This paper examines the career mobility and performance evaluation of the leaders of China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) at the central, provincial and prefectural levels. Using data on executive turnover within publicly listed SOEs, we find that central and local SOE leaders have a similar career flow pattern. Specifically, vertical mobility within the same business group is common and more than 60 per cent of SOE leaders leave their office within three years. Only a minority of SOE leaders achieve political promotion. We also find that performance evaluation criteria are different across central and local SOEs. The leaders who provide better economic outcomes for central SOEs obtain a higher evaluation score, while close political connections boost the promotion prospects of local SOE leaders. Overall, our findings provide granular evidence on the personnel management of China's SOEs from a comparative perspective.

The deliberate distortion of the work accomplishments of local governments is a growing concern for China's leaders in the reform era. How do they tackle this problem and gather reliable data? This study argues that the CCP has developed bypassing strategies to remedy the deficiencies of the statistical system which is vulnerable to artificial data distortion. By employing these strategies, authorities requiring authentic information can directly access the raw data, thereby bypassing lower-level officials who have incentives to distort performance information in the level-by-level reporting process. This study shows that the adoption of bypassing strategies enhances the capacity of the party-state to gather local intelligence. Although the strategies are limited in their ability to ensure the quality of certain types of data, their use should improve the quality of key information on the performance of local governments in the long term.

The implementation of China's reform era target-based cadre evaluation system has instigated various types of gaming behaviour on the part of local officials. How do these gaming strategies differ from each other? Why do local officials sacrifice the public interest for target fulfilment in some cases but not in others? This article argues that gaming is not monolithic and should not be treated as such. It develops a typology that distinguishes between pernicious and benign gaming, and looks into the symptoms and motives of pernicious gaming in particular. It finds that the distinct design of the measurement system – the combination of result-oriented targets imposed from above and high-powered incentives for target fulfilment – induces pernicious gaming. In addition, the system's implementation practically compels local officials to misrepresent their performance, even though they are aware of the negative impact of such behaviour on the public interest. This study shows that to understand the strategies, motivations and implications of gaming better, a more nuanced approach is needed.