Location : Home > Resource > Report
Tan Jun | Law Enforcement Management: The Organizational and Operational Logic of Law
2023-07-03 [author] Tan Jun preview:

[author]Tan Jun


Tan Jun | Law Enforcement Management: The Organizational and Operational Logic of Law

Author: Tan Jun
Assistant Researcher, China Institute for Social-Legal Studies, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Absrtact: Although there has always been a debate between legalism and Managerialism in public administration, how administrative organizations understand and apply law has not received enough attention. The operation of the administrative organization is mainly based on the logic of Managerialism, emphasizing the realization of specific goals through the effective allocation of organizational resources; The operation of law mainly follows the logic of legalism, focusing on the normative evaluation based on the symbol of legality/illegality. There is a certain tension between the two in theory and practice. When encountering governance "difficulties" in public affairs, it is necessary for law enforcement and managers to work together to address them. At this point, the process of absorbing, utilizing, and transforming the concept of law by administrative organizations forms the management of law enforcement, which is manifested in the management of legal objectives, content, concepts, symbols, and organizational methods. The reason for the management of law enforcement lies in the absorption of law by administration, including the construction of the meaning of uncertain legal content, the control of law by organizational subcontracting system, and the reconstruction of legal purposes by management rhetoric. Although law enforcement management can improve law enforcement efficiency and the legitimacy level of administrative organizations, it can also lead to the deconstruction of laws and the weakening of law enforcement authority. Nevertheless, the management of law enforcement fully reflects one of the ways in which administrative management and law enforcement are integrated in China. It has important implications for deepening the reform of the administrative law enforcement system, coordinating the internal tension between the roles of legal managers and supervisors, promoting the transformation of the administrative law system, and improving the level of rule of law in public administration management.

Keywords: law enforcement management; Illegal construction; Managerialism; Legalism; Organization;

1、 Problem Awareness and Existing Research
The core of modern rule of law government construction lies in fully integrating government behavior into the rule of law track, and ultimately achieving legal administration through clear division of powers and strict accountability. In this process, "the administrative process of exercising public power and handling public affairs is transformed into the legal process of implementing legal rules and procedures" (Jiang Shigong, 2011: 83). Because of this, some scholars have observed the phenomenon of "administrative law enforcement" (Jiang Shigong, 2011) and "management legitimacy" (Zhu Tao, 2021) in the government's handling of public affairs. However, legal enforcement does not occur in a pure rational vacuum, but rather needs to penetrate the complex multi-level bureaucratic system of interest relations in order to achieve it. Therefore, the process of law enforcement is inevitably influenced by the operation of administrative organizations. Researchers have noticed the impact of administrative organizations on law enforcement, especially the shaping effect of party and government structures and the hierarchical structure in administrative organizations on law enforcement. However, they have overlooked the differences between legal logic and administrative management logic in the law enforcement process, and have failed to conduct in-depth investigation of the interaction between law and administrative organizations. Specifically, how do administrative organizations and actors within organizations understand and apply the law? How does an organization translate laws into internal policies and procedures? Is the organization's compliance with the law Signedness or substantive? Wait a minute. The answers to the above questions contribute to a deeper understanding of the operational mechanism of law in administrative organizations, as well as the appearance and essence of government administration in accordance with the law.
In recent years, empirical research on administrative law enforcement has received increasing attention. On the one hand, researchers have deeply revealed various phenomena in the law enforcement process, and on the other hand, they have deeply analyzed various problems in law enforcement, proposing various powerful mechanism explanations. The core issue shared behind many exciting and diverse studies is the awareness of why law enforcement is difficult. To be specific, in the context of increasingly improved administrative legal norms, why does the implementation of laws always have various deviations or failures, such as Selective enforcement (Dai Zhiyong, 2008), flexible law enforcement (Chen Bofeng, 2015), sports law enforcement, fuzzy law enforcement (Wang Yugen, 2019), Entrapment, violent law enforcement, legal dissipation (Wang Bo, 2011), camera enforcement (Xu Jianniu, Shi Gaojian, 2021), etc. Faced with these phenomena, scholars have proposed theoretical explanations from three different perspectives based on qualitative or quantitative analysis.
Firstly, there is an incomplete theoretical approach to the law. This approach mainly attributes the deviation in the process of legal enforcement to the imperfect legal system or the failure to strictly implement corresponding procedural and substantive legal norms, especially the abuse of administrative discretion (Jiang Ming'an, 1993), excessive reliance on coercion and sanctions (Wang Xizinc, 2005), and so on. The Completeness of the law presupposes that the legal rules are clear and clear, the law enforcers are Perfect rationality (Li Yan et al., 2021), and can "best interpret" the law in the process of law enforcement. On this extension line, law and economics researchers believe that if the law is complete, the optimal design based on Completeness can fully deter offenders, while incomplete laws will have an impact on the allocation of law enforcement power, and may produce a large number of "negative Externality" (Pistor&Xu, 2002).
Secondly, an interpretive approach based on institutional structure. Due to the embedding of law enforcement personnel in different organizational structures, the setting of organizational goals, the composition of organizational structure, and the operation of organizational power will all have an impact on the enforcement of the law. At the level of organizational goal setting, there is a possibility of conflict or inconsistency between the goals of the central and local governments, as well as those of law enforcement and government management departments. When the goals of different organizations are inconsistent, target substitution often occurs, which usually forms the phenomenon of replacing the work goals of other levels of departments with the central work goals of local government management departments, which will lead to Selective enforcement (Dai Zhiyong, 2008; Huang Pei, 2021), and the effect of law enforcement will swing from effectiveness to effectiveness (He Yanling, 2013). At the level of organizational structure, the "island phenomenon" between different law enforcement agencies within government organizations and between law enforcement agencies and other institutions leads to the "distortion" of legal enforcement, and the organizational structure, political ethics, and power and responsibility allocation also shape grassroots law enforcement from different aspects (Chen Baifeng, 2017). In addition, the game between different law enforcement agencies (Wang Qing, 2015) also has a significant impact on the effectiveness of legal enforcement. At the level of organizational power operation, law enforcement matters can lead to legal dissipation during the transmission process at the organizational level (Wang Bo, 2011).
