws, the Party constitution, Party regulations, and other compulsory provisions. Since the New Era, our Party has placed institutional construction in a more prominent position, striving to build a systematic, scientific, standardized, and effective institutional system to effectively regulate the roles, functions, boundaries, and interactive relationships among the modern political party, modern government, modern society, and modern market. Historical materialism shows that the socialist system bears the important mission of liberating and developing productive forces and needs to be continuously improved as the economy and society develop. Therefore, the construction of the socialist system has no end point, only a continuous process. Institutional construction still constitutes the main thread of further deepening reform comprehensively, and its necessity is mainly manifested in three aspects:

制度是一种引导、约束人们行为活动的规范和准则，具有强制性、稳定性、长期性和普遍性。重视和加强制度建设是我们党从长期实践中总结出的宝贵经验。早在1990年，邓小平就指出：“领导制度、组织制度问题更带有根本性、全局性、稳定性和长期性。”新中国成立以来，我国的制度建设先后经历了建构国家秩序时期、推动全面发展时期和国家治理现代化时期。在长期的探索实践中，当代中国逐渐形成了由宪法、法律、党章、党规和其他具有强制性的规定所构成的制度规范体系。新时代以来，我们党把制度建设摆在更加突出的位置，着力构建系统完备、科学规范、运行有效的制度体系，有效规范现代政党—现代政府—现代社会—现代市场的角色、职能、边界及其之间的互动关系。历史唯物主义表明，社会主义制度承担着解放和发展生产力的重要使命，需要随着经济和社会的发展而不断完善，故社会主义制度建设没有完成时只有进行时。制度建设仍然构成了进一步全面深化改革的主线，其必要性主要表现为三个方面：

First, it is an inevitable requirement for giving full play to the superiority of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. Reviewing the history of socialist development, Marx and Engels elucidated the basic principle of scientific socialism regarding the “two inevitables” [5]5 The “two inevitables” (两个必然) refer to the scientific socialist principle that the victory of the bourgeoisie is inevitable and the victory of the proletariat is equally inevitable. in the “Communist Manifesto,” which contains the idea that the communist system is superior to the capitalist system: public ownership replaces capitalist private ownership; distribution according to work and need replaces the exploitative distribution system; planned social production replaces anarchy; people’s democracy replaces bourgeois representative democracy; and the free and comprehensive development of individuals breaks free from people’s dependence on things. The socialist system with Chinese characteristics is the concretization of the theory of scientific socialism at the institutional level, “the result of long-term development, gradual improvement, and endogenous evolution based on China’s historical heritage, cultural traditions, and economic and social development.” [6]6 Quotation from the “Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Upholding and Improving the Socialist System with Chinese Characteristics and Advancing the Modernization of the National Governance System and Governance Capacity,” adopted at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in October 2019. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee [7]7 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in October 2019. emphasized better transforming the institutional advantages of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics into national governance effectiveness. The thirteen aspects of advantages of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics include both value-level advantages and organizational-operational advantages, both overall structural advantages such as the state system and the political system, and functional advantages in specific fields such as talent and military affairs. Improving and developing the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, fully stimulating the inherent advantages of the system and transforming them into governance effectiveness, cannot merely stop at demonstrating the superiority of the system’s generation mechanism, design mechanism, structural mechanism, and functional mechanism. It also requires, in the practical operational link, eliminating the medium- and micro-level institutional mechanism drawbacks and shortcomings that exist in the operation and implementation of the system, by improving the mechanisms and procedures of the system, adjusting the structure and functions of the system, and ultimately optimizing the system’s architecture and layout.

一是发挥中国特色社会主义制度优越性的必然要求。回顾社会主义发展史，马克思和恩格斯曾在《共产党宣言》中阐明了两个必然的科学社会主义基本原理，蕴含了共产主义制度优于资本主义制度的思想：公有制取代资本主义私有制；按劳按需分配替代剥削关系分配制度；有计划的社会生产取代无政府状态；人民民主取代资产阶级代议制民主；人的自由全面发展摆脱了人对物的依赖关系。中国特色社会主义制度是科学社会主义理论在制度层面的具象化，“是在我国历史传承、文化传统、经济社会发展的基础上长期发展、渐进改进、内生性演化的结果”。党的十九届四中全会强调，把中国特色社会主义制度优势更好转化为国家治理效能。中国特色社会主义制度十三个方面的优势，既包括价值层面的优势，又包括组织运行层面的优势，既包括国体、政体等总体的结构性优势，又包括人才、军事等具体领域的功能性优势。完善和发展中国特色社会主义制度，充分激发制度的内在优势并转化为治理效能，不能仅仅停留于论证制度的生成机理、设计机理、结构机理、功能机理的优越性，还需要在实践操作环节革除制度在运行和执行过程中存在的中观与微观层面的体制机制弊端和短板，通过完善制度的机制与程序，调适制度的结构与功能，最终优化制度的体系与布局。

Second, it is an inevitable requirement for comprehensively building a great modern socialist country. The Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee [8]8 The Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in October 2020, which adopted the “Recommendations for the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035.” embarked on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC [9]9 The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in October 2022. made systematic arrangements and deployments regarding the strategic priorities, main directions, methods of advancement, timeline, roadmap, and working mechanisms for comprehensively building a great modern socialist country. Modernization generally encompasses three levels: material, institutional, and conceptual modernization, including both modernization in the dimension of productive forces and modernization in the dimensions of relations of production and the superstructure. The modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity is the modernization at the institutional level. The main criterion for institutional modernization is to achieve marketization, democratization, and law-based governance while adhering to the socialist nature of the system. The construction of a great modern socialist country is rich in content, covering economic construction, political construction, cultural construction, social construction, ecological construction, national defense and military construction, and Party building. This requires China’s institutional construction to proceed along the above directions, promptly achieving institutional supply through methods of institutional consolidation, institutional adjustment, and institutional innovation based on the needs of new fields and new practices, developing institutional resources, tapping into institutional dividends, forming a dynamically stable pattern where institutional systems in various fields develop together, coordinate support, and organically link, continuously liberating and stimulating new productive forces, thereby providing institutional guarantees for Chinese-path modernization.

