Community resilience and its realization path： from the perspective of modernization of governance system – 夜上海论坛-爱上海419论坛-上海后花园论坛-上海龙凤1314

[Abstract] Based on the observation of community anti-epidemic in COVID-19, the concept of "community resilience" was introduced from the perspective of modernization of governance system and its realization path was discussed. This paper defines "community resilience" as the potential that the community governance system can withstand the risk impact and ensure the sustainable and effective play of governance functions under abnormal conditions, and points out that resilient communities should have three characteristics: initiative, redundancy and agility. Combining theory with community experience in COVID-19 epidemic, this paper points out four sources of community resilience, namely, structural resilience, process resilience, capacity resilience and cultural resilience, and analyzes the corresponding mechanisms for realizing community resilience, such as polycentric collaboration, regulatory effect, adaptive cycle, independent flexibility, community learning and community commitment. This paper advocates incorporating the dimension of abnormal consciousness and "community resilience" into the practice and investigation of grass-roots governance innovation and modernization of governance system, and puts forward some relevant policy enlightenment.

[Keywords:] community governance; COVID-19 epidemic; Uncertainty; Full cycle management

[Chinese Library Classification Number] D63 [Document Identification Code] A

　　I. Background and Question Proposition

　　In this COVID-19 epidemic, China’s top-down social mobilization, cadre sinking and counterpart support mechanisms have played a key role in community epidemic prevention, highlighting the institutional advantages of the national system in overall planning and implementation. At the same time, however, the bureaucratic governance behind the national system is highly dependent on rationality. Only when the situation is relatively clear can we find the right direction and exert strong institutional mobilization. In the uncertain stage of the initial epidemic, the grass-roots community governance system itself faces the effectiveness test; On the other hand, in the stage of bureaucratic governance, top-down emergency orders are issued frequently, and the community governance system under normal conditions is under the pressure of overload operation. The above background leads to the reflection of this paper: what kind of community governance system can withstand the impact between normal and abnormal conditions and adapt to environmental changes quickly? In the process of modernization of grass-roots governance system and capacity, or when judging the innovation of community governance, should we add an abnormal thinking? This points to the resilience of the community governance system.

　　Today’s society is in an era when uncertain factors are becoming more and more prominent. Since the 20th century, human beings have created more crisis factors while creating material wealth. Environmental pollution, financial crisis, food safety, industrial accidents and other natural disasters have made the social environment more and more fragile, and human beings have entered a "risk society". [1] Especially since the wave of globalization in the 1990s, people have used the concept of "VUCA era" to summarize the ever-changing era in which uncertainty, complexity and fuzziness are rising. [2]VUCA is the acronym of four words: Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity. With the development of big data, artificial intelligence and the internet of everything, the VUCA era is constantly evolving, and everyone is in it. Although the community life field is relatively stable compared with the market environment or the broader political field, the community is also faced with uncertainties such as natural disasters, public health, major accidents, and the unique complexity, diversity, fuzziness and differentiation in grassroots governance. For example, China’s social governance is still in a "transitional governance situation", and grassroots governance also shows great uncertainty in policy formulation and policy implementation. [3]

　　In fact, there have been many discussions and practices on urban resilience or community resilience in the field of urban planning and management abroad, and it is mainly defined as the ability and process of a city or community system to buffer and adapt to shocks such as natural disasters and public health incidents, and realize public safety, social order and sustainable development. Community resilience has even been promoted to the national strategic level in the United States. In 2007, the Bush administration listed "community resilience" as a key component of public health and medical preparation alongside biological monitoring, countermeasure distribution and mass casualty treatment in Presidential Decree No.21 of Homeland Security. Subsequently, the Obama administration further incorporated community resilience into the White House’s national security strategy and national disaster recovery framework. (Note: For specific documents, please refer to: US Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Presidential Direction21. Public Health and Medical Preparedness. October 2007; The White House. National securitystrategy. May 2010；Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Disaster Recovery Framework. Draft. February 2010.) The most important achievement of urban resilience research is that "building inclusive, safe, disaster-resistant and sustainable cities and human settlements" is listed as one of the 17 goals of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). [4] However, it should also be noted that most of the existing discussions on community resilience focus on disaster prevention and mitigation, presenting the logic of technical governance rather than the perspective of modernization of governance system. At the same time, the research on community resilience developed late in China and was mainly confined to the discipline of urban planning, which has not yet entered the mainstream vision of public management, and is less well known by scholars in the field of social governance. The planning and management of disaster prevention and mitigation is important, but it is more fundamental to bring resilience awareness into the overall framework of the modernization of community governance system.

