Study on Relationships between Government Integrity and Digital

Records Management: A Chinese Case

Siyi Li and Guanyan Fan

School of Information Resource Management, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Keywords: Government Integrity, Digital Records Management, China.

Abstract: As one of new movements in China, government integrity plays an indispensable role in building a

trustworthy government. China’s national policy – Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Strengthening

the Government Integrity Construction stipulated the specific requirements and indicates an obvious tie

between records and government integrity. This research aims at exploring the relationship between

government integrity and digital records management by analyzing related policies collected from national

level and provincial level, with an analytical framework constructed by the Records-Centered Digital

Information Management Theory and Mechanisms (DI{R}Mtm). The finding shows that though records are

generated, received, transmitted and used in almost every activity in constructing government integrity,

records management is absent in supporting its general and specific goals. This research is expected to be

informative to policymakers with respect to digital records management in constructing government integrity.

1 INTRODUCTION

Government integrity, with its aim to improve

government credibility, has been attached great

importance in building an effective and efficient

government in China. In December 22

, 2016, the

Guiding Opinions of the State Council on

Strengthening the Government Integrity Construction

(hereafter the Opinions) was issued by the State

Council on 22

December 2016 and came into effect

at the same time. As regulated in the Opinions, there

are five principles for constructing government

integrity. The first is “Administration by law”, which

means that business activities conducted by

government agencies should be based on the

requirements stipulated by laws, regulations or other

policies. “Open government” is the second principle

which allows public citizens to have access to

government information. “Diligence and efficiency”

principle requires government agencies to deliver

better services by reducing some redundant working

processes. “Keeping the promise” principle asks all

government agencies and civil servants to be upright

and just to fulfill their duties. The last principle is

purposely established to punish the dishonest

behavior. Thus, integrity for the government means

that government agencies and civil servants should

abide credit standards in conducting business and

keep promises for society and citizens. Guiding by

these principles Government integrity, three key

motions are raised to build the overall government

integrity, including a comprehensive and effective

government integrity supervision system, a

management system for government credit,

improving insurance measures and plans for

strengthening government integrity in key areas (the

State Council, 2016).

Considering the unique and representative feature

of government integrity as a Chinese government

movement, the literature review will focus on

materials from China. China National Knowledge

Infrastructure (CNKI), is a platform that integrates

many academic databases, for example, China

Academic Network Publishing Database, Chinese

Doctoral and Master’s Dissertation Database etc.,

thus is acknowledged as the most comprehensive

academic database in China (CNKI, 1999). Literature

for review were obtained using advanced search

option from CNKI. And for extracting the related

literature, “government integrity” was decided to be

the key term. Government integrity was a term used

by government authorities and appeared in national

policies, which gained a widely recognition and

Li, S. and Fan, G.

Study on Relationships between Government Integrity and Digital Records Management: A Chinese Case.

DOI: 10.5220/0007230904190426

In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2018) - Volume 1: KDIR, pages 419-426

ISBN: 978-989-758-330-8

419

acceptance. We obtained 236 articles within 15 years

from 2004 to 2018. Nearly 122 articles, which

accounts for 50% of 236 were news from newspapers.

In order to select articles with high quality, Chinese

Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) were used to

filter articles. CSSCI is a highly recognized index in

China. It contains a list of carefully selected scholarly

and editorial journals from over 2700 Chinese

academic journals of humanities and social science.

The journals included in CSSCI are considered of

high quality (Institute for Chinese Social Science

Research and Assessment, 1999). This filtration

resulted in a total of 27 articles for further review.

They are 7 masters’ and doctoral dissertations and 20

journal articles. Most of them are opinion pieces, for

example, Li and Chen claimed four sources of

government integrity, including individuals’ virtuous

pursuits of good quality, professional ethnic

standardization of public officials, benefit games in

government agencies and bottom line ethics in legal

government affair (Li & Chen, 2014). Chen

considered deficiency in government integrity as lack

of credit in policies, power and political

achievements (Chen, 2016).