二是全面建成社会主义现代化强国的必然要求。党的十九届五中全会开启了全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程。党的二十大报告对全面建成社会主义现代化强国的战略重点、主攻方向、推进方式、时间表、路线图、工作机制作出了系统性的安排和部署。现代化总体上涵盖了物质、制度和观念三个层面的现代化，既包括了生产力维度的现代化，又包括了生产关系和上层建筑维度的现代化。国家治理体系和治理能力现代化就是制度层面的现代化。制度现代化的主要标准是在坚持制度的社会主义性质前提下实现市场化、民主化、法治化。社会主义现代化强国建设内涵丰富，涵盖了经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设、生态建设、国防和军队建设、党的建设。这就要求我国的制度建设围绕上述方向展开，根据新领域新实践的需求，及时以制度巩固、制度调适、制度创新的方式实现制度供给，开发制度资源、挖掘制度红利，形成各领域制度体系共同发展、协同支撑、有机联动的动态定型格局，持续不断地解放和激发出新的生产力，从而为中国式现代化提供制度保障。

Third, it is an inevitable requirement for coping with great-power competition in the process of China’s rise. In modern times, competition among great powers worldwide has been competition in comprehensive national strength, including both hard power and soft power. Military strength and economic strength are the core of hard power; “attractive culture, political values and political institutions, and policies that are regarded as legitimate or have moral authority” constitute soft power. Both hard power and soft power are closely related to a country’s institutional structure and institutional environment, and are a comprehensive reflection of that country’s institutional performance. Therefore, great-power competition is, in the final analysis, competition between institutions. In this regard, Xi Jinping once pointed out: “Institutional advantage is a country’s greatest advantage, and institutional competition is the most fundamental competition between countries.” Western scholars have also emphasized the importance of institutional factors for the rise and fall of nations. In Douglass North’s analysis, the rise of the Western world was due to the establishment of intellectual property systems and a series of institutional innovations that helped reduce transaction costs, which gave rise to a large number of inventions, thereby spawning the Industrial Revolution and creating the miracle of modern economic growth. Similarly, in the comparative studies of Acemoglu and Robinson, institutions are also the fundamental reason why some countries fail or prosper. The two proposed an institutional analysis framework with two dimensions—inclusive and extractive, political and economic—arguing that only inclusive institutions can achieve sustained economic growth. At present, with the enhancement of comprehensive national strength and the increase in international influence of China and many developing countries, the world is experiencing an unprecedented shift in the center of power and a reshaping of international relations. China has ushered in new development opportunities, while also facing more severe international competition and challenges. We must, in the increasingly fierce great-power competition, strengthen institutional construction through further deepening reform comprehensively, continuously shape new institutional advantages and transform them into development and competitive advantages, and ensure that Chinese-path modernization is full of vitality and proceeds steadily and far.

三是中国崛起进程中应对大国竞争的必然要求。近代以来，世界范围内大国的竞争是包括硬实力和软实力在内的综合国力的竞争。军事实力和经济实力是硬实力的核心；“有吸引力的文化、政治价值和政治制度、被视为合法的或有道义威信的政策”则构成了软实力。无论是硬实力还是软实力，均与一个国家的制度结构、制度环境息息相关，是该国制度绩效的综合反映，因此大国竞争归根结底是制度间的竞争。对此，习近平曾指出：“制度优势是一个国家的最大优势，制度竞争是国家间最根本的竞争。”西方学者也同样强调了制度因素对于国家兴衰的重要性，在道格拉斯·诺斯的分析中，西方世界的兴起是由于知识产权制度的确立以及一系列有助于降低交易费用的制度创新，涌现出大量发明成果，进而催生了工业革命，创造了现代经济增长的奇迹。同样，在阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊的比较研究中，制度也是为什么一些国家走向失败或者繁荣的根本原因，两人提出了包容性和汲取性、政治与经济两个维度的制度分析框架，认为只有包容性制度才能实现经济的持续增长。当前，随着中国以及众多发展中国家综合国力的增强和国际影响力的提升，世界正在经历前所未有的权力中心的转移和国际关系的重塑，中国迎来了新的发展机遇，同时也要面对更为严峻的国际竞争与挑战。我们必须在日趋激烈的大国竞争中通过进一步全面深化改革加强制度建设，不断塑造新的制度优势并转化为发展和竞争优势，确保中国式现代化生机勃勃、行稳致远。

II. The Target System and Realistic Examination of Institutional Construction from the Perspective of Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively

二、进一步全面深化改革视域下制度建设的目标体系与现实审视

Some international organizations were the first to propose complete evaluation criteria for the governance systems of sovereign states. The most representative is the Worldwide Governance Indicators proposed by the World Bank, which includes six indicators: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. However, these indicator systems still have limitations, ignoring the special national conditions of some countries and the temporal and spatial position of their modernization development. Generally speaking, modern state governance systems universally possess three attributes: first, general attributes, for example, all modern states must address issues of political legitimacy and mandatory state capacity building in their governance; second, country-specific attributes, as the governance of each country is constrained by specific socio-historical-cultural conditions and influenced by the international environment; third, task attributes, as the governance of each country must address the special missions and tasks faced at a specific stage of its modernization process. These three attributes jointly determine the target system of institutional construction for a country in a specific period. Combining the stipulations of the above three attributes with the current development situation of Chinese-path modernization, institutional construction from the perspective of further deepening reform comprehensively should anchor six major goals. Among them, completeness and unity have general attributes, hierarchy has country-specific attributes, and systematicity, synergy, and adaptability have task attributes.

一些国际组织最早对主权国家的治理体系提出了完整的评价标准。最具代表性的是世界银行提出的世界治理指数，包括发言权与问责制、政治稳定与消除暴力、政府效能、监管质量、法治、腐败控制六个指标。但是，这些指标体系仍然具有局限性，忽略了一些国家的特殊国情和现代化发展所处的时空方位。通常而言，现代国家治理体系普遍具有三重属性，一是一般属性，例如所有现代国家的治理都必须解决政治合法性、强制性的国家能力建设问题；二是国别属性，每个国家的治理都受到特定社会－历史－文化条件的约束以及国际环境的影响；三是任务属性，每个国家的治理都必须解决其所处的现代化进程中特定阶段面临的特殊使命与任务。这三重属性共同决定了一个国家在特定时期制度建设的目标体系。综合上述三重属性的规定并结合现阶段中国式现代化的发展形势，进一步全面深化改革视域下制度建设应当锚定六大目标。其中，完整性、统一性具有一般属性，层次性具有国别属性，系统性、协同性和适应性则具有任务属性。

First is completeness. According to Max Weber’s exposition, the essential elements of a modern nation-state include population, territory, sovereignty, legitimacy, bureaucracy, monopoly on violence, and the impersonality of power. One of the signs of completing the construction of a modern nation-state is that administrative power can form organized penetration and stable control over grassroots society, integrate various regions into a whole, and be able to form institutionalized two-way interaction with the will of citizens. Effective state governance necessarily relies on a complete set of institutions covering all fields, all regions, and all levels. If there is institutional deficiency, state governance will experience dysfunction or failure. Therefore, to improve the completeness of institutions, it is necessary to keep institutional construction in step with the development of new practices and meet the requirements raised by new practices. With the accelerated integration, penetration, iteration, and upgrading of science and technology and economic and social development, new industries and new business forms such as the digital economy and artificial intelligence are constantly emerging in our country. The traditional market access rules, access systems, and regulatory rules based mainly on administrative approval can no longer be applied. At the same time, emerging social forces, empowered by new concepts and new technologies, are accelerating their aggregation, differentiation, and reorganization, and their interest demands have become more complex and diversified. Under the traditional structural-functionalist governance system, institutional participation channels, public agenda-setting models, absorption and integration networks, and the coverage systems of Party organizations and mass organizations have all exposed shortcomings. Under this new economic and social development situation and structure, on the one hand, it is necessary to change and update the functions, mechanisms, and logic of the old system; on the other hand, it is urgently necessary to establish rules and regulations for new economic organizations, new social organizations, and new employment groups beyond the traditional governance fields, so as to realize the regulation and guidance of public power over new governance issues and subjects.