Thirdly, an interpretive approach based on action process. If the system structure approach emphasizes the constraints on law enforcement officials, then the action process approach focuses on the agency of law enforcement officials in the organizational structure and the interactive process between law enforcement officials and law enforcement objects. Related research mainly examines various action strategies of law enforcement officers in specific law enforcement situations. Specifically, law enforcement officials, as street bureaucrats, respond to organizational assessments through methods such as "flexible execution" (Liu Peng and Liu Zhipeng, 2014), seeking "balance" (Liu Sheng, 2018), constructing "relationship networks" (Gan Tinghao, 2021), "cat and mouse games" (Lv Dewen, 2019), and technical "case file production" (Guo Xiaoyu, 2021) in an environment of scarce resources Accountability pressure and achieving "cooperative coexistence" with law enforcement targets (Yu Longgang, 2015). Correspondingly, the law can be dissolved and reconstructed in the process of exchange and interaction between law enforcers and law enforcement objects.
The above studies have deepened our understanding of the issue of legal enforcement bias in China, but there is still room for academic advancement in related research. Deviation research is important, but it overlooks the situation where there is no deviation in legal enforcement in practice. Moreover, bias research presupposes the singularity of legal purposes, and its linear thinking fails to pay attention to the complex interactive process between law and organizational environment. Specifically, the theoretical approach of legal incompleteness is based on rational assumptions on the law and its operation process, ignoring multiple factors affecting the actual operation; The institutional structural interpretation approach assumes the administrative organization as an independent entity, neglecting the inherent complexity of the administrative organization and its positive promoting effect on legal enforcement; The interpretive approach of action process mainly revolves around the behavior choices of law enforcers, neglecting the role of other non law enforcers. Based on this, this article will transform the "bias" perspective of existing law enforcement research, and explore the complexity of the interaction between organizational and legal fields in the Chinese context by focusing on how administrative organizations in public administration can interpret and restructure laws to address the "difficulties" in governance.
[1] Difficult problems refer to problems that cannot be solved step by step within a hierarchical organization compared to simple problems. Difficult issues often arise from policy changes, involvement of multiple interest groups, or significant social impacts that require special tasks or leadership attention to be addressed.
This article will take the demolition process of illegal buildings by the grassroots government in M district of S city as a clue, and focus on examining the process and mechanism of government organizations implementing laws through "management", in order to perspective the impact of government organizations on the operation of laws. Firstly, based on the analysis of the case, point out the phenomenon of legal management in the operation of the organization. Secondly, explore the manifestation and specific content of law enforcement management. Once again, based on the above, a detailed analysis will be conducted on the internal mechanisms that lead to law enforcement management, in order to reveal its inherent logic. Finally, evaluate the potential impact of law enforcement management and discuss its positive and negative functions.
2、 Research methods and case studies
2.1 Case selection and data collection
Case based qualitative research aims to reveal the logic behind Social phenomenon. This research case is derived from the author's Serendipity during his research in X Street, M District from November 2014 to June 2015. The selection of this case is mainly based on the following reasons: firstly, typicality. The illegal construction of the HM community in X Street has always been a tough nut to crack in the governance of illegal construction in M District. The analysis of illegal construction governance can not only reflect common problems in the demolition of illegal buildings, but also reveal various complex elements in the operation of administrative organizations. The second is completeness. X Street in M District demolished illegal buildings in 2014 and 2015, and the entire demolition process and subsequent effects have been presented. The collection of corresponding case materials is also relatively complete. The third is adaptability. The process of demolishing illegal buildings is not only one of the law enforcement matters, but also one of the main contents of government public governance. The completion of its tasks requires the cooperation of various government departments, as well as the comprehensive use of management and legal means. Therefore, this case has strong adaptability to the research problem.
M District X Street was officially established in 2010, with a jurisdictional area of 19.26 square kilometers. At the beginning of its establishment, X Street had 11 village committees and 9 neighborhood committees, and there were a large number of urban-rural junction areas within its jurisdiction. During its development, it faced a large number of relocation and illegal construction issues. Therefore, the demolition of illegal buildings has always been one of the key contents of X Street's work, aiming to build "non illegal residential villages (streets)". This research mainly reveals the process and mechanism of how the government organizations apply the law by deeply describing the case of illegal building demolition in HM Community. The collected data are mainly the meeting records, archives, government documents, news reports and interviews with relevant personnel that the author came into contact with during the whole Case study.
2.2 The Generation and Rectification of Illegal Buildings
The HM community on X Street is adjacent to H Town and is a new farmer village built in the 1990s. The new village was mainly formed by the relocation of some villagers due to the investment attraction of H Town. The ownership of the land in the community is collective, but the houses in the community are built by the villagers themselves, with a total of 39 households. Each homestead has been approved to cover an area of 106 square meters and a construction area of 200 square meters. Before the establishment of X Street, the new village was managed by H Town. After the establishment of X Street, the location of the new village was included in the administrative jurisdiction of X Street, but the nature of land ownership has not changed.
2.2.1 The generation of illegal buildings and the evasion of law enforcement
Since June 18, 2012, the M district linkage center has continuously received complaints about illegal construction in the HM community. The complaint mainly includes opening a shop with broken walls and illegal renovations. Although complaints about related cases continue to occur, the corresponding illegal renovation phenomenon has not been effectively dealt with, as various departments believe that the jurisdiction of illegal buildings in the community is not within their jurisdiction. For the Urban Administrative and Law Enforcement Bureau Squadron of X Street (hereinafter referred to as "Urban Management and Law Enforcement Squadron"), this community "belongs to rural homestead, not within the scope of Urban Administrative and Law Enforcement Bureau"; For X Street, although the street has daily regulatory responsibilities for the community, it does not have law enforcement power over illegal buildings, and advocates that it should be under the jurisdiction of the District Planning and Land Resources Management Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "District Planning and Land Bureau"); For the district planning and land bureau, "according to the working practice of investigating and punishing whoever owns the land, illegal construction of houses should be the responsibility of the People's Government of H Town"; However, for H Town, the community has been included in the Administrative division of X Street. According to the principle of territorial jurisdiction of administrative law enforcement, it should not be investigated and dealt with by H Town. In the mutual evasion among various law enforcement departments, the scope and scale of illegal construction have further increased, with 34 villagers carrying out varying degrees of illegal construction, including adding floors and illegal construction of sites, mainly used for rental purposes. Among them, the household with the highest illegal construction area reached 1280 square meters, and the total illegal construction area of the community reached 14200 square meters, accommodating more than 2000 tenants. The issue of the ownership of the illegal construction law enforcement authorities was not resolved until November 7, 2012. It was mainly through the deputy district chief's leadership, convening the district linkage center, district planning and land bureau, district urban management team, X street, and H town for unified coordination, and determining a plan led by the district demolition and violation office, with H town as the law enforcement subject, and other units and departments cooperating. However, this plan has undergone changes in the actual demolition process, with X Street and H Town each responsible for the demolition of some illegal buildings. More importantly, although the law enforcement entities of illegal buildings have been confirmed, the demolition of illegal buildings has been delayed.