　　Therefore, from the perspective of the modernization of community governance system, this paper puts forward that we should pay attention to community resilience, or bring resilience awareness into the investigation of the modernization of community governance system to reflect on the current innovative practice of grassroots governance and the modernization process of grassroots governance system. This paper will combine the phenomenon of community governance in the COVID-19 epidemic to answer the following three questions: (1) What is the community resilience from the perspective of modernization of governance system? What are the characteristics? (2) Where does community resilience come from? How is it achieved? (3) What policy implications does the understanding of community resilience bring to the current grassroots governance innovation?

　　Second, the concept and characteristics of community resilience

　　(A) the concept of community resilience

　　Resilience originated from the concepts of engineering, ecology and psychology. In the 1990s, the concept of resilience was introduced into the study of social systems, and concepts such as "organizational resilience" and "urban resilience" began to appear. The concept of resilience has also developed from being regarded as a kind of recovery of the initial state of the system to a kind of ability of change, adaptation and transformation inspired by the complex social ecosystem in response to pressure and constraints. [5]

　　The classic study of organizational toughness focuses on the response of enterprise organizations to external environmental pressures. It mainly presents the research from two perspectives: process and ability. From the perspective of process, scholars use the method of case study to pay attention to the process mechanism of organizational response to external environmental uncertainty, and think that organizational resilience is reflected in three aspects: risk analysis, implementation and state maintenance. [6] Scholars from the perspective of competence believe that organizational resilience is an ability of an organization in the face of uncertain environment. On the one hand, resilience can be an organization’s use of existing resources to rebound, on the other hand, it includes the organization’s development of new capabilities to deal with dynamic environment, which can be summarized as resilience and resilience. [7]

　　Different from the research on organizational resilience, which mainly focuses on how to optimize the relationship between enterprises and the environment to avoid vulnerability, the research on urban resilience mainly emphasizes that cities rely on strengthening internal forces to buffer environmental changes and protect internal order from the perspective of disaster prevention and mitigation. Urban resilience mainly refers to the performance of maintaining urban economic and social security and stability through urban physical facilities and urban security systems in the face of external environmental uncertainty. [8] As can be seen from the definition of urban resilience, urban resilience includes two parts: material system and social system, which can be divided into infrastructural resilience, social resilience, institutional resilience and economic resilience.

　　Under the research of urban resilience, scholars began to think about the topic of grassroots community resilience. It comes down in one continuous line with urban resilience’s ability to pay attention to physical and social resilience. Community resilience emphasizes the three directions of physical resilience, social and ecological resilience and community members’ autonomy. [9] From the perspective of ability, community resilience specifically includes community inclusion, community advocacy and community competency. [10] From the perspective of social capital, community resilience is mainly reflected in five aspects: natural capital, human capital, economic capital, physical capital and social capital. [11] Most scholars agree that from the perspective of disaster management, community resilience mainly includes: first, stability, the ability to maintain community stability when disasters occur; Second, resilience, the ability of the community to return to normal after changes; Third, adaptability, the ability of the community to adapt to the new environment. [12]

　　Generally speaking, enterprise resilience in organizational resilience theory mainly considers optimizing the relationship with the environment to avoid organizational vulnerability, while urban and community resilience emphasizes strengthening endogenous power to buffer environmental changes. The reason is that the purpose of an enterprise is production and development, and its survival and development depend on resources from the environment, while the goal of a community is mainly the internal life order and stability. At the same time, although community resilience from the perspective of disaster prevention and mitigation involves governance structure and institutional arrangements, it pays more attention to space, physics and management process.