一是完整性。按照马克斯·韦伯的论述，现代民族国家必备的要素包括人口、领土、主权、合法性、科层制、暴力垄断权和权力的非人格化。完成现代民族国家建构的标志之一就是行政权力能够对基层社会形成组织化渗透和稳固的控制，将各个地区整合为一体，并能够与公民的意志形成制度化的双向互动。有效的国家治理必然依赖一整套完整的制度，覆盖到各个领域、各个区域、各个层级。如果出现制度缺失的情况，国家治理就会出现失灵或失败。因此，提高制度的完整性，就必须使制度建设紧跟新实践的发展，满足新实践提出的要求。随着科学技术和经济社会发展加速渗透融合、迭代升级，我国不断涌现出数字经济和人工智能等新产业、新业态，传统的以行政审批为主的市场准入规则、准入体系和监管规则无法沿用。与此同时，新兴社会力量在新观念和新技术的赋权下加速聚集、分化、再组织化，其利益诉求更为复杂化、多元化，传统结构功能主义治理体系下的制度参与渠道、公共议程设定模式、吸纳整合网络、党组织和群团组织的覆盖体系均暴露出短板。在这一新的经济社会发展形势和结构下，一方面要改变和更新旧体制运作的功能、机理与逻辑，另一方面亟需在传统治理领域之外，针对新经济组织、新社会组织、新就业群体建章立制，实现公共权力对新治理议题和主体的规范与引导。

Second is unity. Institutions have both universality and flexibility. Institutions concerning national matters under the leadership and management of the central government should have unified standards and norms, while institutions concerning local matters under the leadership and management of local governments can reflect local characteristics and autonomy. However, different institutional units and institutions at various levels should form an organic whole; otherwise, it will lead to high institutional costs. Historically, in the era of feudalism in Europe, feudal lords and nobles enfeoffed both estates and the ruling power attached to the land. The nobles were vassals to their superiors and lords to their inferiors, relying on their fiefs to establish separatist regimes. Feudal separatism led to different standards for tariffs, judicature, and currency, erecting numerous barriers to commercial trade activities and imposing high transaction costs on them. As far as our country is concerned, the prominent manifestation currently hindering the unity of our country’s institutions is the local protection and market segmentation that appear in the economic field. According to existing research, under the fiscal contract system implemented before 1993, the practice of dividing fiscal resources according to the administrative affiliation of enterprises gave rise to a series of measures to protect local markets, resulting in serious market segmentation; the tax-sharing system reform in 1994 shaped a central-local government relationship of “fiscal power upward, administrative responsibility downward.” To attract investment and expand the tax base, local governments artificially created “tax depressions” and “policy depressions,” leading to vicious competition among local governments, distortion of government functions, and misallocation of resources. In response to this problem, the Third Plenary Session of the 14th Central Committee of the CPC in 1993 first proposed “establishing a national unified and open market system.” The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee, the 19th National Congress of the CPC, and the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee all made relevant deployments. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee clarified measures for building a unified national market from the aspects of basic market rules, market supervision, and market infrastructure, striving to establish a unified national market rule system.

二是统一性。制度既具有普遍性又具有灵活性，凡是涉及到中央政府领导管理的全国性事项的制度应当具有统一的标准和规范，涉及到地方政府领导管理的地方性事项的制度则可以体现地方的特色性和自主性。但是，不同的制度单元之间、各层级制度之间应形成一个有机整体，否则将会导致制度成本的高企。历史上，在封建主义时代的欧洲，封建领主贵族一并分封了地产和附着在土地上的统治权，贵族对上为封臣，对下为封主，以领地为依托割据一方。封建割据造成了关税、司法、货币的不同标准，为商业贸易活动来了重重藩篱，使其承担了高昂的交易成本。就我国而言，当前妨碍我国制度统一性的突出表现就是经济领域出现的地方保护和市场分割。根据已有研究表明，在1993年前实行的财政包干体制下，按照企业行政隶属关系划分财源的做法，产生了一系列保护本地市场的举措，造成严重市场分割；1994年分税制改革塑造出了“财权向上，事权向下”的央地政府间关系，地方政府为吸引投资扩大税基，人为制造了“税收洼地”“政策洼地”，出现地方政府间恶性竞争、政府职能行使扭曲、资源错配的现象。针对这一问题，1993年党的十四届三中全会就首次提出了“建立全国统一开放的市场体系”，党的十八届三中全会、党的十九大、党的十九届五中全会均作出相关部署。党的二十届三中全会从市场基础规则、市场监管、市场基础设施方面明确了构建全国统一大市场的举措，力求建立全国统一的市场规则制度。

Third, hierarchy. Every country has a multitude of institutions of various types. However, different institutions have different natures, positions, and functions, thus forming different levels. In 1980, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "There are still many defects in some of the current specific systems of the Party and the state, which hinder or even seriously hinder the exertion of the superiority of socialism." [15]15 Deng Xiaoping, "On the Reform of the Party and State Leadership System," August 18, 1980. This important statement distinguishes institutions into two types—fundamental institutions and specific institutions—and has methodological significance for reform and opening up. The former directly embodies the Four Cardinal Principles of socialism and possesses superiority, so it needs to be maintained and improved; the latter is in fact the systems and mechanisms that emphasize the organizational and structural dimensions. Fundamental institutions determine the systems and mechanisms and are expressed and manifested through their operation; fundamental institutions are not equivalent to systems and mechanisms, and the object of reform is the systems and mechanisms that have various defects in practical operation and affect the exertion of the superiority of fundamental institutions. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC summarized and concluded an institutional system of socialism with Chinese characteristics composed of 13 aspects, divided into three levels: fundamental institutions, basic institutions, and important institutions. [16]16 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC was held in October 2019, focusing on upholding and improving the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. Fundamental institutions have top-level decisiveness, overall guidance, and comprehensive coverage; basic institutions embody the intrinsic qualities and attribute requirements of fundamental institutions and exert important influence on various fields; important institutions are in fact derived from the former two and support their operation as a system, directly affecting all fields and aspects of social production and life. From the perspective of further deepening reform comprehensively, institutional construction should follow the principle of classified implementation, adopt different construction strategies for institutions at different levels, and focus on eliminating all institutional and mechanistic defects that hinder the advancement of Chinese-path modernization at the level of important institutions.

