Recently, the term "performance evaluation" has been appearing frequently.

From the central government to local authorities, it is mentioned at virtually every meeting.

After the Spring Festival, it was emphasized once again at the “first meeting” of a major economic province.

The performance-oriented approach to investment promotion guides local development strategies.

At present, we are at a critical juncture marking the start of the 15th Five-Year Plan.

The central government has placed unprecedented emphasis on establishing and practicing a correct view of political achievements.

Unless this “thorn” of deviation is removed, the problems in investment promotion will remain difficult to resolve.

01 Four Major Manifestations of a Deviated Performance Evaluation Outlook

Once the concept of performance evaluation becomes distorted, investment promotion efforts will deviate from the path of seeking truth from facts.

Looking deeper, it boils down to four words: haste, superficiality, fear, and self-interest.

Impatience: Pursuing scale and speed, seeking quick gains

In some regions, project quality control is lax; as long as projects can be signed and launched quickly—boosting GDP and inflating investment figures in the short term—requirements regarding environmental protection, energy consumption, technological content, and safety standards are relaxed.

In some areas, disregarding objective conditions and fiscal capacity, authorities blindly expand operations and launch projects, pursuing “major projects and large-scale investments” while neglecting funding capabilities and market demand, ultimately leading to abandoned projects and idle factory facilities.

In other areas, driven by the urgency to meet investment attraction quotas, authorities rush into signing and implementing projects without thorough feasibility studies or adequate risk assessments. Consequently, these projects often fail shortly after production begins due to outdated technology and a disconnect from market demands.

Superficiality: Formalism, Detached from Reality

In the past, investment promotion efforts were limited to holding meetings, issuing documents, listening to reports, and reviewing materials. Officials were content with “paper achievements” and “statistical achievements,” remaining superficial and out of touch with reality, while their investigations and research were superficial and cursory.

Decisions and deployments were made without proper research into local resource endowments, industrial foundations, and market demand, merely copying others’ models without adapting to local realities. This led to investment projects being “unsuited to the local environment,” making it difficult for them to take root and thrive.

Meetings were constantly convened and plans issued, but follow-up and implementation were neglected. Issues such as land use, labor, and financing that arise during project implementation were left unresolved, and no follow-up services were provided, resulting in a situation where “many projects are signed, few are implemented, and none survive.”

Fear: Lack of Accountability, Prioritizing Stability Over Risk-Taking

Officials would rather “sit back and do nothing” than take risks to innovate; they avoid difficulties by taking detours or dragging their feet, dare not make final decisions, and are unwilling to take responsibility—a mindset that is completely at odds with the current requirements for high-quality development.

When predecessors leave behind a mess, successors are unwilling to take it on; when enterprises report that promises cannot be fulfilled, officials drag their feet as long as possible; and for projects that require a decision, they simply choose not to submit them for approval.

Even when aware that traditional models are inefficient and ineffective, they refuse to change out of fear of failure and accountability, resulting in uncompetitive investment promotion efforts that struggle to attract high-quality projects.

Self-interest: Diminished Commitment, Selfish Motives

In investment promotion work, officials prioritize the narrow interests of their localities or departments while neglecting the broader picture and the greater good. To compete for projects, they erect hidden barriers and engage in local protectionism.

In some cases, they even engage in cutthroat competition through illegal land allocations and excessive subsidies, which not only undermines the development of a unified national market but also leads to the waste of public resources.

With misplaced priorities, decision-makers fail to prioritize projects that benefit long-term local development during approval and resource allocation processes. Some even abuse their authority to seek personal gain, giving the green light to projects that do not meet the required criteria.

02 From Phenomenon to Essence: Calibrating the Direction

As the opening year of the 15th Five-Year Plan, 2026 is also a critical period for local leadership transitions.

Establishing and practicing a correct view of governance performance has been elevated to a new political level, becoming a consensus and course of action from the central government down to local authorities.

Looking beyond the surface to the root causes, the issues primarily stem from three core dimensions:

● Deviations in the Direction of Performance Evaluation Metrics

● Misalignment of the boundaries between government and the market

● The imbalance between short-term gains and long-term development

The frequent chaos in the field of investment promotion stems primarily from a deviation in the direction of the performance evaluation system, which equates “numerical indicators” with “achievements,” forcing grassroots officials into the fallacy of “prioritizing numbers and scale above all else.”

Some localities treat quantitative metrics—such as the value of signed investment agreements, the number of projects, and the amount of capital secured—as rigid performance targets. They impose increasingly stringent quotas at every level and even directly link these metrics to the selection and appointment of officials, as well as to awards and commendations.

This one-dimensional, utilitarian evaluation system has led some officials to fall into the trap of “attracting investment for the sake of attracting investment.”

For example, to meet evaluation targets, some resort to data fabrication and fictitious contracts to create “paper achievements”; to pursue eye-catching short-term figures, they relax quality controls on projects, leading to the introduction of highly polluting and energy-intensive projects; and to achieve quick results, they neglect foundational and long-term work such as fostering industrial chains and optimizing the business environment.