　　Combined with the above-mentioned related concepts of resilience, this paper focuses on the modernization of governance system and governance capacity, and defines community resilience as the potential that the community governance system can withstand external interference or risk impact under normal conditions and ensure the sustainable and effective play of governance functions under abnormal conditions. Community resilience emphasizes that the community governance system can still effectively organize, lead, mobilize and coordinate under abnormal conditions, which embodies the characteristics of positive and autonomous community. The corresponding situation is that the community governance system collapses and can only rely on external forces to intervene to save or rebuild order. The result of resilience can be that the community governance system is stable, resilient or adaptive. Compared with the role of disaster prevention and mitigation or risk management planning, the toughness of governance system emphasizes an endogenous potential hidden in normal governance, which is different from that part of adaptability obtained by relying solely on special emergency management plans or emergency preparedness.

　　(B) the characteristics of community resilience

　　If maintaining stability, rapid recovery or adaptive change is the result of community resilience, what are the characteristics of community resilience itself? This paper holds that a resilient community governance system has at least three characteristics: initiative, redundancy and agility.

　　First, initiative means that the community has the initiative and self-organizing ability under the impact of risks, not just relying on external instructions and support. On the one hand, initiative is reflected in the subjective consciousness and responsible attitude of community members, on the other hand, it also emphasizes that there is enough community leadership to mobilize and organize community members. In this COVID-19 epidemic, some communities showed strong initiative in epidemic prevention and control, and took active actions before the higher government issued the epidemic prevention and control instructions, and adopted the methods of village (community) physical closure, investigation, publicity, disinfection, 24-hour duty, etc., to strengthen community epidemic prevention and make preparations at the first time, instead of waiting for the epidemic prevention and control instructions and resources to come down completely before taking action. [13]

　　Second, redundancy, that is, there are some redundant structures, systems or mechanism arrangements in the community governance system, which can be activated and play a key role under abnormal conditions. In order to better cope with the changes in the external environment, the toughness theory emphasizes the addition of repetitive or redundant parts in the design of organizational systems. Redundant system design is often idle under normal conditions, but it will be triggered under abnormal conditions. It plays an important emergency role by spreading risks and providing backups to minimize losses. After the outbreak, active volunteers emerged in many communities, and these community volunteers often came from various interest teams and groups in the community. They played a limited role in the governance of daily public affairs in the community, but as a "reservoir" of social capital and community leadership, they played an important role at critical moments. [14]

　　Third, agility, that is, the governance system can respond quickly under high uncertainty and play a buffering role to minimize the impact. The agility of the community is mainly reflected in two aspects. On the one hand, the community needs to have a quick perception of the changes in the external environment, on the other hand, it makes quick decisions and responses to the changes in the environment. At this time, "multi-center governance" is quite different from the bureaucratic system. Bureaucratic system is highly dependent on rationality and can respond quickly when the situation is relatively clear; However, under the high uncertainty in the early stage of the crisis, the information transmission has more obvious hysteresis and asymmetry, and at this time, multi-center governance will have unique agility advantages.

　　Third, the source and mechanism of community resilience

　　Based on the perspective of modernization of governance system, community resilience mainly comes from the structure, process, ability and culture of community governance system, and corresponds to different mechanisms. These sources of resilience and the mechanism to achieve resilience are described in combination with the community experience or lessons in the COVID-19 epidemic.

　　(A) structural toughness: multi-center synergy and regulatory effect

　　Structure mainly refers to the relationship arrangement between the main bodies of community governance, and the core of structural toughness lies in adjusting the tension between bureaucratic governance and polycentric governance, and achieving a good cooperative and complementary relationship. Generally speaking, bureaucratic arrangement is longer than efficiency, which is conducive to the recovery and coordination in the later stage of major impact; Polycentric system is better than agile, which is more conducive to buffering the initial impact of uncertainty. Specifically, the resilient structure mainly includes the following characteristics: First, the multi-center governance under decentralization needs to take community organizations and community residents as active subjects, empower them, and form a multi-governance system by building a community governance platform. This pluralistic governance system is an important supplement to the bureaucratic governance system, whether in the normal or abnormal governance of the community. [15] Second, the collaborative structure, this community structure presents a relatively flat governance structure, which is both collaborative and flexible compared with the traditional hierarchical structure. [16] Third, there are redundant structures, such as interest organizations that entertain themselves under normal conditions mentioned above, and discussion platforms that some communities rely on customs, ceremonies and other activities to maintain daily.