三是层次性。每个国家都有数量繁多、类型多样的制度。但是不同的制度具有不同的性质、地位和作用，从而形成了不同的层次。1980年，邓小平指出：“党和国家现行的一些具体制度中，还存在不少弊端，妨碍甚至严重妨碍社会主义优越性的发挥。”这一重要论述把制度区分为根本制度和具体制度两种类型，对于改革开放具有方法论层面的重要意义。前者直接体现了社会主义四项基本原则并具有优越性，故需要维护和完善；后者实际上就是偏重于组织、结构维度的体制机制。根本制度决定了体制机制，并通过其运行和表现出来；根本制度不等于体制机制，改革的对象就是在实践操作中存在种种弊端、影响根本制度发挥优越性的体制机制。党的十九届四中全会归纳总结了由13个方面构成，区分为根本制度、基本制度和重要制度三个层次的中国特色社会主义制度体系。根本制度具有顶层决定性、全局指导性、全域覆盖性；基本制度体现着根本制度的内在品质和属性要求，对各领域产生重要影响；重要制度实际上就是由前两者派生而来并支撑其运行的体制，直接影响着社会生产生活的各领域各方面。进一步全面深化改革视域下制度建设应当遵循分类施策的原则，对不同层次的制度采取不同的建设策略，着重在重要制度层面破除妨碍推进中国式现代化的一切体制机制弊端。

Fourth, systematicity. In the history of socialist development, after Lenin led the Bolsheviks to establish the Soviet state power, he creatively put forward the concept of the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is "a complex system composed of several gears," [17]17 V. I. Lenin, "The Trade Unions, the Present Situation and Trotsky's Mistakes," December 30, 1920. mainly constituted by the relationship among a series of organizational subjects such as the proletarian party, the proletarian state power, the masses, and social organizations. Among them, the proletarian party plays the role of leadership, integration, and guidance; the Soviet organs are the "executive force"; trade unions play the role of "transmission device" and "lever" between the ruling party and the state power. Thus, the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a complex and ingenious state machine. With the refinement of the division of labor in the economy and society, the complexity of governance affairs, and the scaling up of bureaucratic organizations, the systematic characteristics of the modern state machine have become increasingly evident: the number of institutional units has increased, and the tightness of connections between institutional units has also become more significant. At the same time, the interaction patterns among the modern party, modern government, modern society, and modern market have become more complex and subtle, and institutions exhibit the characteristic of structural nesting, where adjustments to individual institutions always affect the whole system. In this regard, Xi Jinping emphasizes, "The national governance system is a complex system composed of many subsystems" and "reform in any one field will affect other fields, and at the same time requires close coordination with reforms in other fields." [18]18 Xi Jinping, "Explanatory Notes on the 'Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Comprehensively Deepening Reform,'" November 15, 2013. Further deepening reform comprehensively has entered a critical period and a deep-water zone, where all the tasks encountered are hard nuts to crack. Major reform tasks such as the reform of the household registration system and the reform of state-owned enterprises all point to the intersecting and interlocking areas of different systems or institutional units, usually involving reforms in multiple fields and aspects, requiring the strengthening of top-level design and overall planning, and the introduction of supporting policy packages.

四是系统性。在社会主义发展史中，列宁领导布尔什维克建立苏维埃国家政权以后，创造性提出了无产阶级专政体系的概念。它“是一个由若干齿轮组成的复杂体系”，主要由无产阶级政党、无产阶级政权、人民群众和社会团体等一系列组织主体的关系构成。其中，无产阶级政党发挥领导、统合、引领的作用，苏维埃机关是“执行力量”，工会在执政党和国家政权之间发挥“传动装置”和“杠杆”的作用。由此可见，无产阶级专政体系是一个复杂巧妙的国家机器。随着经济社会分工的精细化、治理事务的复杂化、官僚组织的规模化，现代国家机器的系统性特征愈发明显，制度单元数量增多，且制度单元之间联系的紧密性也更为显著。与此同时，现代政党—现代政府—现代社会—现代市场之间的互动模式更为复杂微妙，制度呈现出结构化嵌套的特征，个别制度的调整总是牵一发而动全身。对此，习近平强调，“国家治理体系是由众多子系统构成的复杂系统”“任何一个领域的改革都会牵动其他领域，同时也需要其他领域改革密切配合。”进一步全面深化改革进入攻坚期和深水区，面对的都是难啃的硬骨头。诸如户籍制度改革、国有企业改革等重大的改革任务都指向了不同体制或制度单元纵横交错的联结区域，通常涉及多个领域、多个方面的改革，需要加强顶层设计和总体谋划，出台配套性的政策组合。

Fifth, synergy. The synergy of institutions is manifested in the mutual support, mutual coordination, and mutual integration among various institutional units and elements, forming institutional synergy and improving institutional effectiveness. Since reform and opening up, one of the significant achievements in institutional construction has been the introduction and restoration of a large number of institutions. In the process of institutional construction, different departments have different interest demands, goal rankings, and value sequences, and the goals and standards of related institutions constructed under the leadership of different departments are inconsistent. In addition, in the process of the replacement and metabolism of old and new institutions, the revision, supplementation, deletion, and improvement of institutions lack overall arrangement and standardized guidance, and are not sufficiently detailed and accurate. The above reasons together lead to phenomena such as overlapping, incoordination, lack of connection, and fragmentation between old and new institutions and between vertical and horizontal institutions. For example, under the wave of informatization at the end of the 20th century, various administrative functional departments, in the process of promoting the construction of a service-oriented government, began to develop e-government and successively established dedicated business data networks to assist governance. However, for a long time, these dedicated networks have operated independently, increasingly exposing defects such as fragmentation between different departments and regions and barriers like isolated fortresses, resulting in information islands and data silos. Institutional resources cannot be linked and connected to form synergy, and are increasingly unable to cope with increasingly complex, holistic, and systematic risks. These problems have greatly increased the cost of institutional operation and reduced the efficiency and effectiveness of institutional operation.

