A campaign to correct the performance-oriented mindset among local officials is currently in full swing.

Launched immediately after the Spring Festival and expected to conclude by the end of July, the campaign is unprecedented in recent years in terms of its high-level nature and clear direction.

Meanwhile, local government work reports are being released one after another, packed with investment targets.

"Sign xx projects worth over 1 billion yuan and xx projects worth over 200 million yuan, with a total investment exceeding xx billion yuan; break ground on xx industrial projects worth over 100 million yuan each, and bring projects worth over xx billion yuan into production..."

From the local perspective, on one hand are the new requirements for a correct view of performance—focusing solely on numbers is wrong; on the other hand are the rigid investment targets imposed from above, with accountability for failure to meet them.

How exactly can these two approaches move from “conflicting” to “aligning”?

01 A Fundamental Shift in the Concept of Government Performance

In January of this year, multiple ministries jointly issued the “Notice on Regulating Investment Promotion Activities and Accelerating the Construction of a Unified National Market,” incorporating the “compliance of investment promotion activities” into government performance evaluations.

In February, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee issued the “Notice on Conducting Study and Education Throughout the Party to Establish and Practice a Correct View of Performance,” which represents a systematic correction of performance evaluation standards and will continue through the end of July.

Why such a high-level correction? The director of the Beijing Collaborative Innovation Base for Integrity and the Rule of Law directly pinpointed the problem.

In some localities, investment promotion evaluations impose rigid annual growth targets regardless of local resource conditions, forcing local officials to “fabricate data” and “pad the numbers.”

This reflects a problem with the institutional orientation, and the focus of this new round of rectification lies precisely in “establishing rules and systems.” The goal is to abolish or revise institutional regulations that do not align with the correct view of performance, thereby dismantling the “breeding ground” for erroneous performance-oriented mindsets.

Focusing on local practices, the most noticeable change is the move away from the “GDP-only” approach.

The average GDP growth target for the 31 provinces in 2026 has dropped to 5.04%, a 0.2 percentage point reduction from 2025.

Nearly 30% of provinces have moved away from pursuing a single, fixed numerical target, opting instead for a “range.”

For example, Guangdong has adjusted its target from “around 5%” to “4.5%–5%,” while Zhejiang has shifted from “around 5.5%” to “5%–5.5%.” What does this signify?

Higher-level authorities are no longer pressuring local governments to “pad” their figures for the sake of a few percentage points; instead, they are allowing for flexibility and encouraging the pursuit of high-quality development.

In the context of investment promotion, several policy signals should not be overlooked.

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has explicitly stated that it will guide localities to optimize and adjust their investment promotion evaluation mechanisms, determining the weighting of quantitative targets for investment promotion based on actual conditions.

During the recently concluded Two Sessions, the Government Work Report explicitly stated that a “dual list” of encouraged and prohibited items for local government investment promotion will be introduced, establishing clear red lines and bottom lines.

Data may lie, but the factories that spring up and the lights that come on do not. The best measure of performance is not the official seal on a contract, but the frequency with which cranes rotate at project sites.

02 Investment Targets Under a Correct View of Performance

The General Secretary emphasized that a correct view of performance requires “starting from reality, acting in accordance with objective laws, making scientific decisions, and working diligently and practically to create achievements that stand the test of practice and history, truly benefit the people, and are recognized by the masses.”

Translated into the language of investment promotion, this means that the projects we attract must be able to truly take root, generate tax revenue, and drive employment—not just a pile of numbers on paper.

Based on this logic, the formulation of investment promotion performance metrics for 2026 should adhere to three principles.

Principle One: Prioritize Implementation, Not Signings.

The traditional focus on contract value is being replaced by “funds disbursement rate,” “construction commencement rate,” and “completion and commissioning rate.” These metrics assess the actual progress of projects, not the ability to “promise pie in the sky.”

For example, in Linxiang, Hunan, after setting specific project targets, the local government simultaneously required that “at least seven chemical projects begin construction” and “at least nine projects successfully enter trial production.” The metrics have shifted from merely “attracting” projects to ensuring they “get up and running,” thereby extending the evaluation chain.

Principle Two: Prioritize Quality Over Quantity.

