Chinese and Russian scholars recently gathered in Beijing to discuss how to build a clean, sustainable government and to compare the two countries in terms of social governance and anti-corruption campaigns.

The Forum “Social Governance and Anti-Corruption in the Service of Sustainable Development Goals: A Comparative Study of China and Russia” was co-hosted by the China Anti-Corruption Studies Center and the Institute of Sociology under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

Social governance and anti-corruption are indispensible components of governance, said Wang Jingqing, vice-president of CASS and director of the center, adding that innovating social governance and effectively curbing corruption are crucial to modernizing governance capacity and the system of government while realizing social and economic sustainable development goals.

In her keynote speech, Li Qiufang, a member of China’s top disciplinary watchdog and former director of the center, stressed the need to promote social equity and give the people a sense of fulfillment. To this end, China is striving to achieve fairness in rules, opportunities and rights while improving mechanisms of resource allocation, co-building and sharing, and interest coordination, Li said.

Against the backdrop of economic globalization, some countries are facing crises of social governance and corruption. China, Russia and some EU countries have realized that corruption is commonplace and heavily impacts society, economics, politics and culture.

China and Russia are similar in terms of anti-corruption campaigns and governance, scholars pointed out, arguing that “both countries regard the fight against corruption as being vital to the realization of the national development strategy and path, and they have entered the stage of combating graft institutionally.”

They also spelled out differences between the national perspectives of the two countries on anti-corruption efforts and leadership as well as supervision and prevention mechanisms. From a legislative perspective, Russia has a sounder basic legal framework for prosecuting corruption and more extensive regulations on official incomes. At the same time, China has a higher rate of public participation, and it accepts anonymous reporting, while Russia does not.

Corruption has caused social inequality, unequal market access and unfair income distribution. Theory and experience have proven that anti-corruption campaigns will necessarily fuel economic development. Scholars further emphasized that institutionalized and legalized anti-graft work can better boost economic growth. Ineffective regulation is one of the main sources of corruption, so effective anti-corruption policy should aim to eliminate ineffective regulation, they said.