前言

《中国法律发展报告2018：2015—2017年中国法治满意度评估》是中国人民大学系列发展报告和中国人民大学法学院标志性项目“中国法律发展报告”的研究成果，先后得到国家社会科学基金重大项目“法治评估创新及其在中国的推广应用研究”、北京市社会科学基金重大项目“法治评估的基本理论研究”、中央政法委2016年项目“中国特色社会主义法治状况评价体系及机制研究”和中国法学会法治研究基地的资助。

本报告以往都按照研究年度来命名，自今年起改为按照出版年度来命名。本报告与2015年、2016年的报告一脉相承，都采取主观评价的方法，对法治建设的满意度进行评估。2015年的报告评估样本来自全国28个省、自治区和直辖市，2016年的报告来自东、中、西部9个省区市，本报告来自东、中、西部另外9个省区市。评估的方法和指标体系三年基本保持一致，以保证评估结果的可比性。

本报告由中国法学会法治研究基地中国人民大学法治评估中心设计和执行，中国人民大学调查与数据中心负责2015年的调查和数据整理，零点公司负责2016年和2017年的调查和数据整理。

1．报告总体设计：

指标设计主持人：朱景文（中国人民大学教授，法治评估中心主任），冉井富（中国社会科学院法学研究所副研究员，法学博士）；

问卷设计主持人：冉井富；

问卷调查和数据计算负责人：陆誉蓉（零点公司法律部主任），丁冰雪（零点公司项目负责人）。

2．写作班子

导　论　朱景文

第一章　法律规范体系：冯玉军（主持人，中国人民大学法学院教授，法治评估中心执行主任，法学博士），赵一单（中国政法大学法学院讲师，法学博士）

第二章　法治实施体系：冉井富（主持人，2﹒2司法适用，2﹒4法治实施体系小结），孟涛（中国人民大学法学院副教授，法学博士，法治评估中心副主任，2﹒1行政执法），彭小龙（中国人民大学法学院副教授，法学博士，法治评估中心副主任，多元化纠纷解决机制研究中心执行主任，2﹒3社会治理）

第三章　法治监督体系：孟涛（主持人，3﹒2执法监督，3﹒4法治监督体系小结），冯玉军（3﹒1立法监督），冉井富（3﹒3审判监督）

第四章　法治保障体系：彭小龙（主持人，4﹒2物质保障，4﹒3法学教育与普法，4﹒4法治保障体系小结），冉井富（4﹒1人员保障）

第五章　党内法规体系：王立峰（中共中央党校政法部教授，人权研究中心主任，法学博士）

第六章　法治效果体系：朱景文（主持人，6﹒5法治效果体系小结），王立峰（6﹒1控权），叶传星（中国人民大学法学院教授，人权研究中心执行主任，法学博士，6﹒2人权），时延安（中国人民大学法学院教授，中国人民大学国际交流处处长，法学博士，6﹒3社会秩序与安全），孟涛（6﹒4法治观念）

第七章　结论：朱景文

第八章　九省对全国的法治评估：彭小龙（主持人），彭浩（中国人民大学法学院博士研究生）

第九章　法治指标的省级评估：孟涛（主持人），刘信言（中国人民大学法学院博士研究生）

全书由朱景文负责统稿、主编。

In 2015-2017，Evaluation Center of the Rule of Law，Renmin Univer‐sity of China evaluated the satisfaction of the rule of law in China for three consecutive years，and formed evaluation reports for 2015，2016 and 2018．The 2015 rule of law assessment relies on the Survey and Data Center of Renmin University of China，and the 2016 and 2017 assessments rely on the Beijing Dataway Horizon Co．，Ltd﹒﹒The 2015 assessment covers 28 prov‐inces，autonomous regions and municipalities in the country．The 2016 and 2017 assessments cover 9 provinces each year，altogether 18 provinces．Each province is selected according to the high，medium and low level of economic development．At the provincial level，each province selects three regions，respectively representing cities，towns and rural areas．The num‐ber of questionnaires per year is more than 4，000，and the total number of questionnaires in the three years is more than 12，000．The questionnaires are divided into two categories，one for public and another for experts．

