1. The scientific decision-making system has not really been established: First, the responsibilities of administrative decision-making subjects are unclear, the decision-making rights, responsibilities and scope of party committees, governments and people's congresses at all levels are still unclear, and the relationship is not straightened out, so the decision-making potential of people's congresses and governments has not been fully exerted.
Second, the position of the comprehensive coordination center of the administrative decision-making center has not been established. Third, the consulting information institutions are weak. There are not many specialized information institutions, it is difficult to form a complete information network, the information source and quality are limited, the information processing technology and methods are relatively backward, and the information processing ability is relatively low, which makes it difficult for the information system to give full play to its role, further prompting leaders to ignore the advisory role of policy research institutions. Fourth, the decision-making content "offside" and "absence" coexist. At present, the content of administrative decision-making in China is offside and absent. On the one hand, the government still interferes too much in microeconomic activities, excludes and replaces the market, interferes in the internal affairs of communities, non-governmental organizations and grass-roots organizations, and does too many things that the government should not do; On the other hand, there are many policy "vacuums" or deficiencies in some problems that are difficult to adjust in the market and society, such as maintaining equal competition, adjusting social distribution, improving social security, safeguarding the interests of vulnerable groups, and ensuring the ecological environment. Fifth, the decision-making methods and means are unscientific. China's administrative decision-makers themselves lack the relevant knowledge of scientific decision-making, do not learn from western experience, and ignore the role of consulting institutions. They often make decisions based on their own experiences, experiences and feelings, and like to deal with new problems in the old ways according to traditions and practices. "Empirical decision-making" is ubiquitous.
2. Lack of democracy and openness in administrative decision-making. In the way of administrative decision-making, some decision-makers consciously lead the decision-making, don't listen to others' opinions, make decisions at will, or take it for granted, or blindly engage in performance projects and image projects. In the decision-making process, people's participation is low, the influence of social forces on decision-making is weak, the specific methods and ways of public participation in the decision-making process are also very insufficient, public opinions, wishes and demands are difficult to express, people's suggestions are difficult to enter the sight of leaders or are not taken seriously at all, and even expert argumentation is put aside. This lack of democratic style weakens the confidence of the masses to participate, thus strengthening and encouraging the administrative decision-making of "centralization" and "one person is arbitrary".
3. Lack of procedural, standardized and institutionalized administrative decision-making. In the actual decision-making process, some functional links such as consultation, demonstration, feedback, adjustment and perfection are often ignored, and the decision-making process is often "deliberate" or "deliberate", and the establishment of scientific and reasonable decision-making procedures has not received enough attention. In the division and use of decision-making power, because the relevant legal system is not perfect, decision-making power has become a way for some people to seek personal gain, leading to the abuse of power and the transaction of power and money. This kind of irregular administrative decision-making often harms the public interest and violates the goal of serving the public interest.
4. Administrative decision-making lacks supervision and evaluation mechanism. The responsibility system of administrative decision-making needs to be improved urgently. Due to the lack of democracy and openness in the administrative decision-making process in China, the power is too centralized, the government's administrative decision-making lacks mechanism guarantee, and the NPC and judicial supervision are not in place. There is no legal guarantee for the supervision of citizens and society. The freedom of the news media is still restricted by some procedures. When the administrative decision harms the public interest, citizens have no proper remedy. However, decision-making evaluation has been neglected for a long time, lacking reasonable evaluation criteria, emphasizing decision-making over evaluation, and often emphasizing "qualitative" over "quantitative" in evaluation, which is unscientific.