The essence of investment promotion is a market-driven activity; its core lies in leveraging the decisive role of the market in resource allocation, while the government’s responsibility is to provide guidance, services, and safeguards.

On the one hand, the government has overstepped its bounds by intervening in the market.

In some localities, in the competition for projects, governments have deviated from market principles by creating “policy havens” through irregular land allocations, excessive subsidies, and tax rebates, and have even interfered in corporate decision-making and substituted for market choices.

In other areas, governments have blindly incurred debt to build industrial parks, ignoring market demand and fiscal capacity, ultimately leading to idle parks and mounting debt.

On the other hand, the government has failed to provide adequate services and safeguards.

Efforts to foster a level playing field and resolve challenges facing enterprise development have been insufficient.

In some regions, there is an overemphasis on signing agreements and insufficient focus on service delivery; an overemphasis on attracting investment and insufficient focus on nurturing businesses. Practical difficulties such as land use, labor, and financing after project implementation are not resolved in a timely manner, and oversight of market order is inadequate, resulting in enterprises being able to “settle in but unable to survive or develop.”

Investment promotion is a long-term endeavor that requires the patience and resolve to “stick to the blueprint until the end,” as well as a balance between short-term growth and long-term development.

Some officials, upon taking office, blindly “start from scratch,” ignoring the investment projects and industrial layouts left by their predecessors. This results in a lack of continuity in investment promotion efforts, creating a chaotic situation where “each term has its own approach and each administration approves a different set of projects.”

In pursuit of short-term political achievements, some officials sacrifice the ecological environment and overextend fiscal resources by attracting high-pollution, high-energy-consumption, and low-value-added projects. While this may appear to stimulate economic growth in the short term, it actually sows numerous seeds of ecological and debt-related risks for future development.

Still others neglect “long-term” tasks such as fostering industrial chains, building talent pools, and optimizing the business environment, focusing solely on immediate investment figures. This results in local industries lacking core competitiveness and struggling to achieve sustainable development.

This short-sighted “draining the pond to catch fish” approach is, at its core, a serious deviation from the proper view of political achievements. Ultimately, it will only trap local development in a vicious cycle where “the more investment is attracted, the more passive the situation becomes.”

03 Where Should the Correct View of Performance Be Focused?

When it comes to investment promotion, assessing whether a government or an administrator holds a correct view of performance requires examining at least the following three points:

Examine decision-making: Does it adhere to objective laws?

The economy follows laws, industries have cycles, and markets operate according to logic. A correct view of performance is first reflected in whether these laws are followed during decision-making.

Determining which industries are suitable for a region should not be based on whim, following trends, or the competitive impulse of “if others have it, we must have it too.”

When deciding which businesses to attract and what investments to bring in, one must consider what crops the local soil is suited to grow, assess the region’s resource endowments, industrial foundation, and talent pool, and carefully calculate the return on investment.

Those massive projects, often running into the tens of billions, where feasibility studies are mere formalities and financial projections are wishful thinking, are essentially products of a disregard for these laws.

Examine the planning: has it managed to break free from a narrow, parochial mindset?

Short-sightedness is the most common manifestation of a distorted view of political achievement. Fixating solely on the current administration, the current year, and the local area—and seeking to produce results only within one’s term of office—is the direct root cause of many irregularities in investment promotion.

Whether one holds the correct view of political achievements depends on whether their planning vision is sufficiently long-term and broad.

Industrial development is a process that requires patience and meticulous effort; a truly competitive industrial cluster often demands more than a decade of sustained accumulation.

If the logic behind investment promotion is “sign contracts during this term, launch projects during this term, and deliver results during this term,” then it is destined to result in only quick-fix deals and will fail to attract industries that truly take root.

Assess their sense of responsibility: Are they willing to “settle past accounts as a new official”?

This is the most direct litmus test for evaluating one’s view of political achievements.

Will they take on the mess left by their predecessor? Will they honor the commitments made to businesses by their predecessor? Do they dare to tackle the historical challenges left behind?

Many officials have left this question blank—they sidestep it, pass the buck, or wait for it to drag on. While these may appear to be “historical legacy issues,” they are, in reality, a refusal to “foot the bill” for others.

But this is precisely what businesses are watching.

When a local government changes leadership, whether the previous administration’s promises still hold weight serves as the most genuine basis for enterprises to assess the local business environment.

Only by fulfilling commitments and taking ownership of past obligations can we truly be accountable for development, for businesses, and for the future.

In Closing

As the 15th Five-Year Plan gets underway, education on the correct view of political achievements is being rolled out across the entire Party.

This is not a routine political exercise, but a recalibration of officials’ mindsets.

The “thorn” of a distorted view of political achievements must be pulled out as soon as possible.

After all, the perspective on investment promotion directly shapes the perspective on local development.