Ⅰ．The significance of satisfaction evaluation of the rule of law

The construction of the scientific index system and evaluation standards about the rule of law construction is an important task put forward by the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee in 2013．The Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee held in 2014 further proposed the effectiveness of the rule of law construction as an important content to measure the leadership at all levels and leading cadres’work per‐formance is included in the index system of performance evaluation．

How to evaluate the effectiveness of the rule of law construction？The usual practice is to achieve progress through objective indicators，that is，all aspects of the rule of law，such as performance in the areas of legislation，law enforcement，justice，and party governance and etc．．However，only objective indicators are not enough．There is also a need to evaluate people’s satisfaction with the status quo of the rule of law．It is of great significance to introduce satisfaction evaluation indicators in the evaluation of the rule of law．The official data shows the achievements made by the CPC and the government，but how do people evaluate these achievements，what is the significance of the official indicators，whether they are consistent with people’s daily feelings，and how they relate to people’s daily lives，they can‐not call the shots，but must have the evaluation of the people．Satisfaction is a subjective indicator．It is different from the officially released objective indicators．It is undoubtedly the subjective evaluation of the respondents．It has a strong subjectivity and varies from person to person．Some people give a positive evaluation，while others may give negative evaluation，which is directly related to the experience and position of the respondent．However，if a kind of evaluation accounts for a large proportion，this subjective evalu‐ation has big objective significance．

Ⅱ．The rule of law index system

The rule of law indicator is an indicator to measure the degree of rule of law in a country．It measures the extent to which a country can control power abuse，guarantee basic rights，ensure social security and order，and establish rule consciousness．This is a common problem faced by countries with any kinds of social system or historical tradition．But to achieve the a‐bove goals，the measures taken by countries are different．There is no fixed model for the rule of law．In the international context，due to the different types of the rule of law，because of the different basic social systems，eco‐nomic development levels and historical traditions that the rule of law relies on，indicators applicable to one type of country may not be applicable to an‐other．

As far as China is concerned，the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee has established the socialist system of rule of law with Chinese characteristics and the establishment of a socialist country ruled by law as the goal of comprehensively governing the country according to law，and has adopted the legal norm system，implementation system of the rule of law，supervision system of the rule of law，safeguard system of the rule of law and the CPC’s rules and regulations system have been identi‐fied as an integral part of the rule of law system，which laid the foundation for the establishment of the rule of law evaluation index system and laid the basic framework for the evaluation of rule of law satisfaction．

The assessment of the satisfaction of the rule of law in 2015-2017 in‐ cludes six first tier indicators，namely，the legal norm system，implementa‐tion system of the rule of law，supervision system of the rule of law，safe‐guard system of the rule of law，the CPC’s rules and regulations system and effect system of the rule of law．This is a“5＋1”system，of which the “5”，that is，the first five systems that is arranged in accordance with the internal structure of the socialist rule of law system with Chinese character‐istics，and“1”represents effect system of the rule of law that mainly measures the effect of the rule of law system．The first five indicators re‐flect the structure of the rule of law system，reflecting the level of govern‐ance and governance capacity of the rule of law system．The latter indica‐tor，effect system of the rule of law，mainly reflects the effectiveness of the rule of law system and reflects the governance effect of the rule of law sys‐tem．The governance effect of the rule of law is a multi‐dimensional con‐cept，reflecting whether the abuse of power is contained through the rule of law，whether the people’s basic rights are respected and guaranteed，wheth‐er social order and security are ensured，whether people’s concept of the rule of law，consciousness of the law，the recognition of legality is im‐proved．Therefore，governance system and governance ability of the rule of law have laid the institutional foundation for the effectiveness of the rule of law，and how the system works depends on the governance effect．Basing on the 2015 and 2016 indicator system，the 2017 indicator system consists of six first tier indicators，20 second tier indicators，65 third tier indicators and 167 four tier indicators．