　　Structural toughness emphasizes the complementarity of polycentric governance and bureaucratic governance, and its core mechanism can be expressed as polycentric collaborative mechanism. Among them, polycentricity makes the structure agile, while bureaucratic leadership and coordination make the structure dynamic, and the two cannot be neglected. Under the impact of uncertain crisis, the rapid response of multi-centers is needed first, and then the resource allocation and efficiency under centralized leadership and coordination. Therefore, first of all, it is emphasized that it is a multi-center with subject consciousness and full empowerment, rather than a multi-subject that relies on bureaucratic mobilization; Then the leadership coordination mechanism will play a stabilizing role. In addition, the main mechanism of resilience of redundant structures is the regulation effect of "reservoir", and the daily accumulated social relations and community structures are released and migrated into mobilization structures or governance structures in an emergency.

　　In this COVID-19 epidemic, some community owners’ committees and community volunteer organizations actively organized self-help and mutual rescue at critical moments, especially in organizing groups to purchase materials and ensuring basic life during the isolation period, which showed community resilience. [17] But overall, the timeliness, extensiveness and persistence of this self-organizing order and the coordination with the two committees of the community are far from enough. At the same time, it is very common that the community governance system is obviously overloaded and the strength of community endogenous organizations is seriously insufficient. In this case, on the one hand, community workers are overloaded, on the other hand, they may face incomprehension or even blame from residents. The autonomy of community residents has not been effectively brought into play, and the phenomenon of "one person working and nine people guiding" is even more prominent under abnormal conditions, so that the community has to rely on the sinking of a large number of external cadres to cope with it. Therefore, the central government also issued a special document to deploy front-line community workers who care for the epidemic. (Note: On March 3, 2020, the Central Leading Group for Response to Pneumonia Infection in novel coronavirus issued the Notice on Fully Implementing Care Measures for Urban and Rural Community Workers in the Front Line of Epidemic Prevention and Control (Guo Fa Dian [2020] No.8). )

　　(B) Process toughness: adaptive cycle and independent flexibility

　　Another important source of community resilience is the process resilience of community governance. Process resilience mainly includes two levels: first, there is a set of procedures or institutional preparations for dealing with risks or crises, covering specific processes such as early warning, emergency triggering, response, recovery and iterative upgrading; Second, there is flexible space in the process or procedure of community governance system to ensure autonomy, flexibility and local conditions under abnormal conditions.

　　As far as the process preparation of crisis response is concerned, under the situation of abnormal governance, community resilience runs through three stages: pre-disaster, during-disaster and post-disaster, which are embodied in prevention/mitigation, preparation, response, recovery/reconstruction. A resilient community governance system will also have a reflection mechanism and form an iterative and upgrading cycle, which is the adaptive cycle theory. According to this theory, resilience will develop and change dynamically in the exploitation phase, conservation phase, release phase and reorganization phase, and some communities may collapse at a certain stage, and resilient communities can improve their capabilities in this process. [18] Obviously, the adaptive cycle of the community is not naturally available, and it is often based on the full-cycle preparation of the governance system for emergencies or crises. The flexibility of community operation procedures and the mechanism of independent adaptation are reflected in two levels: first, the flexibility of the external institutional environment and related procedures of the community, for example, the community is fully authorized, and it is not necessary to report everything for approval or have clear instructions before acting.Another example is that the community governance system has a smooth feedback mechanism and room for adjustment and rectification for superior instructions; The second is the flexibility of the internal operation system of the community, such as the flexibility of community emergency decision-making, the flexibility of the use and supervision of community public resources, etc.

　　The epidemic situation in COVID-19 shows that there is a lack of effective connection between the public health emergency management system and the grass-roots community governance system under normal conditions in China, and grass-roots communities generally lack preparations and plans, and the emergency conditions in the initial stage of the epidemic are insufficient, lack of protective materials and limited medical conditions. Especially in Wuhan, the center of the epidemic, the community is facing many difficulties because of the lack of resources to prepare and plan, when the overall supply of medical system is insufficient and patients are not treated in time. [19] On the other hand, as the front position of joint defense and joint control, grass-roots communities have maintained an efficient response and response as a whole, but there are also "one size fits all" and layers of overweight phenomena under the pressure of prevention and control responsibility, especially during the period of returning to work and returning to work, some communities have insufficient flexibility in prevention and control procedures and adaptability to changes in the situation, and the community governance system lacks the ability to correct and adapt, which increases the governance cost.