Though we found no study dwell on records and

information management in depth, there are enough

evidences in the literature which shows an obvious tie

between records and government integrity. Wang

indicated to construct government integrity,

government information collection and government

information disclosure shall be the priority (Wang,

2013). And the Opinions issued by the State council

also put emphasis on “establishing and improving

records that document government dishonesty” (the

State Council, 2016). That is to say, these records are

collected from all government agencies and

disseminate among agencies for information sharing.

Activities aforementioned in process of constructing

government integrity are all about records and their

management. This observation motivated the present

study, which aims at exploring government integrity

construction through records and information

management lens.

2 RESEARCH QUESTION

According to the definition of government

information in The Regulation on Opening

Government Information of the People’s Republic of

China (hereafter the Regulation), and electronic

records defined in Interim Measures for the

Administration of Electronic Documents, which can

be referred to as Order 39, information and electronic

records are equally the same in electronic office

environments within government agencies. Therefore,

the research question was formulated as below:

• Since evidence in the literature and policies

shows an obvious tie between government

integrity and information, which is electronic

records in the same context, what is the

relationship between government integrity

construction and records management?

3 RESEARCH METHOD

In this research, content analysis was used to analyze

words and paragraphs of the selected data

synthetically. The start point of data collection is the

Opinions issued by the State Council in 2016, and

data for analysis in this research are policy documents.

Data were collected from two levels, the national and

the local level. Data collected from national level are

policy documents issued by ministries, the State

Council and national legislative authorities such as

National People’s Congress and its Standing

Committee. For the local level, they are policies

issued by local legislative authorities like the people’s

congress and its standing committees, as well as

autonomous regions or municipality directly under

the Central Government. In China, policies from the

national level serve as guidance for local

governments to formulate their own policies. In most

cases, the main idea of a certain issue in national and

local policies are of the same substance despite the

fact that local policies sometimes are more detailed.

The Opinions issued in 2016 by the State Council

is the only policy in the national level. The Opinions

is oriented to 34 local governments except for the 2

special administrative regions of Hong Kong and

Macao, which include 23 provinces, 5 autonomous

regions, 4 municipalities directly under the Central

Government. There are 24 provincial-level

administration regions issued government integrity

policies, including 20 provincial policies, 2

autonomous regions’ policies and 2 municipalities’

policies. These policies were issued in different titles

and can be classified in 3 categories of

implementation plans, implementation opinions and

implementation measures. Fig.1. provides the

process and structure of data collection.

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

420

Figure 1: Data collection diagram.

4 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework that guides the analysis of

the study is constructed by the Records-Centered

Digital Information Management Theory and

Mechanisms (DI{R}Mtm), which focuses on

information management theory and mechanism in

digital environment through records management

lens (Xie, 2017). The analysis consists of two layers:

the first focuses on the nature of information

identified in the collected data and the second focuses

on the management of such information. By

consolidating a group of definitions of the concepts

of information and records, the first layer links

government information to digital records, and

distills from the definitions the defining keywords as

indicators for analysis. According to the Regulation,

government information refers to the information

produced or acquired and recorded in certain forms

by administrative organs in the process of performing

their duties (the State Council, 2008), and digital

records defined in Order 39 refers to the text, charts,

images, audio, video and other information records in

various forms created, handled, transmitted and

stored via computers and other electronic equipment

by organs, groups, enterprises, public institutions and

other organizations in the process of the conducting

official business (General Office of State Council,

2009). These two definitions show that government

information created, received, maintained and

preserved in any electronic ways falls within the

category of electronic records. In modern office

environments, more and more activities rely on

electronic equipment to be conducted and finished,

and the construction of government integrity is no

exception. Thus, information generated during the

construction of government integrity are electronic

records. It is, therefore, clear that government

information qualifies as digital records in this

environment. The indicators in the first layer include,

for example, the terms “information asset”,

“evidence”, “reference”, “instrument”. Table 1 shows

the representative indicators and its sources in first

layer analytical framework.

Table 1: The first layer analytical framework.