五是协同性。制度的协同性表现为各个制度单元和要素之间的相互支持、相互配合、相互融合，形成制度合力，提高制度的效能。改革开放以来，制度建设取得的显著成效之一就是有大量制度的出台和恢复。在制度建设的过程中，不同部门的利益诉求、目标排序、价值序列不同，不同部门主导建设的相关制度目标和标准不一致。此外，在新旧制度更替代谢的过程中，制度的修订、增补、删减和完善工作缺乏统筹安排和规范引导，不够细致和准确。以上原因共同导致出现新旧制度之间和纵横制度之间的交错重叠、不协调、不衔接、碎片化等现象。例如，在二十世纪末的信息化浪潮下，各个行政职能部门在推进服务型政府建设的过程中，开始发展电子政务，纷纷建立业务数据专网辅助治理。然而，长期以来这些专网独立运作，愈发暴露出条块分割、壁垒林立的缺陷，造成信息孤岛、数据烟囱，制度资源不能联动衔接形成合力，愈发无力应对日趋复杂化、整体化、系统化的风险。这些问题极大地增加了制度运行的成本，降低了制度运行的效率和效能。

Sixth, adaptability. A sound institutional system should possess the ability to adapt to different historical periods, different external environments, and to respond to different challenges. In this regard, Huntington points out: "Adaptability is the function of environmental challenge and time. The more environmental challenges an organization or procedure has experienced, the longer its lifespan, and the stronger its adaptability." [19]19 Samuel P. Huntington, *Political Order in Changing Societies* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 13. This adaptability is manifested in the ability of the institutional system to demonstrate self-adjustment and transformation in the process of interactive influence with the external environment. On the one hand, it can break through traditional institutional constraints, rigid conceptual constraints, and inertial psychological constraints to form policy and institutional innovation; on the other hand, it can always remain on the value propositions of scientific socialism and the fundamental institutions of socialism with Chinese characteristics without deviation in the midst of innovation and transformation. To improve the adaptability of China's institutions from the perspective of further deepening reform comprehensively, we should actively adapt to and resolve three new changes and challenges in the internal and external environment: respond to external "decoupling and severing supply chains" and "small yard, high fence," [20]20 "Small yard, high fence" is a metaphor used in U.S. policy discourse to describe targeted restrictions on technology exports to China, particularly in advanced semiconductors and related equipment, aiming to limit China's technological advancement while avoiding broad decoupling. coordinate development and security, and strengthen bottom-line thinking and risk awareness in institutional construction in all fields; actively meet the new expectations of the people in the New Era for democracy, the rule of law, fairness, justice, security, and the environment, and focus on solving prominent issues strongly reflected by the people such as employment, medical care, and housing; grasp the new trend of the intertwining of the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, accelerate the construction of new relations of production that match new quality productive forces, and effectively gather and allocate innovative elements such as talent, technology, management, and knowledge on a global scale.

六是适应性。健全的制度体系应当具备适应不同历史时期、不同外部环境，应对不同挑战的能力。对此，亨廷顿指出：“适应性是环境的挑战和岁月的作用。组织或程序经受的环境挑战越多，寿命越长，其适应性也就越强。”这种适应性表现为制度体系在与外部环境的交互影响作用中展现出的自我调适与变革的能力，一方面能够突破传统的体制束缚、僵化的观念束缚、惯性的心理束缚形成政策与制度的创新，另一方面能够在创新与变革中始终不偏离科学社会主义的价值观主张和中国特色社会主义根本制度。进一步全面深化改革视域下提高我国制度的适应性，应当主动顺应和化解内部外部环境出现的三个方面新变化新挑战：应对外部“脱钩断链”“小院高墙”，统筹发展和安全，在各领域制度建设中强化底线思维和风险意识；积极满足新时代人民群众对于民主、法治、公平、正义、安全、环境的新期待，着力解决就业、医疗、住房等人民反映强烈突出的问题；把握新一轮科技革命与产业变革相互交织的新趋势，加快构建与新质生产力相匹配的新型生产关系，在全球范围内有效集聚和配置人才、技术、管理、知识等创新要素。

III. Strategic Methods of Institutional Construction from the Perspective of Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively

三、进一步全面深化改革视域下制度建设的策略方法

In contemporary China, institutional construction manifests as the targeted and creative adjustments and transformations made by subjects such as Party committees at all levels, people's congresses, governments, political consultative conferences, and mass organizations to their functional positioning, operational mechanisms, organizational structures, business processes, working methods, and technical means, in response to changes and challenges in the internal and external environment, based on specific goals and principles. This definition indicates that the connotation and extension of institutional construction include basic elements such as the construction subject, construction impetus, construction goals, construction principles, construction fields, and construction paths. The above has analyzed the goals and fields of institutional construction. Next, the author will focus on clarifying four aspects around the strategic methods of institutional construction:

在当代中国，制度建设表现为各级党委、人大、政府、政协、群团组织等主体为适应内外环境的变化和挑战，依据特定的目标和原则，对自身的职能定位、运行机制、组织结构、业务流程、工作方法、技术手段作出的富有针对性和创造性的调整与变革。这一定义表明了制度建设的内涵和外延包含了建设主体、建设动力、建设目标、建设原则、建设领域和建设路径等基本要素。上文已对制度建设的目标和领域作出了分析，接下来笔者将围绕制度建设的策略方法重点明确四个方面：

First, the main supplier of institutional construction. Under the planned economic system before reform and opening up, the central government became the primary subject supplying institutions, while local governments, enterprises, and individuals in most cases could only passively accept new institutions. After reform and opening up, contemporary China’s systemic reform has always unfolded in the benign interaction between “crossing the river by feeling the stones” and top-level design, though with different emphases in different periods. The roles played by the central government, local governments, enterprises, and individuals in the institutional construction links of reforms at different stages also differ. In the initial and exploratory stages of reform, there were more reforms initiated from the bottom up by local and grassroots governments and society, as well as institutional innovations driven by them. The central government typically proposed an overall reform plan for a certain field after investigating and summarizing practical innovations at the local and societal levels. This path is specifically manifested as local institutional innovation → absorption and adoption by higher levels → promotion and implementation, a bottom-up absorption and diffusion model. In the comprehensive deepening stage of reform, it is more necessary to combine the overall advancement of reforms in various fields with breakthroughs in key areas, and top-level design led by the central government from the top down will occupy a more important position. This path is either manifested as partial policy experimentation under central leadership → comprehensive promotion, such as the “three types of land” reform in rural areas [21]21 The “three types of land” reform refers to reforms concerning collectively operated construction land entering the market, homesteads, and land expropriation in rural areas, piloted from 2015. launched and implemented in the New Era; or as the use of administrative directives to require the unified implementation of a certain policy by the five levels of government: central, province (autonomous region, municipality directly under the central government), prefecture-level city, county (city), and township (town). Regarding the institutional construction link of further deepening comprehensive reform, the principle of “classified guidance, targeted policy implementation” should be followed according to the different types and characteristics of institutions: the central level should focus on overall, top-level, and fundamental institutional construction, such as fiscal and tax system reform and household registration system reform, ensuring the correct political direction, strengthening top-level design, and forming an overall plan; local governments, enterprises, and individuals are closest to the scene where institutions operate and have the most direct and genuine perception of institutional effectiveness. They should become the main subjects of innovation for specific institutions with practical, operational, and procedural characteristics, following ideological and legitimacy boundaries in the process of institutional construction, conforming to trends in economic and social development, and proposing pragmatic and effective institutional experiments and innovation plans tailored to local conditions.