　　Community resilience also comes from the rapid learning and adaptability of the main body of community governance. The ability of community governance is closely related to the endowment of community resources, and the physical foundation, human resources and social resources of the community itself will affect the toughness of community governance ability. On the one hand, in the daily governance situation, the community should have efficient leadership, resource integration ability, emergency plan ability, community cohesion and so on. On the other hand, in the abnormal governance situation, the resilience of community governance ability is mainly reflected in the stability, resilience, adaptability, agile response and resource mobilization ability in the face of crisis. [20] The resilience of community competence mainly comes from the leadership, coordination and crisis management ability of the two committees of the community, as well as the quality and public participation ability of community residents.

　　The acquisition of community competence and resilience needs to focus on the establishment of community learning mechanism. Community learning mechanism comes from the theory of organizational learning, which emphasizes that organizations accumulate knowledge and develop skills in order to adapt to the environment. [21] and the community learning mechanism, on the one hand, in the daily governance situation, emphasizes the learning ability of the main body in the community, the two committees of the community pay attention to learning and improving leadership ability, the community residents pay attention to learning the public participation ability of the community, and the community self-organization pays attention to the public governance ability; On the other hand, under the crisis, the community also needs to establish external links, pay attention to learning effective emergency handling capabilities, and pay attention to the application of modern information tools in community governance. The establishment of community learning mechanism is helpful to improve the public management ability of community governance subjects and is of great significance to enhance community resilience.

　　Since the outbreak of the epidemic in COVID-19, the ability of community workers has been severely tested. A survey shows that nearly 4 million urban and rural community workers are fighting in the front line of epidemic prevention and control in 650,000 urban and rural communities, with an average of 6 community workers guarding a community and each community worker facing 350 people. [22] In order to solve the shortage of epidemic prevention manpower in communities, many communities recruit volunteers to meet the needs of epidemic prevention and control. Volunteers often come from party member, college students and enthusiastic residents. They have strong public awareness and learning ability, and can adapt to the epidemic prevention and control work quickly. In communities with good resource endowments, community data platforms are also established to collect residents’ needs and monitor the development of the epidemic by using big data. Mastering the community data can effectively improve the security and controllability of the community and ensure the stability of the community. [23]

　　(4) cultural resilience: community unity and community commitment (note: the concept of "commitment" here comes from English commitment, which means that individuals express loyalty and dedication to the organization or community. )

　　Community culture plays a fundamental role in shaping community resilience. Community culture is not limited to various forms of cultural activities outside the community, but also includes community values, community behavior norms, community cultural symbols, and community relations, community trust and sense of belonging based on these elements. Community culture can give meaning to community action and point out the direction for community governance by shaping the community environment. When community residents regard themselves as a member of the community, they can give positive significance to their actions, improve their awareness and ability of public participation in community governance, and work hard for the common vision of community development, which is conducive to building a community of community governance. [24] On the contrary, when the community culture can’t produce cohesion for the community residents, during the crisis, the community residents are more likely to have panic and anxiety caused by the uncertainty of the external environment, and will not participate in community actions due to distrust of the community.

　　Community commitment mechanism plays an important role in building a good community cultural atmosphere and improving the cohesion of the community. Community commitment comes from the theory of organizational commitment, which emphasizes the employees’ recognition of organizational values and emotional closeness, and the cultivation of social capital, public awareness and organizational unity. [25] In the daily governance situation, the community commitment mechanism may be the creation of a soft environment. Through community propaganda, community interaction and the development of community cultural life, the community residents’ sense of identity with community culture is enhanced. At the same time, through the participation of daily public affairs, community residents’ sense of belonging to the community, their trust in community work and social capital are enhanced. The establishment of community commitment mechanism in daily life is of great significance to the development of community resilience in crisis. On the one hand, it can guarantee the stable mood of community residents and establish confidence in community crisis management. On the other hand, it will also stimulate residents’ sense of participation, participate in the process of community crisis management together, and maintain community stability and unity.