[2] The Big Linkage Center is a "Urban Comprehensive Management and Emergency Linkage Center" explored and established in M District. Without changing the existing administrative management organizational system, it establishes an information platform to achieve the integration of information collection, conflict investigation, public security joint defense, and administrative law enforcement through "unified command, coordination, and supervision" of relevant matters within its jurisdiction.
2.2.2 The Rectification of Illegal Buildings and the Opposition between Illegal Households
The issue of illegal construction in HM community has attracted the attention of relevant departments with the increasing number of complaints. On October 31, 2013, the District Demolition and Violation Office held a special meeting to restart the illegal construction management work in the community. On January 3 and March 7, 2014, the deputy district chief in charge twice instructed H Town to organize forces to dismantle violations in accordance with the law, but none of them achieved practical results. It was not until March 20, 2014 that the demolition work was substantially advanced, as the M district mayor led the three deputy district chiefs in charge of demolition, public security, and urban management, as well as the heads of legal, supervisory, housing management, and construction departments, to conduct on-site inspections of illegal construction sites and held an office meeting for demolition on that day. The meeting proposed three specific work requirements: firstly, X Street is responsible for the entry and exit management of the community, and all illegal buildings under construction will be completely stopped; Secondly, it is required that the deputy district head in charge of illegal activities in the district take the lead in formulating a specific plan for illegal activities; The third is to require the supervisory department to investigate and hold accountable the causes of illegal construction.

In response to the first work requirement, X Street held a mobilization and deployment meeting on the same day, clarifying the specific work content: Firstly, from March 20, 2014, the HM community will be managed in a closed manner, especially for personnel related to ongoing projects.Secondly, a specific work leadership group has been established to be responsible for publicity, stability maintenance, and logistical support; Thirdly, conduct a survey on the "one household one plan" to clarify the situation of illegal buildings in the community and the information of tenants.
In response to the second work requirement, on March 26, 2014, the district government led the establishment of a special rectification leading group and formulated the "Implementation Plan for Demolition of Illegal Buildings in HM Community". The special rectification leading group consists of two deputy district heads as the group leader and deputy group leader, and the heads of the relevant departments for dismantling violations are also members of the leading group. The scheme preliminarily determines four stages of demolition violations, namely, investigation and investigation stage, publicity and Educational stage stage, comprehensive rectification stage and legal demolition stage, which are expected to be completed on October 31, 2014.
In response to the third work requirement, the Office of the District Accountability Handling Leading Group announced on January 15, 2015 the accountability results of relevant units and personnel in the occurrence and development of illegal buildings in HM community. Mainly involving a total of 13 people from X Street, H Town, District Planning and Land Bureau, District Demolition Illegal Building Leading Group Office (hereinafter referred to as "District Demolition Illegal Office"), and District Linkage Center. Among them, 2 people were given administrative warnings, criticized and transferred from their positions, 1 person was ordered to conduct admonishment talks, conduct written inspections, criticize and transfer from their positions, and the remaining 10 people were punished by criticism, written inspections, admonishment talks, etc.
At the same time, since June 2014, illegal construction households in HM community have petitioned the streets, district governments, and municipal governments multiple times. Their main demands include the following: firstly, some illegal construction households are still under construction, and some have been renovated through borrowing money. They originally hoped to recover costs through leasing, but if they are demolished, they will face significant economic losses. They hope that the government can provide compensation at its discretion. Secondly, the formation of illegal buildings in HM residential areas is related to unfavorable government supervision, and the relevant government must bear certain responsibilities. We hope that relevant departments can comprehensively consider the objective situation. Thirdly, after illegal buildings are demolished, some tenants need to transition to renting out. Due to economic constraints, they hope that the government can subsidize some of the rent. Fourthly, it is hoped that relevant departments will announce the plan for controlling illegal construction. Fifthly, in addition to the HM community, there are other communities with illegal buildings. Why not demolish them and demolish the HM community first? I hope the relevant government departments can explain. Due to strong opposition from illegal construction households, the demolition work has come to a standstill.
2.2.3 Applying both soft and hard measures and successfully breaking down violations
Until April 13, 2015, the special rectification leading group held two more work promotion meetings, requiring comprehensive promotion of the rectification work of demolition violations, so as to restore the stagnant demolition work. The new work promotion meeting formulated and passed the "Implementation Opinions on the Comprehensive Renovation of HM Community" (hereinafter referred to as the "Implementation Opinions"), which not only updated the specific renovation plan, but also stipulated the compensation standards for renovation. According to the Implementation Opinions, it is expected to implement closed management of illegal demolition on May 4th and enter the mandatory phase of illegal demolition on May 11th. According to the new rectification plan, the newly established working group has successively signed demolition agreements with some illegal construction households through on-site publicity and persuasion education. At the same time, the special rectification team also collaborated with departments such as public security, urban management, food and drug supervision and management, planning and land resource management, industry and commerce, safety production supervision and management, labor supervision, etc. to carry out joint law enforcement, mainly targeting the 32 unlicensed shops and black intermediaries operating along the streets and walls of HM community. From April 24th to May 5th, the special rectification team carried out five joint law enforcement actions, and unlicensed shops operating along the street had to be closed and relocated, leading to their demolition. This has played a certain deterrent role for villagers in the community who are unwilling to sign demolition agreements, and ultimately prompted all illegal households to sign demolition assistance agreements and complete the predetermined goals in advance.
3、 The Management Process of Illegal Building Demolition
The ideal law enforcement model mainly includes the following three aspects: "Firstly, the activities of law enforcement personnel must be within the statutory scope of authority; Secondly, law enforcement activities must follow the statutory procedures; Thirdly, law enforcement activities are the process of applying the general provisions of the law to specific cases. The provisions of the law are general, and specific cases are special, and the application of the law is equal." (Zhu Jingwen, 2013:67) However, This model is the result of logical deduction, and it fails to include a variety of influencing factors in the process of law enforcement, including the organizations embedded by law enforcers. The organization operation is mainly based on the logic of Managerialism, emphasizing the realization of specific goals through effective allocation of organizational resources; The legal operation mainly follows the logic of legalism, focusing on the normative evaluation based on the symbol of legality/illegality. When two types of field logic meet, the organization may be influenced by the law, and its action strategy and organizational structure will be correspondingly shaped. At the same time, the law will also be influenced by the organization, filtered and adjusted by its norms and operational logic. For administrative law enforcement, the process of legal concepts being absorbed, utilized, and transformed by administrative organizations forms the management of law enforcement. In this process, the logic of legalism is absorbed by the logic of Managerialism. The illegal building demolition process in the previous HM community reflects the management of law enforcement from multiple aspects.