Electronic records, also digital records in some

context, in theory, are records. And their management

should follow the rules and requirements set by

records management function. Thus, the second layer

analysis focus on records management. By

integrating the group of definitions of records

management, the second layer distils core functions

and indicators for analysis, including records

management nature, activities, principles, goals,

mechanism. Table 2 provides main points in the

second layer analytical framework.

Sources of data analytical framework components

included InterPARES, Records and Information

management in the Government of Canada Project,

the United States Federal Records Act, ISO 15489

Information and Documentation - Records

management and Order 39. The main reasons for

these sources as components are: first, the

InterPARES (International Research on Permanent

Authentic Records in Electronic System) project has

been running consecutively for 18 years with an

enduring research interest on the issues and

challenges imposed by digital records as to their

management (Xie, 2017), and gained a lot of fruitful

Study on Relationships between Government Integrity and Digital Records Management: A Chinese Case

421

products in its every phases, which made this project

in-depth and long-lasting in the field of digital

records and its management. Second, United States

with its advanced records management theory and

practice, is the invention of modern records

management. The Federal Records Act, promulgated

in 1950, provided a legal framework for records

management activities including creating,

maintaining and disposition. It has certain

implications for records management in Chinese

government. Last but not least, Order 39, issued by

the General office of the State Council, plays an

important role in guiding electronic records

management in Chinese government agencies.

However, compared with records management

policies in other countries, the provisions are not

detailed enough for conducting records management

function. Thus, Order 39 can be included in analytical

framework together with other components.

Table 2: The second layer analytical framework.

Points

RM Nature

Indispensable

Dedicated

Professional

Centralized

Institutional

ERM Principle

Unified administration

Whole-process

administration

Convenience for use

Centralized

management

Specifications and

standards

Security and

confidentiality

RM Activities – High Level

Planning

Directing

Training

Controlling

Organizing

Promoting

RM Goal

Efficient

Systematic

Asset

Adequate

Economic

Evidence

Continuity

Proper

RM Mechanism

Laws Standards Tools

Policy

Responsibility

System

5 FINDINGS

5.1 Records in Government Integrity

Development

For analysis in the first layer, the relationships

between activities of and records for government

integrity construction were explored based on two

criteria: whether the activities will generate

procedural records or resulting records, and whether

there is an explicit or implicit relationship between

records and the activities in government integrity

construction. Procedural records here are the records

that are created or received during the work process

in order to achieve the purpose of an activity.

Resulting records are the records that are generated

as the final products of the activities. For those

activities, generating certain records is one of its

purposes. In the process of conducting business

activities, procedural records may be created or

received for the sake of generating resulting records.

Therefore, there are cases where resulting records and

process records coexist. If the requirements of

activities clearly mention records or generate

resulting records ， we would say that an explicit

relationship exists between the two. If the

requirements of activities neither mention records

explicitly nor generate resulting records, but may

create or receive procedural records, we can still infer

that there is an implicit relationship between this

activity and the records.

The study finds that the two fundamental

transactions in constructing government integrity,

that is, building a comprehensive and effective

government integrity supervision system and

establishing the management system for the

government credit, are closely related to records.

Every specific activity in the two transactions will

generate procedural records or resulting records,

which means there is an explicit relationship between

activities and records in the two transactions. For

example, in order to raise public officials’

government integrity awareness, manuals and

handbooks are delivered to public servants on how to

comply with integrity requirements set in the policies.

Integrity Files for public officials is another

instrument to document their deeds in terms of

integrity. The files serve as important sources in

performance evaluation of those public officials.

Government dishonesty records generated from local

to national government agencies will be available on

the website CREDITCHINA.GOV.CN, a platform

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

422

for sharing of government credit information. In

building government integrity supervision system,

three kinds of supervision mechanisms are

established, and they are: special supervision

mechanism, horizontal supervision system and social

supervision and third-party institution assessment

mechanism. All mechanisms and systems are

established based on creating, receiving and using

various records. Procedural records will be

instruments in the process of supervision, and

resulting records like notifications of evaluation

results and performance spreadsheets will be

generated as evidence of supervision. In addition, the

Opinions and local policies put forward to

establishing assurance measurements and

strengthening government integrity in key areas, like

procurement, tendering and bidding, investment, etc.