　　During the epidemic period, in some communities with strong cultural resilience, the epidemic prevention and control work was actively supported by residents, and community residents volunteered to participate in community epidemic prevention and control. At the same time, community residents have great trust in the work of the two committees of the community, forming a community anti-epidemic community. The emergence of these community volunteers benefited from the long-term accumulation of social capital in community construction, which aroused the awareness of self-help and mutual assistance among community residents during the epidemic. In their daily community life, they often cultivate a strong sense of community commitment by participating in community self-organization and community public activities, have a strong sense of identity and belonging to the community, and have strong trust in the two committees of the community. When these residents recovered from the initial panic of the epidemic, they quickly participated in community mass prevention, mass control and living security in various forms, which consolidated the social foundation for defeating the epidemic. [26]

　　Fourth, the policy implications of community resilience

　　This paper advocates that we should have an abnormal consciousness in the practice and investigation of grass-roots governance innovation and modernization of governance system, and incorporate the aspect of "community resilience" Compared with the community performance in COVID-19 epidemic and the current innovative practice of grass-roots governance, this paper draws the following policy enlightenment:

　　(A) Pay attention to the empowerment of grassroots governance under the guidance of party building.

　　Leading by Party building is an important theme of grassroots governance innovation at present. The discussion on community resilience in this paper suggests that we should strike a balance and achieve complementary advantages between integrated governance of political parties (diversified integration of party centralism) [27] and polycentric governance. General Secretary of the Supreme Leader pointed out that "grass-roots party organizations and the vast number of party member should play the role of fighting bastion and vanguard and exemplary role, widely mobilize the masses, organize the masses, unite the masses, fully implement joint prevention and control measures, and build a strict defense line for group defense and group governance." [28] We must adhere to the guidance of party organizations to ensure orderly and efficient governance. At the same time, leading should not be narrowly understood as controlling and arranging, but leading and coordinating on the basis of the subjective consciousness and sense of responsibility of multiple subjects.

　　To build a pattern of co-construction, co-governance and sharing at the grass-roots level under the guidance of Party building, we should dare to decentralize and return power, activate the autonomy of various autonomous organizations such as owners’ committees and courtyard autonomous committees, and enhance the agility and buffer capacity of communities under the impact of uncertain risks; We should pay attention to cultivating the value of interest-oriented community organizations such as culture and entertainment, and consciously cultivate and empower them to become "reservoirs" of community relations, community leaders and community governance capabilities; In the practice of community participation, it is necessary to strengthen not only the right consciousness of community residents, but also their subjective consciousness and responsibility consciousness, and guide residents not only to "speak openly" but also to "do it themselves".

　　(B) establish the concept of "full cycle management" in grass-roots governance.

　　When General Secretary of the Supreme Leader inspected the epidemic prevention and control work of COVID-19 in Wuhan, he proposed that "efforts should be made to improve the urban governance system and the urban and rural grass-roots governance system, establish the awareness of’ full-cycle management’, and strive to explore new ways of modern governance of megacities". [29] This paper holds that "full cycle management" is of great significance to the modernization of national governance system and governance capacity, and has realized the expansion of governance concept from section to process and from static to dynamic. The dimension of process resilience in community resilience also fits well with the concept of "full-cycle management", that is, the process and procedures of grass-roots governance should be prepared and flexible, taking into account "sunny days" and "rainy days" and be ready to deal with "extreme weather" at any time.

　　To introduce the concept of full-cycle management into grass-roots governance and enhance the process resilience of the community, it is necessary to establish a closed-loop governance idea from crisis early warning to decision-making, action, recovery, summary and learning adaptation in the daily management of the community, so as to ensure that all links are closely linked, the rights and responsibilities of each subject are clear, and the governance system is suitable for different stages and continues to play a role. Specifically: First of all, we should promote the resources of grass-roots governance to sink to the community, decentralize power to the community, and enhance the autonomy of community decision-making and the flexibility of community operation procedures; Secondly, in areas with relatively high frequency of crisis events such as public health, natural disasters, safety accidents, etc., we should establish a set of emergency warning, decision-making, leadership, coordination, control and other related systems and mechanisms in conjunction with the two committees of the community, property, residents’ self-organization and other related subjects, and vigorously encourage daily drills to enhance the community’s ability to cope with risks; Thirdly, on the premise of promoting residents’ extensive participation, the residents’ code of conduct under public crisis should be incorporated into the widely known community residents’ convention.