Firstly, administrative organizations transform legal goals into organizational goals through goal setting, achieving the management of legal goals. The goals of law are due and often do not consider specific situations; Relatively speaking, the goal selection of an organization is the result of balancing organizational resources, task weight, and difficulty among multiple tasks (Jiang Yong, 2017). When the goals of the law are transformed into organizational goals, the organization will add factors of efficiency and effectiveness to the legitimacy goals. It is generally believed that illegal construction refers to buildings, structures, and related facilities built in violation of relevant laws and regulations such as the Urban and Rural Planning Law, the Land Management Law, and the Building Law. Essentially, it violates mandatory provisions of the law, such as "not obtaining a planning permit or constructing according to the planning permit", "not using land according to land use", "not passing or failing the acceptance inspection of buildings", and so on. It can be seen from this that the law aims to achieve effective control and guarantee of building planning and quality. In daily law enforcement, planning departments and urban management departments inspect and demolish simple and illegal buildings that can be demolished. However, for illegal buildings that are difficult to demolish due to historical legacy issues, weak administrative supervision, or gaps in legal regulations, the government needs to be the main body of demolition in order to effectively promote the demolition work. However, the government's attention to the problem of demolition and violation is not mainly due to its illegality, but the social Point of order problems that it may bring about in terms of illegal occupation of public space, harm to neighborhood relations, environmental pollution, and potential safety hazards (Shen Fujun, 2016). These many problems have become issues that government management departments need to solve, and the specific solution is to eliminate existing illegal buildings while preventing the emergence of new illegal buildings. However, whether it can become a target matter for government administrative organizations depends on the severity of the social consequences caused by illegal construction.
For S city, illegal construction was a persistent problem in the urban management field that was strongly reflected by the public in 2014, and therefore became a key task of the municipal government. The municipal government has formulated the "Implementation Opinions of S City on Further Strengthening the Governance of Illegal Buildings in this City", The goal of the governance of illegal buildings is to "comprehensively and correctly utilize legal resources, integrate administrative management methods, optimize investigation and punishment mechanisms, and improve the law enforcement process for demolishing illegal buildings. We will focus on rectifying a group of illegal buildings with prominent social contradictions, high safety hazards, and strong public response, and gradually eliminate the existing illegal buildings. When the goal of demolishing illegal buildings becomes the goal of administrative organizations, the decision-makers of the organization will attach importance to it and quickly implement it. Of course, the specific objects of law enforcement also need to be representative in order to bring demonstration effects for subsequent violations. The HM community not only has a large scale of illegal buildings, but also poses a serious threat to social order and public interests. Additionally, there has been a lack of clear regulatory authorities, making governance more difficult compared to other illegal building areas. As a result, the head of M district led various department heads to conduct on-site inspections in HM community, proposing clear work requirements, and truly promoting the governance of illegal buildings in HM community.
Secondly, organizational policy makers can achieve the management of legal content by formulating effective rules within the organization. In fact, the majority of the laws that administrative activities are based on are rules created by administrative agencies. "(Wang Xizi, 2008:63) The rules created within an organization are either copies and details of existing legal norms, or new rules formulated based on specific circumstances. In this process, legal rules are transformed into internal management rules of the organization, which can be specifically implemented as action plans. Regarding the regulations for the demolition of illegal buildings, in addition to existing relevant laws and regulations, S City has formulated the "Several Provisions on the Demolition of Illegal Buildings in S City" and the "Implementation Opinions of S City on Further Strengthening the Governance of Illegal Buildings in this City". M District has formulated the Implementation Opinions on Strengthening the Demolition of Illegal Buildings and the Implementation Measures for Accountability of Illegal Land Use and Illegal Buildings in M District. In response to the demolition of illegal buildings in HM community, M district has also formulated the "Implementation Plan for Demolition of Illegal Buildings in HM Community", X street has formulated many rules such as the "Work Plan for X Street's Rectification of HM Community" and the "Work Plan for X Street's Rectification of HM Community". These rules not only concretize abstract legal rules, but also determine the subject, method, and responsibility of specific execution. Through layers of detailed regulations, legal norms related to illegal construction are gathered together, becoming actionable action manuals and becoming action resources for law enforcement agencies. For specific executors, it is more important to say that they are implementing these specific implementation plans and work plans rather than executing the law, and the law is only one element that is integrated into them. From this perspective, law is implemented through internalization within the organization, rather than simply serving as a controlling factor outside the organization.
Thirdly, organizational decision-makers promote the implementation of laws through organizational restructuring, achieving the management of legal organizations. In the promotion of administrative affairs reform by local governments, local leadership groups have become an indispensable force for many local governments to promote the effective operation of local affairs and carry out local governance. They undertake local governance affairs such as consultation, coordination in the implementation process, and promotion of special work for major local decisions. (Yuan Chao and Li Ni, 2017: 27) At the district level, The demolition of illegal buildings in HM community mainly relies on the promotion of the special rectification leading group, with two deputy district heads serving as the leader and deputy leader respectively. The group members include the District Demolition and Violation Office, the Administrative Supervision Bureau, the Development and Reform Commission, the Construction and Transportation Commission, the Land Planning Bureau, the Housing Security and Housing Administration Bureau, the Industrial and Commercial Branch, the Population Comprehensive Management Office, the Legal Affairs Office, the Government News Office, and the Government Letters and Visits Office The main leaders of government supervision and inspection rooms, major linkage centers, X Street, H Town, and public security organs. At the street level, X Street has also established a leadership group for cracking down on illegal activities, led by the street director and composed of leaders from various departments. In the progress of specific work, the special rectification work group forms a daily work report and promptly submits it to relevant leaders; Hold weekly work meetings to discuss relevant difficult situations. The special rectification leadership group can not only effectively integrate resources from different departments, promote coordination and communication between each other, but also achieve specific "project" tasks by changing the organizational structure and operational mechanisms. In this process, the "substantive authority" of the organization replaced the "formal authority" of the law enforcement department, effectively promoting the enforcement of the law through positive incentives.
