In recent years, many local governments in China have incorporated different subjects into community public service provision, which has led to the development of various modes in this regard. This case is derived from Nanshan District of Shenzhen City in Guangdong Province. Informed by its specific socio-economic development needs, the District has developed a mode by the name of “Yiheduoyuan” – meaning “one core and multiple subjects”.

The mode consists of six subjects who collaborate in providing public service to local communities in Nanshan District. The main subject is that of community Party committees, which are supported by three other subjects (i.e., community management committees, community workstations, and community service centers). The two new subjects incorporated into the mode are community social organizations and those enterprises that are located within the District. The mode adopts two methods to provide community public service. One is the direct provision by the district government and its subdistrict offices, the provision that is supported by fiscal fund. The other is that the district government purchases public services from social organizations and enterprises, the purchases that have been on the rise in recent years. In 2013, the government spent 780 million RMB on more than 20 public services provided by 148 social organizations, accounting for 9 per cent of the whole district government expenditure that year. These services included but were not limited to public education, training and employment, culture and sports, public transport, social welfare, and public safety. Now 1,700 community social organizations have been established in Nanshan District partly thanks to the government’s support for them to participate in community public service provision. Registered with the government are 747 of these organizations, who provide services related to volunteering, public benefits, culture, and sports.

Two lessons about innovation in community public service provision can be learned from this case. First, local governments are no longer the sole subject in this provision. Instead, they serve as an agent of linking and integrating various social forces and resources to provide public services to local communities. Second, government purchases of public services do not mean deregulation. Rather, local governments need to inspect and assess to what extent the services as provided to communities have met residents’ needs. Without such assessment, the chain of community public service provision would not be complete.