一是制度建设的主要供给者。在改革开放之前的计划经济体制下，中央政府成为了最主要的制度供给主体，地方政府、企业和个体在多数情况下只能被动地接受新制度。在改革开放之后，当代中国的体制改革始终是在摸着石头过河和顶层设计的良性互动中展开，只不过在不同时期有不同的侧重点，中央政府与地方政府、企业和个体在不同阶段改革的制度建设环节发挥的作用也有所区别。在改革的启动和初步探索阶段，从地方与基层政府以及社会层面自下而上发起的改革和推动的制度创新较多，通常由中央在考察和总结地方和社会层面的实践创新后，再提出某一领域整体性的改革方案。这一路径具体表现为地方制度创新—上级吸收采纳—推广实行，是一种自下而上的吸纳扩散模式。在改革的全面深化阶段，更需要各领域改革的整体推进和重点突破相结合，由中央主导的自上而下顶层设计将占据更为重要的位置。这一路径或是表现为中央主导下的政策局部试验—全面推广，例如新时代启动推行的农村“三块地”改革；或是表现为采用行政指令要求中央、省（自治区、直辖市）、地级市、县（市）、乡（镇）五级政府统一实施某项政策。就进一步全面深化改革的制度建设环节而言，应当根据制度的不同类型和不同特征，遵循“分类指导、精准施策”的原则：中央层面重点抓全局性、顶层性、根本性的制度建设，例如财税体制改革、户籍制度改革，把准政治方向，加强顶层设计，形成总体方案；地方政府、企业和个体距离制度运转的场景最近，对于制度的效能感受最为直接和真实，应当成为具有实践性、操作性、程序性特征的具体制度的创新主体，在制度建设过程中遵循意识形态和合法性边界、顺应经济社会发展趋势，因地制宜地提出务实管用的制度试验和创新方案。

Second, the key driving force for institutional innovation. Based on the initiative of the subjects of institutional construction and the background of institutional innovation, there are mainly three driving forces that form three types: (1) Crisis forcing. The institutional history of various countries shows that various types of crises, such as major accidents, natural disasters, stagnation of economic and social development, and major decision-making errors, constitute significant causes of institutional change. For example, the United States carried out major financial regulatory system reforms after the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. The forcing effect of major crises on reform lies in their ability to break through the entrenched interests of established groups in a short period, rapidly forming enormous pressure in terms of public opinion, interests, personnel, and governance, thereby clearing obstacles for reform. Under the new situation, the number of risk points worldwide has increased, and the intertwining of traditional and non-traditional security has brought new transmission mechanisms, superposition mechanisms, and evolution mechanisms, leading to the spillover and diffusion of local risks. To effectively respond to and resolve crises, it is necessary to make significant adjustments and innovations to the governance system. For example, in response to the deficiencies exposed in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, China has carried out reforms in the disease control and prevention system, public hospital reform, and the hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system reform. Crises always exist; the key lies in how to fully draw momentum for further comprehensive reform from crises in the future. This requires the entire country and society to engage in rational and profound reflection on governance failures, and requires decision-makers not to remain in a state of maintaining the status quo after a crisis, but to possess the ability to continuously learn, the courage for self-reform, and the responsibility for reform and innovation. (2) The demands of development and governance. After reform and opening up, the processes of marketization, industrialization, informatization, and urbanization intertwined and collided, generating new problems across economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological lines of development. Against this backdrop, the performance assessment indicators for Chinese cadres no longer judge success solely by GDP but focus on realizing the new development concepts of innovation, coordination, green, openness, and sharing; at the same time, economic and social development objectively raises new governance demands for changes in the governance system. For example, Zhejiang Province, as a highland of reform and opening up and a pioneering area for the private economy, has successively implemented reforms such as the “four lists and one network” [22]22 The “four lists and one network” reform in Zhejiang refers to streamlining power lists, responsibility lists, negative investment lists, and fiscal专项资金 lists, integrated into a single online government service platform. to streamline administration and delegate power, the construction and operation of the Zhejiang Government Service Network, the “run at most once” reform, and digital reform to facilitate government affairs for the public and enterprises. This type of institutional innovation requires local Party and government cadres to possess the spirit and ability to tackle reform difficulties, be adept at starting from solving practical problems in economic and social development to promote governance innovation, and provide high-quality public goods and services; it requires the central government to provide an inclusive environment and encouraging attitude for local governance innovation, offer institutionalized support, and clarify assessment methods and incentive measures. (3) Opening up to the outside world. Since China resumed normal exchanges with the world in the late 1970s, it has implemented an opening-up policy. Taking its accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 as a boundary, China’s opening up has generally undergone a transformation from the accumulation of factor resources to passive institutional learning and innovation, and then to the steady expansion of institutional opening up. After 2001, facing the waves of globalization and marketization, as well as China’s active deep participation in global governance, domestic systemic reform and opening up formed an interactive relationship. In the period following WTO accession, China was forced to change some domestic systems and policies by learning from international practices and international institutions, with systemic reform generally lagging behind opening up. Against the backdrop of a new round of economic globalization, the global trade governance system has undergone structural reshaping, the multilateral leadership of the WTO has been continuously weakened, and regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) have developed rapidly. Therefore, the current “Decision” [23]23 The “Decision” refers to the resolution on further deepening reform adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC in July 2024. points out the need to proactively align with high-standard international economic and trade rule systems. Furthermore, in the future, we should also actively participate in the formulation of international rules, in turn using domestic systemic reform to guarantee and lead opening up.