In addition to positive incentives, the leadership team can also achieve reverse incentives for special actions through accountability. Although the accountability for cases of demolition violations is based on the inaction between various departments that led to the generation of illegal buildings in the early stage, it objectively aims to form a warning effect and promote the implementation of demolition violations. In addition, the annual assessment of special actions is also an effective mechanism for motivating various actors in the process of dismantling violations. In short, whether it is positive or negative incentives, administrative organizations can drive the effective implementation of laws through mobilization and assessment within the organization.
Fourthly, organizations seek to legalize management and achieve the management of legal symbols through the use of legal symbols. In addition to pursuing efficiency, organizational operations also need to obtain legitimacy from the institutional environment. Therefore, the special rectification leading group emphasizes the importance of "comprehensive utilization of legal resources" in policy promotion, legal execution, and supervision during the process of dismantling violations, in order to achieve legal rectification. During the publicity and mobilization stage, responsible village officials, urban management personnel, and lawyers [3] came together to persuade illegal households to agree to demolish. During the implementation phase, the special leadership group specifically requested the District Planning and Land Bureau to conduct strict review of cases of demolition violations to ensure that the case procedures are flawless. Moreover, through multiple joint enforcement efforts, strict enforcement of unlicensed labor intermediaries and shops is expected to demonstrate the mandatory nature of the law. In terms of law enforcement supervision, the petition departments of X Street and M District governments attach great importance to the petitions of illegal construction households and carefully listen to their demands. The government departments and the special rectification leading group, considering the specific difficulties of illegal construction households, did not enforce the demolition of illegal buildings in accordance with legal provisions, resulting in a temporary interruption of the demolition work. From it, it can be seen that grassroots government organizations attach great importance to the legality of various links in the implementation of law enforcement, which not only avoids potential litigation risks but also meets the normative expectations of different social public. Therefore, legal discourse symbols can not only provide legitimacy for administrative organizational behavior in the process of breaking down violations, but also serve as a symbolic resource applied to various stages of law enforcement.
[3] Lawyers themselves are symbols of the law. In addition, lawyers can provide legal opinions, draft legal documents, answer legal questions, assist in clearance work, respond to emergencies, and provide dispute resolution solutions when participating in the process of breaking down violations. The special rectification leading group hopes to utilize the neutrality and affinity of lawyers to coordinate and handle various conflicts of interest, and reduce possible opposing emotions.
Fifthly, the "customer" orientation of organizational operations changes the opposition between law enforcers and law enforcement objects, achieving the management of legal concepts. The path of New Public Management in public administration emphasizes that the service objects of government departments are regarded as "customers", and focuses on the response and satisfaction of their needs. Therefore, how to listen to the voices of the public through various channels, guide citizens to participate in public management, and solicit their opinions or suggestions on public services has become an important direction for government work. Similar to the concept of New Public Management, China also attaches great importance to the feedback of the public in the process of public administration, and takes maintaining public opinion expression as an important means to promote administration according to law and democratic decision-making. For law enforcement, when legal objectives are transformed into organizational management objectives, it is also necessary to consider the will of law enforcement targets in the process of achieving them. How to obtain the consent of illegal construction households and ensure social stability during the demolition process of HM community is the focus of work. In the specific demolition process, the special rectification leading group mainly hopes to achieve demolition by negotiating with illegal construction households and mobilizing them to sign demolition assistance agreements, avoiding mandatory demolition as much as possible. In order to sign the agreement, the special rectification leading group dispatched corresponding staff to visit the illegal construction households in each residential area, established "one household, one file" data, and requested that "fully grasp the political appearance, economic status, ideological dynamics, and other situations of the illegal construction households, and sorted out the key points of the attack" (M20150413). On the basis of understanding and mastering the situation of each household, specific law enforcement personnel can adopt different strategies for tackling different situations.

Moreover, in the face of individual or collective petitions from illegal construction households, the government departments of X Street and M District have suspended the demolition work and changed the existing demolition plan after understanding their demands. The most significant change is the addition of corresponding compensation to illegal construction households in the name of providing material recycling costs [4]. In addition, in the process of mobilizing for demolition in the later stage, finding jobs, providing turnover sites, and even assisting in reconstruction for some illegal households with difficulties are all aimed at satisfying law enforcement counterparts. More importantly, in order to achieve the smooth demolition of illegal residential areas, the government not only did not punish illegal construction households in accordance with legal provisions [5], but also undertook the cost of illegal building demolition and helped them rebuild through special appropriations, with the aim of achieving smooth and stable demolition. In this process, the Binary opposition thinking of law is transformed into more or less result oriented management thinking.
[4] In the 2014 demolition plan, there was no provision for corresponding material recycling fees, while in the 2015 new rectification plan, corresponding standards for material recycling fees were added.
[5] In 2014, S City issued the "Implementation Opinions on Further Strengthening the Governance of Illegal Buildings in this City", which clearly stipulated that the cost of compulsory demolition should be borne by the parties involved in the illegal construction, and a fine of 10000 to 100000 yuan was imposed.
The above five aspects do not exhaust the ways in which laws are managed in the administrative organization field, but rather summarize the main aspects reflected in the process of illegal building demolition in this article. The various ways in which laws are managed are not completely independent, but have the possibility of overlapping and working together. In other types of law enforcement practices, there may also be different types of law enforcement management phenomena, and the specific methods and effects of management will also change with the influence of factors such as time, the degree of rationalization of the organization, and the organizational environment.