Activities subjected to these two transactions are

related to records. Some specific activities have

explicit relationships with records, for example,

credit information on tendering and biding will be

created, collected and analyzed to formulate the

credit report. Other activities have implicit

relationships with records. For example, activities

like building management system for government

integrity and establishing, formulating standards,

mechanisms and institutions for constructing

government integrity, do not mention records in their

requirements. But records will be used as instruments

in process of conducting these activities and will be

produced in form of rules, policies and regulations for

widely disseminating and convenient use. Therefore,

though records are not explicitly mentioned in several

activities in constructing government integrity, the

implicit relationships between these activities and

records can still be defined by analyzing their

working processes.

Though the relationships between activities and

records are different, records are closely related to the

activities in constructing government integrity and

play a supporting role in specific activities. The

relationships between records and activities of

government integrity construction can be

summarized as follows: firstly, several activities

would create records directly, such as establishing

integrity files for public officials, formulating

government integrity manuals or handbook, etc.

Secondly, some operations of activities rely on

transmitting and receiving records, like disclosure of

government credit information and other records that

compromise the commitments, principles and rules.

Departments who are responsible for information

disclosure may not be the creators of these records,

but should collect and receive these records in order

to execute their duties. In addition, there are many

activities that may not directly generate records, but

rely on external records to be conducted and finished.

For public officials who have records of discredit or

dishonesty, the government will cancel their

qualification or limit their eligibility in participation

of several evaluation activities. Thus, records of

discredit or dishonesty may be instrumentals in

performance evaluation activities. To sum up, the

general relationship between activities and records

exists in government integrity construction, which

mainly reflected in the fact that records will be

generated, received or transmitted in every specific

activities of government integrity construction. In

addition, “records” and its similar term “information”

in context of government integrity construction

appeared 26 times in the Opinions, the guiding policy

for constructing government integrity at national

level. As in local policies, several terms related to

records like archives, database, information systems

also appear frequently. Altogether, records are

indispensable in government integrity construction：

activities in constructing government integrity create,

receive and use records, and the activities start with

and proceed on generating and transmitting records.

For an agency, records and information should be

considered as resources and needs to be managed in

an effective, efficient way. In most cases, where

records and information are available, records and

information management are needed.

5.2 Records Management in

Government Integrity

Development

The relationships, explicit or implicit, between

activities in government integrity construction and

records management were analyzed in the second

layer. Explicit relationships occur when the activities

clearly refer to records management. Implicit

relationships occur when records management are not

explicitly referred in the arrangement of activities,

but records management may be helpful or

indispensable in achieving their goals after analyzing

the work process.

Explicit relationships exist in local policies

guiding government integrity construction, and can

be summarized as follows: firstly, some clauses in

local policies mentioned archives management. Most

local policies put forward to establishing integrity or

Study on Relationships between Government Integrity and Digital Records Management: A Chinese Case

423

credit files, but not all of them claimed their

management. Among them, only two provinces,

Anhui and Jiangsu, propose the construction of

integrity files management system and credit files

management (Anhui Province, 2017; Jiangsu

Province, 2018). Secondly, records and information

management are referred in several clauses of local

policies. For example, Guizhou province proposes

“strengthening standardized records management

and establishing long-term mechanism for clearing

government policies and regulatory documents”

(Guizhou Province, 2017). Sichuan province

proposes “improve institutions and standards related

to collecting, sharing, disclosing, managing and using

credit information of public officials” (Sichuan

Province, 2018). In addition, information systems

appear in some policies when discussing government

integrity construction. For example, Jiangsu province

puts forward to building a credit information system

for government agencies and civil servants (Jiangsu,

2018). Guangdong province proposes to collect

dishonesty records in provincial credit information

system (Guangdong Province, 2017). Xinjiang

proposes to improve infrastructure for existing

information system (XinJiang Autonomous Region,

2018). Despite references to records management in

the policies above, none of these clauses in policies

provide relevant explanation of how those files and

records shall be managed, which records or archives

management institutions are responsible and how the

information in different information systems shall be

managed by giving other reference policies.