　　Community resilience should pay attention to the improvement of community learning ability. Promote the practice of learning organizations in grass-roots community organizations and community governance, enhance the awareness of community cadres, community workers and the backbone of community social organizations on crisis management and emergency leadership, comprehensively enhance the ability of community governance subjects to use modern information technology, and adapt to the constantly strengthening new technical means in community governance. With the rise of concepts such as "wireless city" and "community big data", big data was also applied to community epidemic prevention and control during this epidemic, and "intelligent epidemic map" and "intelligent platform for community epidemic prevention" were launched one after another. The combination of big data and community governance can effectively reduce the workload of community workers, improve community data management and improve management efficiency, and also play an important monitoring and management role during the epidemic prevention and control period. However, the use of new technology requires the working ability of community governance subjects. Community workers need to have new learning ability, especially the ability of data operation and management, from traditional person-to-person contact to digital management.

　　In 2011, the United States developed the Community Resilience System (CRS), which was piloted in eight communities. As a national big data system, the system is committed to providing support for the whole process of decision-making team organization, performance evaluation, vision and goal formulation, action planning, guarantee mechanism and planning maintenance for the community. [30] In the future, China’s community governance will inevitably move towards the direction of data, so it will become an inevitable trend to build a learning community organization and enhance the data-based learning ability of community governance subjects.

　　(D) pay attention to community building and explore community culture.

　　Community resilience is rooted in the cultivation of community culture. In recent years, community building is an important way to explore community culture by creating community environment, exploring community volunteers to participate in community public life. Community building emphasizes that the community, under the guidance of professional social workers, leads local residents in the community through various community public activities, excavates community cultural characteristics, establishes community cultural symbols, shapes community spirit and builds community. In the process of participating in community construction, community residents can improve the cultural level of the community and enhance the sense of identity and public spirit of community members. [31]

　　During the epidemic period, the community in Chengdu explored the community epidemic prevention and control mode of "three social organizations linkage", and social organizations participated in the epidemic prevention and control to form a variety of active participation modes, such as "seamless embedding (full participation in community epidemic prevention and control)", "special linkage (professional assistance of social workers)" and "industry support (industry connection and support)" to effectively carry out community epidemic prevention and control. [32] The reason why Chengdu can effectively explore this multi-agent cooperation model during the epidemic period is due to the community building that Chengdu has vigorously promoted since 2016. By excavating the community culture and cultivating community self-organization, the practice in Chengdu has enhanced residents’ sense of community belonging and community awareness, enhanced community cohesion and enhanced community initiative, thus showing good community resilience in the prevention and control of the epidemic.

　　This paper expands the understanding of "community resilience" from the perspective of the modernization of grass-roots governance system, and reflects on the innovation of grass-roots governance and the practice in the process of modernization of grass-roots governance system by combining the relevant theory of "resilience" and the case of epidemic prevention in COVID-19. However, this is only an attempt. The proposition of the toughness of the governance system still needs more research and contention, and how to measure the toughness of the governance system needs further exploration.

[References]

[1] Baker, Wang Wulong. From industrial society to risk society-Reflections on human survival, social structure and ecological enlightenment [J]. Marxism and reality, 2003(03).

[2] Bartscht. Why systems must explore the unknown to survive in VUCA environments[J]. Kybernetes, 2015, 44(2):253-270.

[3]黄晓星, 熊慧玲. 过渡治理情境下的中国社会服务困境基于Z市社会工作服务的研究[J]. 社会, 2018(4).

[4]徐振强, 王亚男, 郭佳星.我国推进弹性城市规划建设的战略思考[J]. 城市发展研究, 2014(05).

[5] Walker B, Holling C S, Carpenter S R, et al. Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems[J]. Ecology and Society,2004, 9(2).

[6] Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall, Tammy E. Beck, Mark L. Lengnick-Hall. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management[J]. Human Resource Management Review, 2011,21(3).

[7] Wang Yong. Structure, measurement and influencing factors of organizational toughness [J]. capital university of economics and business Journal, 2016(4).

[8] Shao Yiwen, Xu Jiang. Urban Resilience: Concept Analysis Based on International Literature Review [J]. International Urban Planning, 2015(02).

Wu Xiaolin, Xie Yiyun. Resilient community research based on urban public safety [J]. Tianjin Social Sciences, 2018(03).

