Tuesday’s edition of People’s Daily hints that the bike-sharing industry could be about
to get a stick in its wheels.
In a
commentary on the flagship newspaper’s opinion-editorial pages, the author, 明朗 or “Forthrightness”—a glib pseudonym for
authoritative opinion being passed along from Beijing to alert lower-level
officials —notes that bike-sharing has become a hot topic on social media, in
online forums, and at local public meetings.
The author states that “objectively speaking,
sharing bikes better solves the problem of the last mile of urban traffic”—a
nod to the notion
in China that local governments need to find innovative ways to deal with new
problems by connecting
with citizens on issues that matter to the latter more than the usual
macro-policies of economic development. In other words, by providing city
dwellers with more local options for transport, the article is saying, bike-sharing
initiatives seemed to provide at least a partial solution, a helpful
convenience.
But in the past few months, according to the
article, “negative public comments have surged”, becoming part of a larger
discussion about “national quality” [素质] and uncivilized behavior. The commentary contends
that “what’s a convenience has also been inconveniently chaotic”, citing “damage
to vehicles, space being illegally occupied, private property being encroached
on, bike deposit processes that are opaque, and [instances of] bicycle operation
mismanagement”. The author argues that while some of these problems are understandable
because “bike-sharing is still in a stage of ‘adolescence’, the crazy chase for
capital funding amidst disorderly competition raises the problem of how to
better integrate [these private initiatives] into overall public management of
society.”
That’s Party-speak for the very real possibility
of more regulation and control. First, there’s the sense that there’s too much public
dissension; which then creates conditions whereby authorities (in this case,
Beijing) have to step in and exert oversight and management lest matters go off
the road. In other words, discussion is good, but it has to be guided. Innovation is admirable,
but it can’t produce unhappiness. In the case of bike-sharing, as the
commentary puts it, everyone needs to “be soberly aware that [the novelty of
these ventures] does not preclude the industry from being guided by rules and
regulations, the strong oversight of enterprises, and social supervision generally
for the purpose of healthy and orderly development.” Officials are being
admonished not to let this new thing "become disorderly [无序发展]”.
The author does convey the sentiment that the goal of preventing
further problems “is the aspiration of all parties, who naturally also need to
work together to solve” the challenges created by the increase in bike-sharing
programs. Whether that involves consolidation in this nascent industry or local
governments becoming better at managing the problem isn’t spelled out. It could be that central authorities aren't in agreement on what to do; it may be that they want to give local governments and entrepreneurs a chance to propose solutions from below.
But the warning from at least some central
authorities is growing clearer: If the concerned parties aren’t willing to start
pedaling together soon, Beijing won’t be reluctant to grab the handlebars.
No comments:
Post a Comment