Ⅲ．The rule of law satisfaction evaluation criteria

From the practical level，there are two evaluation criteria for the 2015-2017 rule of law satisfaction assessment：

The first is the level of satisfaction assessment．The rating scale of the assessment is divided into five grades，namely，very good，relatively good，middle，relatively poor，and very poor，of which very good and relatively good are good evaluation，middle is middle evaluation，relatively poor and very poor are bad evaluation．The ratio of good，middle and bad evaluation directly determines the size of satisfaction．

The second is the satisfaction evaluation score．The satisfaction of the above five grades of very good，relatively good，middle，relatively poor and very poor is assigned 90，80，70，60，50 points respectively．

The satisfaction evaluation score standard can judge the overall status of the good，middle and bad evaluation．It is more comprehensive than just looking at the rate of the good or bad evaluation，and judging the position of an indicator in the entire rule of law index；the satisfaction evaluation level is conducive to intuitively judging the rate of good or bad evaluation of an indicator，which is conducive to make up for the lack of evaluation scores and discovering the essence of people’s evaluation behind the scores．

Ⅳ．Findings and conclusion

1．The satisfaction of the rule of law has been improved．In 2015，the good evaluation rate of satisfaction of the rule of law was 35﹒3%，and 40﹒0% in 2016 and 53﹒4% in 2017，an increase of 18﹒1 percentage points o‐ver 2015﹒In 2015，the rule of law satisfaction score was 70﹒0 points，71﹒8 in 2016 and rose further to 74﹒9 in 2017，an increase of 4﹒9 points over 2015．From the overall evaluation of the satisfaction of the rule of law，the rate of good evaluation is getting bigger and bigger，the rate of bad evalua‐tion is getting smaller and smaller，the scores are getting higher and higher，and the satisfaction of the rule of law has been improved．

2．The performance of the CPC’s rules and regulations is eye‐catching． In 2015--2017，among the six first tier indicators，the rate of the good eval‐uation was generally improved，the rate of bad evaluation was generally re‐duced，and the scores were generally improved．Among them，the satisfac‐tion of the CPC’s rules and regulations system was the most obvious，which was the highest increase in the rate of good evaluation and the largest de‐crease in the rate of bad evaluations．In the field with the fastest increase in scores，the rate of good evaluation and score in 2017 are the highest among the six first tier indicators，reflecting the recognition of the achievements made in the three‐year comprehensive management of the party and the party’s internal regulations．

3．Unbalanced development．From a vertical perspective，the indica‐tors with higher and lower scores in each year are still relatively fixed．For indicators with higher scores，community security，powers defined by law，rights to education，and specialists’participation in the lawmaking process are indicators at higher scores common for three years；and accountability，public participation in the lawmaking process，rights to equality，social or‐der and other indicators are indicators at lower scores common for these three years．

4．Problem indicators．The problem indicators common for three years are composed of 6 indicators，including financial disclosure，feedback on legislative advice，accountability for inspection and appointment of officials，accountability for pollution without supervision，illegal gift giving，and sales counterfeits．In addition，they include problem indicators for two years or one year，namely，civil execution efficiency，accountability for un‐fair trial，formalism of popularizing law，government compensation for ac‐quisition of land，altogether 10 indicators．The above 10 problem indica‐tors，one is from the legislative field，that is，feedback on legislative ad‐vice；one is from the field of execution enforcement，that is，financial dis‐closure；one from the judicial field，that is，civil execution efficiency；one is from the field of human rights，that is，government compensation for acqui‐ sition of land；one is from the field to popularize law，that is，formalism of popularizing law；two are from the field of social order，that is，illegal gift giving and sale counterfeits；three are from the field of accountability，that is，accountability for inspection and appointment of officials，accountability for pollution without supervision，accountability for unfair trial．Accounta‐bility is a common problem for three years．Although improvements have been made，accountability for inspection and appointment of officials，ac‐countability for pollution without supervision，and accountability for unfair trial are still an area where the masses have strong responses and poor satis‐faction．