[10] [15] Plough A , Fielding J E , Chandra A , et al. Building Community Disaster Resilience: Perspectives From a Large Urban County Department of Public Health[J]. American Journal of Public Health, 2013, 103(7):1190-1197.

[11] [24] Mayunga J S. Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Resilience: A Capital-based Approach[C] . Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building, 2007: 1-16.

[12] [20] Bruneau M, Chang S E, Eguchi R T, et al. A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19(4): 733-752.

[13] Yang Lan. How to fight the rural epidemic prevention war? A true epidemic prevention record in rural areas of Henan [EB/OL]. Sina. com, http://k.sina.com.cn/article _ 6339694331 _ 179E00EFB00100Lp5p.html? kfrome=news&subch=0&vt=4,2020-2-9.

[14] Qiu Hao. Community epidemic prevention, voluntary service in action [EB/OL]. Longyan Civilization Network, http://fjly.wenming.cn/gddt/202003/t20200316_6349960.html, 2020-3-16.

[16] Chen Yumei, Li Kangchen. Research progress and practice of resilient cities from the perspective of foreign public management [J]. China Administration, 2017(1).

[17] Ruan Jiaqi. "Wuhan Sister-in-law" became a community volunteer after Han scolded the fire [EB/OL]. Observer, https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2020_03_03_539548_s.shtml, 2020-3-3.

[18] Holling C S, Gunderson L H. Resilience and Adaptive Cycles[M]. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, 2001: 25-62.

[19] Wuhan grassroots community: How to solve the dilemma of the front line of epidemic prevention and control? [EB/OL]. China Newsweek https://tech.sina.com.cn/roll/2020-02-04/doc-iimxxste8501423.shtml, 2020-2-3.

[21] Somers S. Measuring Resilience Potential: An Adaptive Strategy for Organizational Crisis Planning[J]. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2009, 17(1):12-23.

[22] Ji Wei. Epidemic prevention and control tests the ability of community workers [EB/OL]. Workers Daily, http://acftu.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0211/c67502-31581826.html, 2020-2-11.

[23] Li Jia. Weaving dense defense lines to build community residents’ epidemic prevention big data [EB/OL]. Green News Network, http://news.bjfu.edu.cn/lsyw/336468.html,2020-2-24.

[25] Meyer J P, Irving P G, Allen N J. Examination of the combined effects of work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1998, 19(1):29-52.

[26] Rong Zhi. Improve and consolidate the community epidemic prevention community with grassroots governance [EB/OL]. People’s Daily. http://www.rmlt.com.cn/2020/0312/572284.shtml, 2020-3-12.

[27] Tang Wenyu. Integrated governance of political parties: an interpretation of the mode of grassroots governance in contemporary China-also on the comparison with overall governance and polycentric governance [J]. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2020(3).

[28] Tian Boqun. In the anti-epidemic battlefield, Communist party member must charge ahead [EB/OL]. Party Building Magazine, http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2020/03-06/9116202.shtml, 2020-3-6.

[29] "full cycle management", releasing a new signal of urban governance [EB/OL]. People’s Daily Overseas Network ,https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s? id=1660919587430671717&wfr=spider&for=pc,2020-3-12.

[30] Peng Chu, Guo Zuyuan, Peng Zhongren. Progress in the theory and practice of community resilience abroad [J]. International Urban Planning, 2017(4).

[31] Jiang Wei. The implementation path of sustainable overall construction of urban communities-Taking Qingyang District of Chengdu, Sichuan Province as an example [J]. Social Governance, 2019, 34(2).

[32] Jiang Wei: How do communities and social organizations in Chengdu fight the epidemic? [EB/ol]. Tencent. com, https://new.qq.com/Omn/20200220amto600.html, 2020-02-20.

Editor in charge: Hongye

————————————————–

[Fund Project] A major project of the National Social Science Fund "Research on Social System Reform and Social Governance Innovation with Characteristics in China" (16ZDA077); Tsinghua University’s independent scientific research project "Research on Social Organizations Participating in Social Governance" (20185080049).

[About the author] Lan Yuxin, Assistant Professor, School of Public Administration, Tsinghua University; Zhang Xue, Ph.D. candidate, School of Public Administration, Tsinghua University.