4、 The generative logic and internal mechanism of law enforcement management
In the development of Public administration, there is a dispute between "Managerialism" and "legalism" (Christensen et al., 2011; Yu Jianxing and Xiang Miao, 2016; Dragos&Langbroek, 2018). Among them, Managerialism was first proposed by British scholar Christopher Pollitt, but its specific connotation in public administration is controversial. From the theoretical and practical aspects, Managerialism in public administration includes the following basic propositions: First, Managerialism is a Instrumental and value rationality activity, focusing on the operability and effectiveness of management methods. Secondly, Managerialism emphasizes the application of science and technology in management, focusing on the standardization and quantification of management. Thirdly, Managerialism emphasizes customer orientation and meets customer needs by providing responsive services. Finally, Managerialism regards efficiency as the core value, aiming to achieve specific goals through the most effective way (Terry, 1998; Chen Zhenming, 2000). It can be said that Managerialism is an effective way to realize public administration, and it is the application of the theory, method, technology and mode of enterprise management in public management. Correspondingly, traditional mainstream administrative laws mainly play the role of monitors, aiming to supervise and control the national administrative power. Specifically, its theoretical presuppositions include: first, the purpose of administrative law is to limit the abuse of administrative power, while protecting the basic rights of individuals in the Constitution; Secondly, the operation of administrative power is based on the binary code of "legal/illegal", including supervision and inspection of administrative organs and judicial trials by courts; Thirdly, administrative law achieves the certainty, stability, and predictability of administrative rule of law through due process in a neutral manner. It should be noted that neither Managerialism nor legalism is a generalization of an ideal type. It is not a description of the actual situation, nor a summary of all the characteristics of the management process and the operation of administrative law. In fact, there is little difference in experience between the administrative organizational field and the administrative legal field, as they share the same organization, actors, and processes. However, their internal operation belongs to different institutional logics and may lead to different social consequences. [6] The differentiation and analysis of the two in this article is only for the purpose of presenting their distinctive features more clearly. In the process of the development of Public administration, with the development of society and the differentiation of administrative law and administrative science, the path of "de legalization" of administrative management and the path of "de management" of administrative law have been formed. It has not been decided whether public administration should adhere to Managerialism or legalism. Some scholars advocate the combination of the two, while emphasizing the efficiency, efficiency and legitimacy of public administration. However, due to the lack of corresponding theoretical dialogue between the domestic administrative law community and the Public administration community, enough attention has not been paid to such issues as how to interweave law and administration, and how to eliminate the internal tension (Xiang Miao, Yu Jianxing, 2021).
[6] In public administration practice, specific executors should consider the legality of specific decisions and actions on the one hand, and also consider the corresponding efficiency and effectiveness on the other hand. The operational logic of the two is not completely consistent, so there is often a possibility of conflict between them. The possible conflicts are mainly reflected in the following two aspects: firstly, the goal conflict at the conceptual level, while legalism focuses more on the restriction of administrative power and the protection of public rights, which may overlook factors of efficiency; Managerialism, on the other hand, emphasizes the overall social efficiency or effect, and sometimes even strengthens the exercise of administrative power. The second is the conflict of means at the functional level. Legalism prefers the evaluation of legal norms based on procedures, while Managerialism resorts to the utilitarian calculation of costs and benefits. The two will also lead to different evaluation of behavior results in practice.
On the one hand, the management of law enforcement lies in revealing the process and mechanism of administrative organizations in the operation of administrative laws. It is pointed out that the process of law enforcement is not simply the "execution" of legislative directives, but also related to the hierarchical organizational structure and the choices of hierarchical managers in specific situations; On the other hand, it also attempts to demonstrate the integration of the roles of managers and law enforcers in public administration in the local context of China, and explore the inherent tension between them. Law enforcement management originated from American scholar Lauren Edelman's study of the overlapping process between the organizational and legal domains of enterprises from the perspective of neoinstitutionalism. She referred to the process and results of the law being shaped by the interests and concepts of organizational management as "Managerialization of Law", and demonstrated that organizations are not only the environment for legal operation, but can also act on the law in turn and have an impact on the rulemaking and operation of the law (Edelman et al., 2001; Edelman, 2007). This article extends its theoretical analysis framework to the field of government administrative management organizations. Although there are differences in goals, ownership relationships, responsibilities, and missions between public organizations and market organizations (Rosenbloom et al., 2022), the operation of the administrative organizational field still follows the logic of efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. In the process of mutual interaction between the legal field and the administrative organizational field, the phenomenon of law being managed during the execution process also occurs. Specifically, the implementation of law enforcement management mainly includes two processes: the internalization of the law organization and the reconstruction of the law by the organization.
4.1 Organizational internalization of law
The implementation of law must first be able to be internalized and absorbed by administrative organizations. The so-called organizational internalization of law refers to the process in which an organization transforms legal rules into internal regulations and effectively implements them. There are two different ways in which law enters administrative organizations. In terms of form, local government legal departments and law enforcement agencies will interpret and clarify existing laws, and then develop operable local regulations, rules, policy documents, or executable discretionary standard manuals. At the practical level, local governments will learn laws and regulations through specialized training, assessment, publicity, legal consultation, and other methods. In addition, local judicial organs, especially courts, introduce laws into administrative organizations through administrative judgments, administrative mediation, judicial advice, and other means, which is another important way for laws to be internalized into organizations. It can be seen that administrative organizations' understanding and mastery of the law are mainly transmitted through the translation of legal professional departments within the organization and external pressure from judicial organs. Due to the professionalization and complexity of law, most members and managers of organizational structures do not and cannot have a deep understanding of it, which is also the result of the differentiation of the legal system from the political system in modern society. It is worth noting that the process of legal professional departments translating laws is also the process of fully utilizing their discretion. The main factors that affect the use of discretionary power are the legal culture of administrative organizations, the legal philosophy of organizational managers, the structure and resources of organizations, and specific legal contexts. Under the combined influence of many factors, organizations can understand and apply the law.
4.2  The Reconstruction of Law by Organizations
The primary social function of administrative agencies is not to coordinate "law with facts" based on predetermined legal provisions, but to make "society work" and transform "human or other resources to achieve specific goals" (Selznick, 1969: 14-16). Therefore, administrative organizations should not only comply with the law, but also adjust the law to effectively achieve specific goals. In this adjustment process, the organization incorporates managerial elements into the law and reconstructs the form and content of the law. At this point, the actual process of management needs to be coordinated between factors such as legitimacy, efficiency, and technology. The Management by objectives of law, the management of legal organizations and the management of legal concepts mentioned above are all important ways for organizations to reconstruct law. Through the reset of goals, the reallocation of organizational resources, and the reengineering of management rhetoric, organizations have changed the goals and operations of law to varying degrees.
Not only that, the organization has also established a management based solution mechanism for legal issues. For example, when different law enforcement departments shift blame in the face of HM community violations due to unclear legal regulations, the organization solves legal issues through management coordination. In the process of demolishing illegal buildings, government departments effectively promote it not through mandatory means, but through persuasion and negotiation. Administrative organizations fully utilize various management technologies, including responsibility reversal, active mobilization, and a combination of hard and soft measures. In other words, the execution process of the law is not a simple process for law enforcement officers to implement legal instructions, but rather needs to play a role through the meaning construction and problem-solving activities of administrative organizations. This process is also the process of the organization reacting to the law and reconstructing it. It should be noted that when administrative organizations restructure the law, they also include the judiciary, mainly hoping to receive support from the judiciary to assist in resolving disputes. Here, we need to ask: why can government organizations restructure the law? What is its inherent logic and mechanism? This is related to the internal driving mechanism of the operation of China's administrative field, among which the semi autonomous legal field and the administrative organizational structure centered on the party and government are the most core factors. Specifically, there are three main aspects.