Metrics such as “tax revenue per mu,” “R&D intensity,” and “supply chain integration” are becoming key yardsticks for measuring project quality.

A project with an investment of 1 billion yuan that occupies vast tracts of land and yields low returns may be less valuable than a “specialized, refined, distinctive, and innovative” project with an investment of 100 million yuan but high tax revenue per mu.

At the beginning of this year, Suzhou Xiangcheng High-Tech Zone clarified that its investment promotion evaluation will focus on the introduction of industry-academia-research institutions and the future layout of industrial parks, adding new indicators such as “R&D expenditure as a percentage of operating revenue” and “year-on-year growth rate of tax revenue per mu.”

Principle Three: Prioritize the Long Term, Not the Short Term.

Investment promotion is not a one-time deal. Will the project continue to generate benefits after it is introduced? Will it cause environmental pollution? Is there a risk of it becoming a “stalled project”? These are all factors that must be considered when designing evaluation metrics.

Additionally, attention must be paid to the issue of “duplicate contracts.” In some regions, the same project is repeatedly signed during different investment promotion events.

At its core, this behavior stems from short-termism driven by a focus on political achievements. When investment targets become a “Sword of Damocles” hanging over officials’ heads, the intense pressure often leads them to choose to “meet the quota” through manipulated figures.

The central government has repeatedly emphasized the need to establish and practice a correct view of political achievements, and to strictly hold those responsible for data fabrication accountable. While targets remain hard targets, there is a need to shift from a scale-oriented approach to a results-oriented one.

Judging from government work reports across many regions, we have identified a trend in this year’s investment targets: while quantitative goals remain, the focus of evaluation is shifting from contract signing to project commencement, production launch, and actual implementation.

03 Hard Targets: They Only Count When Used Correctly

Hard targets are not shackles, but rather a “filter” for screening high-quality projects; high-quality performance is not the result of deliberate pursuit, but rather the product of deep industry cultivation and dedicated service to enterprises.

For park management committees and investment promotion directors, several points require attention when setting targets.

Squeeze out the “water” from “intentions” and solidify “implementation” metrics.

When breaking down investment promotion tasks, dare to replace the “total contract value” metric—which focuses on aggregate volume—with metrics such as “number of projects breaking ground,” “amount of capital secured,” and “completion and production rate.”

Data must stand up to scrutiny, and targets must be actionable.

Superiors are not concerned with impressive numbers, but with tangible results.

When attracting projects, scale is important, but quality matters even more. To determine whether a project will actually generate benefits once it is brought in, a comprehensive “health check” across multiple dimensions is required.

For example: Does it align with the local industrial chain’s development direction? Does tax revenue per unit of land meet the local average? Does it possess independent innovation capabilities? What is the proportion of R&D investment? Are there any environmental pollution or workplace safety hazards?

Whereas we used to ask how many billions were invested in a project, we now ask, “How much core technology does it bring, and how much of an innovative foundation does it leave behind for the local area?”

Investment promotion is no longer simply about bringing bricks home; it is about precisely planting trees for the community.

To succeed in the second half of investment promotion, we must closely monitor follow-up efforts and conversion rates. After all, signing a project agreement is merely the starting point; actual implementation and commencement of construction are the true keys to success.

Establish a “full lifecycle” tracking and service mechanism for projects. From business registration and construction permits to the start of substantive construction and completion and commissioning, every milestone must have a clear timeline and designated responsible party. Should any link in the chain fail, we must step in promptly to resolve the issue.

For local governments, true success is not measured by the number of contracts signed, but by the amount of tax revenue generated, the number of jobs created, and the strength of the industrial chain’s resilience.

The concept of performance is the direction; metrics are the path.

Only when the direction is correct do metrics hold meaning; if the direction is wrong, the better the metrics are met, the further one strays from the right path.

The path to high-quality development is long and arduous, but progress will lead us there.

A correct view of performance is not about rejecting metrics, but about ensuring they stand up to scrutiny; it is not about rejecting data, but about ensuring it is authentic and reliable.

When investment targets transform from cold, hard numbers into the warm support of the people, and when every project truly benefits the local community and drives local development—that is the true meaning of “serving as an official for a term and bringing benefits to the region.”