Analysis of Regional Differences and Influencing Factors of Rural Governance Modernisation in China

Figure 1.

Effects of factors on rural modernization governance effect factors

Action relation	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect
RBG-QRGM	0.157	RBG-RPAG-QRGM	0.226
RPAG-QRGM	0.264	——	0.286
RPSG1-QRGM	Unsignificant test	RPSG1-RPSG2-QRGM	0.018
RPSG2-QRGM	0.362	RPSG2-RPEG-QRGM	0.375
RPEG-QRGM	Unsignificant test	RPEG-RBG-QRGM	0.029

The efficiency of rural modernized management of China’s provinces

Region	Province	Integrated efficiency	Pure technical efficiency	Scale efficiency	Scale compensation	Result judgment
National efficiency mean		0.479	0.732	0.625
North China	Beijing	1.000	1.000	1.000	Unchanged	Effective governance
	Tianjin	1.000	1.000	1.000	Unchanged	Effective governance
	Hebei	0.256	0.312	0.775	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Shanxi	0.262	0.483	0.565	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Inner Mongolia	0.227	0.546	0.546	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Mean	0.549	0.668	0.777
Northeast China	Liaoning	0.534	0.569	0.676	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Jilin	0.563	0.627	0.742	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Heilongjiang	0.771	0.758	0.818	Increasing	Ineffective governance
	Mean	0.623	0.651	0.745
East China	Shanghai	1.000	1.000	1.000	Unchanged	Effective governance
	Jiangsu	0.804	1.000	0.804	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Zhejiang	0.768	0.684	0.738	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Anhui	0.545	0.693	0.525	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Fujian	0.498	1.000	0.498	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Jiangxi	0.667	0.923	0.602	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Shandong	0.346	1.000	0.346	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Mean	0.661	0.900	0.645
Central China	Henan	0.224	0.458	0.526	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Hubei	0.326	0.405	0.648	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Hunan	0.328	0.624	0.674	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Mean	0.293	0.496	0.616
South China	Guangdong	0.486	0.536	0.557	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Guangxi	0.340	1.000	0.340	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Hainan	1.000	1.000	1.000	Unchanged	Effective governance
	Mean	0.609	0.845	0.632
Southwest China	Chongqing	0.464	1.000	0.464	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Sichuan	0.168	0.286	0.554	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Guizhou	0.118	0.276	0.575	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Yunnan	0.163	0.267	0.694	Increasing	Ineffective governance
	Tibet	0.654	1.000	0.654	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Mean	0.313	0.566	0.588
Northwest China	Shaanxi	0.254	0.258	0.976	Diminishing	Ineffective governance
	Gansu	0.258	1.000	0.258	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Qinghai	0.262	1.000	0.262	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Ningxia	0.228	1.000	0.228	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Xinjiang	0.335	1.000	0.335	Diminishing	Weak governance
	Mean	0.267	0.852	0.412

The modernization level evaluation index system of rural governance

System layer	Criterion layer	Index meaning
Quality of rural governance modernization (QRGM)	The modernization of rural basic governance (RBG)	Rural residents per capita basic disposable income
		Rural residents high school and higher degree of education labor ratio
		The rural director or the secretary “one shoulder” lead the team
		The rural committee member university specialty and the above cultural proportion
		Total income of rural collective operations
		The minimum living allowance for rural residents is a ratio
	The modernization of rural public affairs governance (RPAG)	The level of development of rural party members
		Public decision execution rate of important rural matters
		The participation rate of villagers in rural important decision-making
		The construction level of the rural public affairs management organization system
		Rural “three resources” modernization information management coverage
		Rural “three affairs” modernization online disclosure rate
		The penetration rate of rural regulations
		The rate of development of rural civilized governance activities
	The modernization of rural public security governance (RPSG1)	The full allocation rate of rural public security officers
		Rural public safety law assistance and judicial rescue coverage
		The success rate of dispute settlement in rural neighbors
		The rural public safety law promotes the rate of education activities
		The operation rate of public safety monitoring facilities in rural areas
		Public safety and prevention and control of rural public security diseases
	The modernization of rural public service governance (RPSG2)	Rural community “one-stop” integrated service facilities coverage
		Availability of rural public service governance
		Number of rural public medical personnel
		Rural basic public service network efficiency
		Availability rate of rural public labor employment training service
		The complete placement rate of rural public cultural and physical services facilities
		Rural public obligation education service availability rate
	The modernization of rural public environment governance (RPEG)	Rural road hardening rate
		The penetration rate of public health toilets in rural areas
		Public penetration rate of rural drinking water
		Rural domestic gas public penetration
		The concentration of public living sewage in rural areas
		Rural public forest coverage

Regression path coefficient and its significance

Hypothesis	Path	Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Results
H1	RBG-QRGM	0.157	0.078	2.056	0.050	Accept
H2	RBG-RPAG	0.224	0.068	3.209	0.001	Accept
H3	RPAG-QRGM	0.264	0.076	3.145	0.010	Accept
H4	RPAG-RPSG1	0.267	0.106	2.418	0.001	Accept
H5	RPSG1-QRGM	0.032	0.043	0.615	0.236	Refuse
H6	RPSG1-RPSG2	0.254	0.114	2.628	0.050	Accept
H7	RPSG2-QRGM	0.362	0.065	6.015	0.010	Accept
H8	RPSG2-RPEG	0.678	0.079	6.742	0.001	Accept
H9	RPEG-QRGM	0.102	0.058	1.521	0.148	Refuse
H10	RPEG-RBG	0.314	0.098	2.654	0.010	Accept