4.2.1 The ambiguity of the law leads to the construction of meaning in the organization's execution process
The meaning of legal norms itself is not always singular and clear. In the process of law enforcement, administrative subjects must interpret abstract legal norms, and the foundation and center of interpretation is the uncertain legal concepts widely existing in various regulations. (Yin Jianguo, 2009:59) In the field of administrative law, there are a large number of uncertain legal concepts with semantic ambiguity and polysemy characteristics. Due to its inherent uncertainty, administrative organizations have corresponding subjective space when interpreting laws, and can incorporate the organization's internal goals, concepts, etc. into the interpretation of laws. On the specific implementation path, administrative organizations can construct the meaning of law in various ways: firstly, based on specific legal principles and rules, administrative organizations can incorporate internal management factors into the process of formulating specific and detailed rules; Second, within the scope of legal authorization, administrative organizations can make full use of their management functions to mobilize the resources of different departments to achieve their specific purposes. For example, Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the China gives local people's governments at or above the county level the right to instruct relevant departments to take measures such as sealing up construction sites and forced demolition, among which the relevant departments need to be determined according to the organizational structure and specific circumstances of the local government. This also provides the possibility for government organizations to combine different local situations and mobilize various organizational resources for law enforcement. Thirdly, in the absence of corresponding provisions in legal rules, administrative organizations can respond to different situations by creating rules. These rules may or may not be legal, but they are effective means to address problems. And its legality or otherwise requires subsequent legality review to determine. In summary, regardless of the situation, the inherent uncertainty of the law provides the possibility for organizations to incorporate managerial factors into the execution process.
4.2.2 The subcontracting system of administrative management methods leads to the absorption of law enforcement by management
From a superficial perspective, the bureaucratic system of the Chinese government has similarities with Weber's bureaucratic system, but its core is to operate through an administrative contract system mechanism. The administrative contract letting system is a multi-level contract letting relationship within the government organization, in which the contract letting party, as the superior authority, has absolute authority (such as personnel control, supervision, approval) and residual control (unrestricted veto and Interposition), and the contractor has full executive power and discretion. In terms of assessing and controlling contractors, the administrative contracting system adopts a contracting responsibility system, where local government managers are responsible for all matters within their jurisdiction, while higher-level governments mainly assess the completion of specific indicators as the core (Zhou Li'an, 2014). Under this institutional model, administrative law enforcement, as a public service, also belongs to one of the contracted matters by local governments, and both the establishment of law enforcement personnel, allocation of law enforcement resources, and supervision and assessment of law enforcement personnel are embedded in the operation of the entire administrative organization. Law enforcement should not only be able to handle various law enforcement matters, but also take into account the governance needs of the entire government organization. If the normal law enforcement process mainly relies on the compliance of law enforcement personnel, then various sports law enforcement, specialized law enforcement, and participation in comprehensive social rectification in practice need to include law enforcement personnel in the path of administrative management in order to be understood. Therefore, in order to complete the contracting task, local governments need to integrate law enforcement personnel and law enforcement systems into the entire management system to achieve the integration of social order. Therefore, both law enforcement agencies and specific law enforcers will be absorbed by the internal goals, incentives, and assessment mechanisms of administrative organizations, providing a possible mechanism for law enforcement management. In the aforementioned case, the operation of the administrative contracting system enables district government leaders to use organizational resources through special rectification to achieve effective law enforcement against large-scale illegal construction.

4.2.3 The management rhetoric of administrative organizations leads to the reconstruction of law enforcement concepts
Law enforcers should adhere to the leadership of the Party in the process of implementing the law, and on the other hand, be able to "enforce the law for the people", that is, while comprehensively promoting strict and standardized law enforcement, they should "focus on improving the satisfaction of the people, strive to make the people see a clear and upright attitude in every law enforcement behavior, and feel fairness and justice in every law enforcement decision". This means that when the rigidity of the law is inconsistent with the satisfaction of the people, it is necessary to adjust the formal rationality and procedural rules of the law, and enforce the law through interpretation and reasoning, persuasion and education, in order to gain more understanding from the people. It can be seen that law enforcement agencies attempt to integrate the formal rationality and substantive rationality of the law, transforming the mutual opposition between law enforcers and law enforcement objects into negotiations and bargaining between the two, in order to achieve a satisfactory "consensus" between both parties and ultimately achieve the unity of legal and social effects. In this way, the legal/illegal binary code becomes a coordination mechanism with multiple possibilities. In other words, China's law enforcement is a process of seeking Pragmatism Consensus (Zouridis, 2011) between law enforcers and law enforcement objects. Therefore, the rhetoric of administrative ethics provides purposeful integration and guidance for the operation of law and management, while legality needs to be subordinate to the substantive needs that satisfy the people. In the process of illegal building demolition in this article, the attention paid to the petition of illegal construction households and the signing of demolition assistance agreements are all aimed at reaching a consensus with them to successfully achieve the demolition of illegal buildings.
5、 The impact of law enforcement management
An important shift in the current reform of administrative law enforcement is to combine the role of "monitor" and "manager" of the law, emphasizing the compliance of administrative organizations with legal rules and the effective allocation of organizational resources, achieving the organic unity of efficiency, effectiveness, and legality of legal enforcement (Shen Kui, 2016). This shift will further promote the effective integration of law and management, and also further promote the trend of law enforcement management. Although law enforcement management is beneficial for improving law enforcement efficiency and strengthening the legitimacy of administrative organizations, it also faces shortcomings such as reduced legal norms and weakened law enforcement authority. Only by having a profound understanding of its potential impact can we make effective responses in deepening the reform of the administrative law enforcement system.
5.1 Law enforcement management helps to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement
In the process of law enforcement, if law enforcers strictly pursue formal rationality, they may fall into mechanical application of norms and result in improper punishment, mutual responsibility shifting, and other phenomena, leading to low effectiveness of law enforcement. Therefore, modern administrative rule of law has gradually emphasized the addition of purpose elements on the basis of formal rational law, and coordinated and guaranteed through methods such as proportional principles and procedural mechanisms, making it open and flexible. Guided by the elements of purpose, specific law enforcement needs to choose more effective methods among feasible goals and means, so the requirement for law enforcement efficiency has become one of the key considerations. From this perspective, law enforcement management helps to achieve the elements of legal objectives, that is, by transforming legal objectives into organizational objectives, administrative organizations can fully mobilize various resources within the organization to more effectively achieve their goals and tasks. Especially when law enforcement matters become a key or central task confirmed by administrative organizations, the organization can break down departmental barriers, coordinate different organizations and legal resources, break through obstacles that affect legal enforcement, and utilize various management technologies to concentrate efforts to complete specific tasks in a short period of time. In this process, administrative organizations will ensure effective supervision and incentives for specific executors through strict accountability and assessment, enabling faster and better implementation of the legal objectives of "contracting".
