The latest research results of China Agricultural University reveal that grass-roots cadres face seven puzzles in rural revitalization

　　"Many students earn money outside, and they will think that I am useless in doing these things at the grassroots level in towns and villages, and tell them how many people I have served and how many people have solved their difficulties. Many of them don’t understand or understand"; "My wife said that I was so tired at work and didn’t have much money. I don’t know what to do. I told him angrily that I couldn’t slander my work. " It is both difficult and loving, which is a true portrayal of the inner entanglement of grassroots cadres. A study by Professor Ye Jingzhong from the School of Humanities and Development of China Agricultural University pointed out that grassroots cadres have some confusion about the system design and policy implementation of rural revitalization, and they have some confusion about their own positioning and role cognition.

　　This research has been carried out in 10 villages in Shandong, Hunan, Shaanxi, Zhejiang, Hebei and other five provinces since March 2021. Focusing on the theme of "rural revitalization from the perspective of farmers", 529 questionnaires were completed and 154 interviews were completed with grassroots cadres, new business entities and small farmers. The research result "Rural Revitalization from the Perspective of Farmers" was recently published by Social Science Literature Publishing House.

　　The research points out that the confusion and confusion of grass-roots cadres are related to their working life and ideological psychology, as well as to the steady progress of rural revitalization and the modernization of governance transition. The confusion and confusion of grassroots cadres are mainly manifested in seven aspects.

　　First of all, the theoretical study time is short, the policy is vague, and the understanding and implementation are not in place. It is found that grassroots cadres generally lack the time and energy for theoretical study and have a slow understanding of policies. A grassroots cadre said, "There is basically no time to read the policy documents during the day, and they all take time to read them during the lunch break; It is generally impossible to settle down and read the documents during the day, and it is only possible to sit down and sort it out at night. " Lack of policy study often leads to confusion and difficulties in work, especially the failure to master some systematic and programmatic documents often leads to temporary, short-sighted or "one size fits all" practices in work.

　　In addition, some system designs and policies are ambiguous, which makes it difficult for grassroots cadres to understand and implement. For example, grassroots cadres reflect that in the process of connecting poverty alleviation with rural revitalization, there are obvious problems of vague division of labor and overlapping work among government departments. Grassroots cadres said, "Hard work is not pressure, but coordination between different departments and process assessment, which must be issued as soon as possible ‘ Sanding ’ The plan, otherwise the name is not justified. "

　　Second, there are many restrictions on policy implementation, deviations in work objectives, and difficulties in path-dependent innovation. It is found that grassroots cadres often lack autonomy and tend to focus on indicators and processes. On the one hand, the policy is so restrictive that it is difficult for grass-roots cadres to carry out innovative exploration according to local conditions, and the goal of their work is to "complete the instructions of superiors" rather than "promote local development" to a certain extent.

　　On the other hand, the strict accountability mechanism forces the simplification of the implementation policy. Although "one size fits all" has been criticized, it also means that mistakes will not be made. A grass-roots cadre said, "Grass-roots work is rather not to do it, to do it badly, and not to violate the procedures." Under this concept, there will inevitably be path dependence in carrying out work, because there will be no mistakes according to the old method, but it will inevitably limit exploration and innovation.

　　Third, the masses are highly dependent on the government, and it is difficult for the masses to launch and the masses are not actively involved. The investigation found that the masses had obvious dependence thoughts in many rural jobs, which brought challenges to grassroots governance. Some grassroots cadres pointed out that "a lot of work in rural areas is done by cadres and watched by the masses." The survey shows that the proportion of farmers who believe that the industrial development, environmental governance, rural customs civilization and effective governance in rural areas mainly depend on village cadres reach 37.3%, 53.5%, 54.6% and 76.6% respectively. Some villagers said, "everything in the village depends on cadres, and nothing can be done without cadres."

　　On the contrary, this kind of dependent thinking will aggravate the indifference of the masses to collective affairs. Many farmers think that rural revitalization means waiting for the state to take money to revitalize the countryside, which leads to practical difficulties in mobilizing the masses at the grassroots level. In addition, when people see that grass-roots services in other areas are ahead of the local ones on the Internet, they will also have incomprehension or complaints, which will add new difficulties to grass-roots mass work.

　　Fourth, the allocation of resources is upside down, human and financial rights are lacking, and basic management lacks support. Investigation shows that grassroots cadres regard the lack of human, financial and power resources as the main problem faced by grassroots work.

　　Fifth, the supervision and assessment are frequent, the indicators are hollow, and it is difficult to implement the burden reduction policy. It is found that supervision makes grass-roots cadres tired of coping, and assessment itself has become the core goal of grass-roots work. First, there are many unannounced visits. Different departments frequently go to the grass-roots level, but they generally only check and do not give guidance. Second, the process assessment is heavy. At present, one-sided emphasis on leaving traces of work, regardless of the reality at the grassroots level, has turned grassroots cadres into "cousins." Third, the evaluation system is vague. Some evaluation index systems are not only divorced from reality, but also very complicated, which is difficult for ordinary people to understand and grasp the real situation. Fourth, the pressure of accountability is great. There are too many things that are rejected by one vote, and the policy of territorial management and maintaining stability leads to abnormal governance. A grassroots cadre pointed out that "the inspection from above is mainly to pick problems, and the opinions of a few villagers are often used to deny grassroots work, regardless of the opinions of the majority of villagers."

　　Sixth, young cadres are hesitant, it is difficult to take root at the grassroots level, and there is a big psychological gap.

　　Seventh, there is a crisis of professional identity, lack of social identity, and lack of expression of grassroots voices. Investigation shows that grass-roots cadres are prone to self-doubt and self-denial when dealing with rural areas and farmers for a long time and facing the impact of the outside world, thus forming a crisis of professional identity.

　　The research points out that in the process of rural revitalization, we should deeply understand the expectation and confusion of grassroots cadres, deeply understand their behavior and cognition, and better play the role of grassroots cadres in rural revitalization by promoting the transformation of grassroots governance model.

　　The research suggests that we should strengthen the dissemination of policy documents and strengthen and improve the cadre training system; Policy implementation should leave some space for the grassroots and establish a more reasonable fault-tolerant and error-correcting mechanism; We should change the government’s practice of doing everything, and reverse the thinking of farmers waiting for the government to take money to revitalize the countryside; The allocation of resources should be further tilted to the grassroots to provide more support to the grassroots; We should solve the problem of formalism at the grassroots level and resolve the concerns of young cadres at the grassroots level through systematic support.