二是制度创新的关键动力。根据制度建设主体自身的能动性以及制度创新的背景，主要有三个方面的动力并形成了三种类型：（1）危机倒逼。各国制度史表明，诸如重大事故、自然灾害、经济社会发展的停滞、重大决策失误等各类型的危机，构成了制度变迁的重大原因，例如美国在2008年次级贷危机后就进行了重大的金融监管体制改革。重大危机对改革之所以形成了倒逼效应就在于其在短时间内冲破了既得利益固化的藩篱，迅速形成了巨大的舆论、利益、人事、治理压力，从而为改革扫清障碍。新形势下，世界范围内风险点增多，传统安全与非传统安全交织带来了新的传导机制、叠加机制、演化机制，局部风险外溢扩散。为有效应对和解决危机，就必须对治理体系进行大幅调整和创新。例如，针对应对新冠疫情中暴露出的不足，我国就开展了疾控体系改革、公立医院改革、分级诊疗体系改革。危机永远存在，关键在于未来如何从危机中充分汲取进一步全面改革的动力。这需要整个国家和社会能够对治理失败进行理性深刻反思，需要决策者不能在危机后停留于维持现状，而是要具备不断学习的能力、自我革新的勇气、改革创新的担当。（2）发展治理的需求。改革开放后市场化、工业化、信息化、城市化进程相互交织碰撞，经济、政治、文化、社会、生态多线发展产生新的问题。在这一背景下，我国干部政绩考核指标不再唯GPD论英雄，而是注重实现创新、协调、绿色、开放、共享的新发展理念；与此同时，经济社会的发展在客观上对于治理体系的变革提出了新的治理需求。例如，浙江省作为改革开放的高地和民营经济的先发地，为方便群众和企业办理政务，先后推行了“四张清单一张网”简政放权改革、建设和运行浙江政务服务网、最多跑一次改革、数字化改革等。这一类制度创新需要地方党政干部具备改革攻坚的精神和能力，善于从解决经济社会发展实际问题入手推动治理创新，提供优质公共产品和公共服务；需要中央为地方治理创新提供包容的环境和鼓励的态度，提供制度化支持，明确考核方式和激励措施。（3）对外开放。中国自20世纪70年代末恢复同世界的正常交往后，开始实行对外开放政策。以2001年加入世界贸易组织为界，我国的对外开放总体上经历了要素性资源积累到被动性制度学习创新再到稳步扩大制度型开放的转变。2001年后，面对全球化和市场化的浪潮以及中国主动对全球治理的深度参与，国内的体制改革与对外开放形成了互动关系。入世后的一段时期，我国通过学习国际惯例、国际制度，被迫改变一些国内的体制和政策，体制改革整体上滞后于对外开放。在新一轮经济全球化背景下，全球贸易治理体系发生了结构性重塑，WTO多边领导力不断削弱，区域和双边自贸协定（FTA）快速发展，故此次《决定》指出要主动对接高标准国际经贸规则体系。此外，未来我们还应当积极参与国际规则的制定，反过来以国内体制改革保障和引领对外开放。

Third, the important principles of institutional construction. According to relevant expressions in the *Decision*, the principles followed in institutional construction are divided into three layers of meaning: Centering on “strengthening top-level design and overall planning,” from the perspective of enhancing the systemic and synergistic nature of institutions, for major cross-sectoral and cross-field reform tasks of the institutional system, when necessary, the principal leading cadres of the Party and government at the corresponding level should take the lead at a high level and coordinate overall efforts, avoiding departmental segmentation, regional segmentation, and vertical-horizontal segmentation in the process of institutional construction, facilitating the transfer, compensation, and integration of interests, forming a plan for sharing reform costs acceptable to stakeholders, and maximizing consensus and agreement; policy direction, policy tools, policy intensity, policy boundaries, policy timing, and policy rhythm should be taken as the main criteria, not only conducting policy consistency assessments within the larger system of the national governance system, but also exploring and establishing scientific policy simulation and experimentation mechanisms, improving policy constraint and supervision mechanisms and policy early warning and correction mechanisms, conducting whole-process prediction, monitoring, and correction of the operation of important policies involving major reforms, thereby enhancing the systemic nature of institutional construction; fully leveraging the role of deliberative and coordinating bodies such as leading groups and joint meetings, establishing cross-sectoral institutionalized mechanisms for exchange, cooperation, and information communication, thereby enhancing the synergy of institutional construction. Centering on “breaking down and establishing simultaneously, with establishment preceding breaking down,” ideologically, we must eradicate the erroneous notion of a stark opposition between the old and new systems, fully recognizing that China’s gradual reform determines that there is both friction and continuity and inheritance in the content and provisions between the old and new systems; in terms of temporal and spatial environment, there is both sequential alternation and simultaneous coexistence; the key point in practical operation is that policymakers must accurately grasp the window of opportunity for reform, pay attention to the balance of time, speed, and intensity, gradually introduce new dynamic mechanisms, regulatory mechanisms, and information mechanisms, and steadily and incrementally improve the efficiency of resource allocation. In the current Chinese context, the method of establishing before breaking down in institutional construction has the advantage of ensuring the relative stability of existing economic and social development and interest structures, forming open, transparent, and stable institutional expectations. Even if there may be drawbacks such as the reversion of the old system or excessively long game-playing by multiple actors during the transition between old and new systems, it is still superior to the turmoil and conflict brought about by radical institutional change in a short period, and can better achieve the organic unity of reform, development, and stability in the process of modernization. Centering on “consolidating fundamental institutions, perfecting basic institutions, and innovating important institutions,” while adhering to the attributes of institutions, according to the internal logic of institutions and the new demands raised by economic and social development, we should use new technologies, optimize new processes, enrich new mechanisms, and other forms to carry out institutional and mechanism innovation at the level of important institutions, develop and optimize the structure and functions of institutions, serving the consolidation of fundamental institutions and the perfection of basic institutions.

三是制度建设的重要原则。根据《决定》中相关表述，制度建设遵循的原则分为三层含义：围绕“加强顶层设计和总体谋划”，应当从增强制度系统性和协同性的视角出发，针对跨领域跨部门的重大体制改革任务，必要时由本级党政主要负责同志高位推动、领衔统筹，避免制度建设过程中出现部门分割、地域分割、条块分割，促成利益交割、利益补偿、利益整合，形成利益相关方可接受改革成本的分担方案，最大程度凝聚和达成共识；应以政策方向、政策工具、政策力度、政策边界、政策时机、政策节奏为主要标准，不仅要在国家治理体系的大系统中开展政策一致性评估，还要探索和建立科学的政策模拟和试验机制、完善政策约束监督机制和政策预警矫正机制，对涉及重大改革的重要政策的运行进行全过程预测、监控和纠偏，提高制度建设的系统性；充分发挥领导小组、联席会议等议事协调机构的作用，建立跨部门的制度化交流合作、信息沟通机制，提高制度建设的协同性。围绕“破立并举和先立后破”，在思想上破除新旧体制截然对立的错误观念，充分认识到我国的渐进式改革决定了新旧体制之间在内容规定上既有摩擦性，又有延续性、继承性；在时空环境上既具有前后交替性，又有同时并存性；在实践操作上的要点在于政策制定者必须准确地把握改革窗口期，注重时间、速率和力度的平衡，逐步引入新的动力机制、调节机制、信息机制，稳步渐进提高资源配置的效率。在当前中国的环境下，制度建设采取先立后破的方法，其优势在于可以保证既有经济社会发展和利益结构的相对稳定，形成公开、透明、平稳的制度预期，即便在新旧体制交替的过程中可能出现旧体制的复归或者多方行动者博弈时间过长的弊端，但仍然优于体制短时间内的激进变革带来的动荡和冲突，能够在现代化进程中更好地实现改革发展稳定的有机统一。围绕“筑牢根本制度、完善基本制度、创新重要制度”，应当在坚持制度属性的前提下，根据制度的内在逻辑和经济社会发展提出的新需求，利用新技术、优化新流程、丰富新机制等形式，在重要制度层面进行体制机制创新，开发、优化制度的结构与功能，服务于筑牢根本制度和完善基本制度。