5.2 Law enforcement management can strengthen the legitimacy of organizations
The institutional school emphasizes the impact of standardized environments on organizational structure and behavior, and the pursuit of legitimacy is an important driving force for organizations to respond to the environment (Zhou Xueguang, 2003). Legitimacy not only refers to the role of legal systems, but also includes the impact of institutional environments such as cultural systems, conceptual systems, and social expectations on organizational behavior. For the construction of a rule of law government, the most effective way for administrative organizations to obtain legitimacy is to incorporate their own operations into the track of legal rules. In order to achieve the legalization of public administration, the power structure, scope, operation mode, and procedures of administrative organizations need to comply with corresponding legal provisions. When administrative organizations can conduct public management in accordance with legal norms, they can provide a reasonable expectation for the public and objectively increase their legitimacy. On the contrary, if an administrative organization violates legal provisions, it will not only face the risk of administrative reconsideration or litigation, but may also reduce the public's trust in the government. Therefore, the legal structure within the organization helps to strengthen its legitimacy. On the specific construction path, administrative organizations need to establish rules and regulations that are consistent with legal rules internally, and at the same time, ensure that the procedural and substantive elements of the law are met in the process of implementing rules; On the other hand, the operation of an organization also needs to meet the normative expectations of the public (including law enforcement targets) in order to gain recognition of its subjectivity. Therefore, when the content and concepts of the law are internalized and reshaped in the management process, it can objectively promote the legitimacy and legitimacy of administrative organizations.
5.3 Law enforcement management will eliminate the standardization of the law
In the process of understanding and applying the law, administrative organizations will choose different coping strategies based on specific situations, including compliance with the law, avoidance of the law, manipulation of the law, and resistance to the law. Among them, the application of some strategies will dissolve the normative nature of the law to varying degrees, making the law a means to achieve specific purposes, thus ignoring the inherent value of the law. For example, in the illegal demolition plan implemented in 2015, the disguised increase in compensation for illegal construction households is an example. Although the special rectification team can alleviate the opposing emotions of illegal construction households and achieve negotiated law enforcement by providing compensation, this objectively violates the legal provisions of no compensation for illegal construction and dispels the normative nature of the law. Moreover, when too much emphasis is placed on the satisfaction of law enforcement counterparts in the law enforcement process, law enforcers often resort to various compromises and bargaining methods to enforce the law, leading to a process where both parties reach a consensus. This objectively leads to the loss of the legal decision-making power based on coercion by law enforcement officials, placing them in a relatively weak position between managers and law enforcement objects, which is not conducive to the realization of legal norms. In addition, when law enforcement agencies need to solve difficult issues in public affairs in the short term, they will inevitably face significant management pressure. Law enforcers may use various informal means of operation to achieve their law enforcement goals, leading to unfair law enforcement and even rent-seeking corruption, which can also undermine the fairness and openness of the law. Therefore, how to promote the integration of law and management while ensuring legal standardization is an important issue currently facing us.
6、 Conclusion
Law enforcement management is the result of the interaction between organizational and legal fields. Although new administrative management or changes in the system of administrative law emphasize the integration of law and management to varying degrees, there has been no in-depth discussion on how the two can be integrated. Moreover, there is a lack of attention to the operational mechanism of China's public administration practice behind the relevant discussions. In fact, due to differences in political systems and the process of rule of law, there are significant differences in the theory and practice of public administration between China and European and American countries. Correspondingly, the ways and effects of integrating management and law also differ. While strengthening the construction of administrative rule of law, we not only focus on the legitimacy of administrative management, but also emphasize the efficiency and effectiveness of the management process, such as the comprehensive administrative law enforcement reform that is being promoted with the goal of sinking law enforcement forces. This article analyzes a case of illegal building demolition and reveals the phenomenon of law enforcement management in which the legal operation logic is decomposed and reconstructed by the management logic during this process. As a conceptual model, law enforcement management is a conceptual description of how administrative organizations perceive and understand the law, where decision-makers can achieve legal management through goal setting, organizational restructuring, management rhetoric, and other means.
The emergence of law enforcement management is related to the composition and operational characteristics of the entire bureaucratic organization, as well as the position of the legal field in the power field. Administrative law enforcers are also managers or subjects in the administrative organizational structure, and the effectiveness of legal enforcement is related to how law enforcers choose between legality and efficiency/purpose within specific organizational goals, performance, resources, and assessment limitations. Whether it is normal law enforcement or sporty law enforcement, administrative organizations tend to complete specific tasks through project contracting. When organizational resources are limited and legal and social effects are emphasized, law enforcers often implement law enforcement through various formal or informal means.
The analysis of the process of law enforcement management in this article indicates that there is a complex interactive relationship between administrative laws and administrative organizations. Law is not an external variable of the organization, but needs to be internalized within the organization in order to play its role. Although administrative related laws and regulations provide a structural framework for organizational operation, their implementation requires internalization, decomposition, and reconstruction of the organization. The internalized laws may promote the legitimacy of organizational operation and improve law enforcement efficiency, but may also lead to the dissolution of legal norms and the weakening of law enforcement decision-making power.
This article attempts to deepen the understanding of the complexity of the law enforcement process by studying how organizations transform laws, but there are also many limitations. Firstly, this study attempts to propose "law enforcement management" to reveal the process of law being absorbed by administrative organizations in China's administrative law enforcement process. Although the definition, form, and internal mechanism of this concept have been proposed, there are still some shortcomings in the polishing of the concept. Secondly, at the level of empirical facts, this article mainly focuses on analyzing a case. Whether the proposed analytical framework and main viewpoints have universal explanatory power for current legal enforcement issues in China still requires more experience accumulation. This study is only a preliminary exploration. Thirdly, at the theoretical and logical level, whether law enforcement management is a phased phenomenon or a long-term model also requires more in-depth analysis. This study has not yet launched a discussion on this issue and needs further improvement.