Although there are few clauses in policies clearly

referred to records, the implicit relationship still can

be found in analysis of the goals and work process of

those activities. In other words, records management

could play a supporting role in constructing

government integrity. The majority of activities of

government integrity construction are related to

records management, and records management may

assist agencies in achieving such goals in the

government integrity construction as improving

government efficiency and building a trustworthy

government, which are in consistence with the goals

of records management itself. On the one hand,

records management can help agencies reduce cost

and increase efficiency. On the other hand, a

trustworthy government requires government to be

transparent and accountable. Records are evidence of

government business activities and its effectiveness

and proper management can help government with its

accountability and transparency, thus to build a

trustworthy government. Specifically, activities in

constructing government integrity may needs help

from records management function. Records

management with its centralized and professional

features, have authority in planning and controlling

its activities at high level. In government integrity

construction, government dishonesty records should

be collected from credit information systems of local

to national agencies and shared between agencies. It

will be easier for agencies with centralized and

professional records management function to collect

information from multiple sources. And for

government dishonesty and credit records disclosure

activities, records management is a basic and

indispensable function in supporting it. Efficient and

effective information disclosure is premised on

proper control and management of records.

Information disclosure without records management

may hinder the ultimate achievements of government

integrity construction. Most local policies propose to

establish credit files for civil servants, and

management of these files needs records management.

In addition, a dedicated department is appointed to be

responsible for creating government credit records in

several local policies. For example, Guizhou

province appoints Information Center as the leading

department (Guizhou Province, 2017), which

indicates dedicated characteristic of records

management. In most policies of government

integrity construction, performance information like

credit records and dishonesty records of government

are required to be accurate and authentic. Records

under proper records management are considered to

be accurate, authentic and of integrity, thus records

management can help agency with proper, adequate

records in compliance with these requirements set by

government integrity construction policies. Therefore,

for both general goals and specific activities, records

management plays a supporting role in constructing

government integrity.

5.3 Information Technology in

Government Integrity

Development

The influence of information technology can be seen

everywhere in government integrity development.

Credit records and dishonest files will be collected,

maintained and shared on online national information

sharing platform. Local credit records are created,

received and maintained in local information system.

And the platform will integrate several local

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

424

information systems to collect and share credit

records nationwide. Besides, Qinghai province

proposes to apply cloud computing and big data in

government integrity development, and Sichuan

province encourages the third-party to assessing and

ranking government integrity using information

technology like cloud computing and big data.

Therefore, information system and technology will

be the assistance in government integrity

development and may be supportive to specific

activities in constructing government integrity.

6 CONCLUSION

In digital context, it is not surprising to see that

information technology is much emphasized in

government integrity development. As shown in the

findings, records are indispensable in every activity

of government integrity construction. Government

agencies will create, receive, transmit and use records

in conducting various activities. The relationships

between records and government integrity are rather

explicit in government policies. Records, as evidence

of activities and assets of agencies, should be

properly managed to support effective and efficient

operation. However, in this case, the consideration of

records and records management in government

integrity construction appears as a sharp contrast:

though records are everywhere in constructing

government integrity, records management functions

are barely referred in government policies. As records

management is an indispensable function that will

help the government in achieving its goals to build

trustworthiness, it should be taken into consideration

for government integrity construction in the process

of policy making.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research is supported by the Fundamental

Research Funds for the Central Universities and the

Research Funds of Renmin University of China as

part of the Records-Centered Digital Information

Management Theory and Mechanisms (DI{R}Mtm)

Project (No. 15XNL032), directed by Professor

Sherry L. Xie. Sincere gratitude to her for her

supervision and guidance.

