The way the chapter started off  with the “Anticorruption Since the Reform and Opening Up” I got  the sense that the campaign has been going on for a long time (60 years), but it had made  a lot of  head way, reform, and change in China. In those 60 years eduction, institutionalization, supervision, reform, rectification, and punishment were all key focuses of this movement and a lot of resources were being implemented  to work on these things. It named a lot of different organizations that were dedicated to specific areas of reform. For example, the National Bureau of Corruption Prevention that worked towards the professionalization of China’s corruption prevention and punishment efforts. It talks about the treaties it has entered with different countries for their cooperation in their fight against cooperation. It refers to the more then 2.9 million cases registered and “being investigated or prosecuted for corruption”. So  all of this put the the idea in my head China was/is ay better off, but this is not true. In the  “Effectiveness of China’s Existing Clean-Government System” we see that not  only is there still mass amount of corruption, but there is corruption within the campaign to fight corruption. The checks on corruption of leading a party and government are weak, the judiciary system is corrupt, unhealthy government extravagances have gone unchecked, legalizing exclusive privileges to civil servants, not punishing those found to be corrupt, and the punishments being taken care of inside the party instead of the legal system are all problems that are occurring, or worsening. Then he gives a long list of things that need to change in order for there to be organizational effectiveness and rule effectiveness.  The National Integrity System that supposedly has made great transformation and is a representation of transition and hybridization still faces many barriers itself: excessive concentration of power, lack of an effective administration system, no checks and balances, lack of protection of the press, and the law and democracy is still underdeveloped.

Melanie Manion agreed with He Zengke’s analysis . She emphasized the unevenness of enforcement priorities and substitution of party penalties for criminal punishment as two of her main focuses of the problem. In my opinion, it seems very unlikely they would  be able to solve any of these problems anytime soon. It is very mind blowing at how many different problems lie in the heart of China’s government and yet it is still somewhat functioning. With as many problems as it appears to have I would think that China would perform way worse. I feel like Zengke offers an over simplistic solution. I agree the problem is within the institution, and he states we need to restructure governance which I also agree with, but the  manner in which he proposes to do this does not seem like  it would completely fix the institutional problem. My thing  is, is it possible to restructure the China’s government and get rid of the corruption? I question this so heavily because they have been trying for 60 years and even though there is progress there has also been added corruption through the campaign.