Fourth, the specific paths of institutional construction. According to the target system of institutional construction from the perspective of further deepening reform comprehensively and the current state of China’s institutional construction, the specific paths of institutional construction can be summarized into six types. Combined with the reform measures and their expressions proposed in the *Decision*, these six types are manifested as: (1) Filling gaps. For new issues emerging in emerging economic and social fields, if the existing governance system has no specific provisions, new institutions need to be established to fill institutional gaps, for example, “establishing an artificial intelligence safety supervision system,” “exploring the establishment of a personal bankruptcy system,” and “formulating a law to promote the private economy.” (2) Consolidating and strengthening. Some original institutional designs and arrangements still need to be continued and continuously consolidated and strengthened under the new situation, for example, “upholding the fundamental institution of Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological field” and “consolidating and improving the basic rural management system.” (3) Strengthening implementation. Some institutional designs were previously introduced but have not been well implemented and enforced due to the influence of various factors in reality, thus urgently requiring strengthened implementation. As early as 2016, Xi Jinping proposed the important principle of “three distinctions” [24]24 The “three distinctions” (三个区分开来) refer to distinguishing mistakes made in exploring and experimenting from violations of discipline and law; distinguishing work errors made in promoting reform and development from disciplinary violations; and distinguishing unintentional mistakes in reform and innovation from dereliction of duty. in his important speech at a seminar for principal leading cadres at the provincial and ministerial level. However, some regions and units, over a considerable period, did not formulate detailed rules, operational methods, and workflow charts for fault tolerance and exemption from liability based on the actual work of their own regions and fields, and did not fully protect Party members and cadres in reform and tackling difficulties. Therefore, the *Decision* this time proposes “implementing the three distinctions.” (4) Regulating and adjusting. Some institutional designs previously existed and operated but can no longer meet the new requirements of governance modernization, thus requiring adjustment, regulation, and improvement, for example, “regulating administrative inspections involving private enterprises” and “regulating local laws and regulations on investment attraction.” (5) Perfecting and improving. The overall design of some institutions and their inherent spirit meet the requirements of governance modernization and are thus still continued, but in practice, it has been found that the governance mechanisms and methods are not sufficiently refined, precise, or diversified, affecting institutional effectiveness, thus requiring improvement and perfection, for example, “improving the mechanism for concretizing, precision, and normalization of political supervision,” “improving the institutional mechanism for preventing and combating formalism and bureaucracy,” and “perfecting the mechanism for the allocation and operational constraints of power.” (6) Abolishing and eliminating. The existing design of some institutions has clearly violated the requirements of governance modernization, harmed the unity of institutions, or deviated from the trend of economic and social development, thus requiring abolition and elimination, for example, “cleaning up and abolishing various regulations and practices that hinder a unified national market and fair competition.”

四是制度建设的具体路径。根据进一步全面深化改革视域下制度建设的目标体系以及当前我国制度建设呈现出的现状，制度建设的具体路径可以被概括为六种类型。结合《决定》中提出的改革举措及其表述，这六种类型表现为：（1）填补空白型。针对新兴经济社会领域出现的新议题，若既有的治理体系尚无具体规定，则需要建立新的制度填补制度空白，例如“建立人工智能安全监管制度”“探索建立个人破产制度”“制定民营经济促进法”。（2）筑牢巩固型。一些原有的制度设计和安排在新形势下仍然需要继续沿用并持续筑牢巩固，例如“坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域指导地位的根本制度”“巩固和完善农村基本经营制度”。（3）强化落实型。一些制度设计在之前就已经出台，但因为现实中诸种因素的影响没有得到很好地执行和落实，因此亟需强化落实。早在2016年，习近平在省部级主要领导干部专题研讨班上的重要讲话中提出了“三个区分开来”的重要原则，然而一些地区和单位在相当长一段时期内没有结合本地区和本领域业务工作的实际制定容错免责的细则、操作办法和工作流程图，没有充分地为党员干部改革攻坚保驾护航，故此次《决定》中提出“落实三个区分开来”。（4）规范调整型。一些制度设计之前就已经存在且运行，但已不能适应治理现代化的新要求，故而需要作出调整、进行规范和完善，例如“规范涉民营企业行政检查”“规范地方招商引资法规制度”。（5）健全完善型。一些制度的总体设计及其内在精神符合治理现代化的要求故仍被继续沿用，但在实践操作中发现治理机制和方式不够精细化、精准化、丰富化，影响了制度效能，因此需要完善和健全，例如“健全政治监督具体化、精准化、常态化机制”“健全防治形式主义、官僚主义制度机制”“完善权力配置和运行制约机制”。（6）废除淘汰型。一些制度既有的设计已经明显违背了治理现代化的要求，有损制度的统一性或者背离经济社会发展的趋势，故而需要被废除淘汰，例如“清理和废除妨碍全国统一市场和公平竞争的各种规定和做法”。

Conclusion: A Comprehensive Manifestation of a New Type of Reform

结语：一种新型改革形态的全面展现

China is still in and will long remain in the primary stage of socialism, and is still the world’s largest developing country. This basic national condition determines that the basic approach of solving all problems through development and meeting the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life remains unchanged. Reform is the driving force of development, and development is the goal of reform. Entering the New Era, a new type of reform is being comprehensively manifested, characterized by Party leadership as a guarantee, practical problems as a guide, top-level design as a command, systemic integration as a requirement, institutional and mechanism reform as a carrier, and relationship restructuring as a focus. On the new journey toward the second centenary goal [25]25 The second centenary goal (第二个百年奋斗目标) refers to building China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the middle of the 21st century, the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China., facing various risks and challenges both domestically and internationally, only by starting from the actual world and national conditions, consciously internalizing reform as an endogenous driving force to stimulate vitality and promote development, and continuously advancing institutional innovation, can we provide strong momentum and institutional guarantees for Chinese-path modernization, demonstrate the strong vitality and significant superiority of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and promote the great development of a major party, a major country, and a major undertaking. Reform has no end point, only a process; we must carry out comprehensive deepening of reform to the end!

中国仍处于并将长期处于社会主义初级阶段，仍然是世界上最大的发展中国家。这一基本国情决定了，通过发展解决一切问题、满足人民日益增长的美好生活需要的基本思路没有变。改革是发展的动力，发展是改革的目标。进入新时代，一种以党的领导为保障、以现实问题为导向、以顶层设计为统领、以系统集成为要求、以体制机制改革为载体、以关系再造为重点的新型改革形态正在全面展现。在第二个百年奋斗目标新征程上，面对内外各方面风险挑战，只有从实际的世情国情出发，自觉地将改革内化为激发活力、推动发展的内生性动力，不断推进制度创新，才能为中国式现代化提供强大动力和制度保障，才能彰显中国特色社会主义的强大生命力和显著优越性，才能推动大党大国大发展。改革没有完成时，只有进行时，我们必须把全面深化改革进行到底！

Source: *Scientific Socialism*, Issue 6, 2024

文章来源：《科学社会主义》2024年第6期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