REFERENCES

China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1999), available

at: http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=C

FQ (accessed 12 June 2018).

Chen Honglian (2016), The Honesty Lack Problem of

Government Affairs and Its Correction. Academic

Journal of Zhongzhou. 230, 96-101.

General Office of State Council (2009). Interim Measures

for the Administration of Electronic Documents.

Available at: http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?cgid=29

2467&liblaw (accessed 11 June 2018).

InterPARES (2018). The InterPARES 2 Project Glossary.

Available at: http://www.interpares.org/ip2/display_fi

le.cfm?doc=p2_glossary.pdf&CFID=11136050&CFT

OKEN=5018929 (accessed 13 June 2018).

ISO (2016). ISO15489-1:2016 Information and

Documentation - Records management - Part 1:

Concepts and Principles. Institute for Chinese Social

Science Research and Assessment (1999), online

information. Available at: http://cssrac.nju.edu.cn/

index.html (accessed 12June 2018).

Li Fenfen & Chen Jianbin (2014), Four Sources to

Government Integrity. Journal of Hunan University of

Science & Technology. 17, 92-96.

Sherry L. Xie, Jian Wang & Linqing Ma (2017). The

Project of InterPARES: where it has been and where it

is going. Archives Science Study, S1, 14-20.

Sherry L. Xie (2017). Records and Information in the

Government of Canada: A Grounded Theory Study.

Zhejiang University Press.

The State Council (2016), Guiding Opinions of the State

Council on Strengthening the Government Integrity

Construction. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/

zhengce/content/2016-12/30/content_5154820.htm

(accessed 28 May 2018).

The State Council of People’s Republic of China (2008).

Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the

Disclosure of Government Information (Order of the

State Council: No. 492). Beijing: China Legal

Publishing House.

The People’s Government of Guizhou Province (2017).

Implementation Opinions of People’s Government of

Guizhou Province on Strengthening the Government

Integrity Construction. Available at: http://www.gzgov.

gov.cn/xxgk/jdhy/zcjd_8115/201709/t20170930_1073

807.html (accessed 12 June 2018).

The People’s Government of Anhui Province (2017).

Implementation Plan People’s Government of Anhui

Province on Strengthening the Government Integrity

Construction. Available at: http://xxgk.ah.gov.cn/

Study on Relationships between Government Integrity and Digital Records Management: A Chinese Case

425

UserData/DocHtml/731/2017/8/17/116819546041.htm

l (accessed 12 June 2018).

The People’s Government of Jiangsu Province (2018).

Implementation Opinions of People’s Government of

Jiangsu Province on Strengthening the Government

Integrity Construction. Available at: http://www.

jiangsu.gov.cn/art/2018/2/12/art_46143_7487524.html

(accessed 12 June 2018).

The People’s Government of Sichuan Province (2018).

Implementation Opinions of People’s Government of

Sichuan Province on Strengthening the Government

Integrity Construction. Available at: http://www.scmz.

gov.cn/Article/Detail?id=23596 (accessed 12 June

2018).

The People’s Government of Guangdong Province (2017).

Implementation Opinions of People’s Government of

Guangdong Province on Strengthening the system of

Government Integrity Construction. Available at:

http://zwgk.gd.gov.cn/006939748/201801/t201801374

8456.html (accessed 12 June 2018).

United States (1950), Federal Records Act. Available at:

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/disposal-of-recor

ds.html (accessed 13 June 2018).

Xinjiang Autonomous Region (2018). Working Plan of

Xinjiang Autonomous Region on Strengthening the

Government Integrity Construction. Available at:

http://www.xjhfpc.gov.cn/context.jsp?urltype=news.ne

wscontenturl&wbtreeid=606&wbnewsid=9839

(accessed 12 June 2018).

Yuben Wang (2013), The Focus of Government Integrity is

Open government. Chinese Cadres Tribune, 4, 11-14.

FR-HT 2018 - Special Session on Managing Digital Data, Information and Records: Firm Responses to Hard Technologies

426