'Snail awards' fail to address cause of bureaucratic inertia, critics say
In a bid to combat bureaucratic sluggishness, some regions in China have intensified efforts to crack down on officials deemed "lying flat" — a term used to describe civil servants who are passive and unproductive in their roles.
In some areas, officials have gone as far as publicly shaming underperforming departments and individuals by awarding them "Snail Awards", "Ostrich Awards" and "Hedgehog Awards" to set an example for others.
This negative incentive approach, however, has raised questions about its effectiveness in transforming humiliation into motivation.
READ MORE: Governments closing their unused social media accounts
In Zhanjiang's Mazhang district in Guangdong province, eight officials were reassigned to other posts in September for their lack of action. Among them, a deputy director surnamed Chen was criticized for his sluggish work style and delays in project implementation, according to local media outlet Yangcheng Evening News.
A civil servant surnamed Zhang from a district government department was also reassigned for shirking responsibilities and failing to improve his skills. Others were held accountable for reasons such as lack of engagement, perfunctory work and lax learning attitudes.
A widely circulated video on Chinese social media last year showed three expressionless men in suits receiving framed certificates for the Ostrich, Hedgehog and Snail Awards on a special episode of a TV program called Sunshine Inquiry in Sichuan province for inaction in their work.
The three government officials from Suining city were forced to pose for a photo with their "awards", adding to their public humiliation.
The video was described by netizens as "forever being nailed to the pillar of shame in history", with many calling for the program to be promoted nationwide.
The Snail Award was first introduced in early 2016 in Taizhou, Jiangsu province, to address official inaction. It was awarded to those responsible for poor project advancement, inadequate administrative functions and untimely responses to public concerns.
Over the next two years, Taizhou issued the Snail Award to 57 units or individuals, with potential consequences including public humiliation and job losses. Since 2018, other regions, including Shengzhou and Jinyun counties in Zhejiang province and Suixi county in Guangdong province, have adopted the Snail Award, making it one of the top 10 anti-corruption buzzwords of the year.
However, the measure has not been without controversy. In July 2018, officials in Taixing, Jiangsu province, fearing they would be labeled inactive, hastily dismantled more than 300 outdoor billboards along highways in two months, leading to allegations of illegal demolitions.
Experts say bureaucratic inertia in China is one reason for the wider adoption of the Snail Award. According to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, more than 220,000 officials were disciplined last year for various infractions, with more than 90,000 punished for "inaction, misacts or false actions" in their duties.
Proponents argue that these awards disrupt complacency by exposing underperformers. Yet critics, including academics and grassroots cadres, caution that such measures risk oversimplifying deeper structural issues.
As debates continue, experts urge a balanced approach: reducing bureaucratic red tape, enhancing positive incentives and fostering a culture where accountability coexists with empowerment. Without systemic reforms to address both motivational deficits and structural burdens, campaigns such as the Snail Award may remain symbolic gestures rather than transformative solutions, they say.
Cai Zhenhua, an associate professor at the School of Public Administration at Xiangtan University, said the reasons some cadres are unwilling, unable or afraid to take responsibility lie in the failure to establish and practice a correct view of political achievements and careers.
Meanwhile, the mechanisms for assessment, incentives, accountability and supervision also need improvement, Cai said.
"To enhance the enthusiasm of cadres, the weight of public satisfaction evaluations in performance assessments should be increased," he said.
Using cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence and cloud computing can smooth channels for expressing public opinion, actively mobilizing the public to participate in supervision and better manage inactive cadres, Cai said.
"From a practical perspective, public humiliation addresses the symptoms but not the root cause, and it can harm the image and credibility of the government. To truly eradicate the chronic issues of laziness and inaction in governance, efforts must be made at the institutional level," he said.
Zhu Lijia, a professor at the National Academy of Governance, said rectifying "lying flat" cadres essentially means addressing severe formalism and bureaucratism while restoring the dedication, responsibility and spirit of service that cadres should have. It is about reestablishing the most basic professional ethics among "lying flat" cadres.
ALSO READ: Xi urges Jiangsu to lead advance of Chinese modernization
Moreover, improving work style and efficiency can also promote local socioeconomic development, he told Jimu News.
Given technological advancements, digital tools can be used to strengthen performance evaluation systems for grassroots cadres, he said.
The evaluation can be divided into two aspects: basic duties and actual accomplishments. For example, basic duties include whether they are late for work and whether they complete assigned tasks during working hours.
Additionally, the evaluation system can draw from models used by food delivery services by establishing democratic and social assessments where the public can rate cadres with positive or negative reviews, he said.
By recording scores item by item, forming weekly, monthly and yearly performance evaluation archives, and using digital technology to make the process dynamic, a quantitative evaluation system can be established, making it clear who is doing their job and who is not, and how the public perceives them, he added.
