Evaluating China’s Common Prosperity Policies against the Background of Green Development by Using the PMC Model

Abstract

Green development is the background of common prosperity and is important for the sustainable development of China. The purpose of this paper is to quantitatively evaluate China’s common prosperity policies to understand the advantages and disadvantages of common prosperity policies. In this paper, 15 representative common prosperity policies are research subjects, and this study uses the PMC (Policy Modeling Consistency) index method to assess the quality of common prosperity policies in China. This study, firstly, finds that the average value of the 15 common prosperity policies is 6.47, evaluated as a good grade. Secondly, 80% of policies are evaluated as a good or excellent grade, which means that the quality of the policy making of 80% of policies is at least good. Except for policy prescription, policy subject and policy incentive, the values of other first-level indicators are all greater than six, indicating that the Chinese government’s formulation level of common prosperity policies is relatively high. Thirdly, among fifteen common prosperity policies, one policy is evaluated as a perfect grade (quality of policy making is very good), four policies are evaluated as excellent (quality of policy making is better than required), eight policies are evaluated as good (quality of policy making is good) and two policies are evaluated as bad (quality of policy making is bad). Fourthly, by drawing figures composed of PMC curves, this paper analyzes common prosperity policies of different grades. Finally, some suggestions are proposed in this study to improve China’s common prosperity policies.

1. Introduction

Since the late 1970s, the economic development mode of China has shifted from planned economy to market economy; as such, a large amount of foreign investment has entered China, with China gradually becoming the factory of the world. The Chinese government has adopted appropriate policies to develop economically, which has led to the scale of China’s economy being only smaller than that of the United States, and China’s per capita GDP exceeding $12,000 in 2022 [1]. In addition, with the popularization of the internet, along with the development of big data, artificial intelligence and other technologies, China’s digital economy has developed fast and has gradually become an important driving force for China’s economic development. In 2021, China’s digital economy reached 45.5 trillion yuan, accounting for 39.8% of China’s GDP [2]. At the same time, the regional imbalance in China’s economy is becoming more and more prominent, especially the economic development gap between China’s eastern region and western region, which is large. For example, in 2022, Beijing’s per capita GDP was 4.5 times that of Gansu Province [3]. Because of the unreasonable and unsustainable economic development mode of China, many problems have arisen; for example, the number of left-behind children has soared, the crime rate has increased and fertility rate has declined. Among these problems, environmental pollution problems and income inequality have caused wide concern among the public. Taking the environmental pollution problem as an example, studies have found that the increase in coarse dust particles in the Huaihe River Basin in China has resulted in a decrease in the average life expectancy of 3.1 years for people north of the Huaihe River from 1981 to 2012 [4]. Serious pollution not only reduces people’s happiness, but also exacerbates income inequality, as people in the middle and bottom classes are more likely to fall into poverty because of environmental pollution. China’s Gini coefficient, which is used to measure income inequality, exceeded 0.45 in 2022 [5]. Severe environmental pollution and a widening income gap have directly undermined the credibility of the Chinese government and fueled discontent with it. In order to cope with environmental pollution, the Chinese central government proposed the implementation of green development in 2015, requiring local governments to upgrade their economic development mode, support the development of technology enterprises and reduce environmental pollution. In addition, in order to deal with the problem of income inequality, the Chinese central government required local Chinese governments to implement the concept of common prosperity. The Chinese government proposed to take 30 years to realize common prosperity. It can be found that, on the one hand, local Chinese governments are required to implement green development to reduce environmental pollution and increase people’s happiness. On the other hand, local Chinese governments are also required to reduce income inequality while promoting economic development to bring more benefits to all people and realize common prosperity. In order to achieve these two goals, a large number of policies related to green development and common prosperity have been formulated. Since the concept of green development was proposed earlier than the concept of common prosperity, green development can be regarded as the background of common prosperity. In other words, the Chinese government needs to implement both green development and common prosperity by using a variety of policy tools.

The formulation of policies related to common prosperity is one of the main ways for the Chinese government to promote common prosperity. Therefore, this paper assesses the quality of common prosperity policies. Evaluating China’s common prosperity policies scientifically is beneficial in order to understand them and provide a basis for improving them. Therefore, this paper makes a quantitative evaluation of 15 common prosperity policies issued by the Chinese government. The structure of this paper is as follows: The Section 2 is a literature review, which reviews related research. The Section 3 is the design of this paper, which introduces policy samples, the PMC index model, the evaluation index system and the evaluation grades of common prosperity policies. The Section 4 is the results of this paper, including calculated PMC index values and figures drawn from PMC curves of common prosperity policies. The Section 5 is the conclusions of this study, which summarizes this study and proposes suggestions to improve common prosperity policies.

2. Literature Review

This study reviews references related to green development, common prosperity and public policy assessment.

Firstly, the study of green development originates from people’s thinking about the relationship between humans and nature. Due to the progress of human productivity, large amounts of natural resources are consumed, which leads to a lot of environmental problems occurring. Because of this, humans begin to think about the relationship between humans and nature and propose green development. Nowadays, much research about green development is focused on assessing green development and analyzing the influencing factors. As far as the assessment of green development, many scholars selected indicators to design an index system of green development, and then used some methods such as the entropy weight method, data envelopment method and principal component analysis method to evaluate green development in different countries and different industries. For example, Cuiyun and Chazhong firstly selected some indicators to design an index system and evaluated the green development level of 49 countries by using a multi-level linear summing method, and found that the green development level presents a ladder-like distribution decreased from western to eastern points [6]. Yang et al. used the data envelopment method (DEA) to evaluate the green development efficiency of China from 2008 to 2012, found that there were large regional differences and proposed suggestions to reduce the regional differences in green development efficiency [7]. In terms of the research about influencing factors, Zhou et al. analyzed the influence mechanism of urban green development efficiency and found that the impact of human factors on urban green development efficiency is greater than the impact of natural factors on urban green development efficiency [8]. Chen et al. used an analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the industrial green development of China and analyzed relevant factors affecting industrial green development, and found that the heavy chemical industry is harmful to industrial green development and that enterprise size has no relationship with industrial green development [9].

Secondly, the study about common prosperity originates from people’s reflection on income inequality. Nowadays, much research about common prosperity is carried out by Chinese scholars. This is because China is socialist country and the problem of income inequality is occurring in China. Therefore, controlling income inequality and increasing the income of low-income groups to then achieve common prosperity has become a focus in China. At present, the research about common prosperity mainly focuses on designing the index system and then evaluating common prosperity by using quantitative methods. For example, Zhang and Wang et al. selected 14 indicators to assess the common prosperity in rural China using a graded response method; they found that choosing appropriate indicators was the key to evaluating common prosperity [10]. In addition, some scholars not only measured the level of common prosperity, but also analyzed the relationship between the digital economy and common prosperity, as well as the mechanism between them, and found that the digital economy in eastern and western China can promote the level of common prosperity [11]. Wan and Chen defined common prosperity and measured common prosperity by using per capita gross national income and the Gini coefficient of per capita disposable income [12]. Xie et al. not only selected indicators to measure common prosperity, but also analyzed the influencing factors of common prosperity and found that there are many factors affecting common prosperity, among which per capita GDP had the greatest impact on common prosperity [13]. In addition to the assessment of common prosperity and analysis of influencing factors, some scholars put forward suggestions to achieve common prosperity [14,15].

Finally, there are three different types of policy assessment: pre-assessment, in-process assessment and post-assessment [16]. Many scholars used qualitative methods to conduct a post-evaluation of public policies, but few conducted a pre-evaluation and in-process evaluation of public policies. For example, Ding reviewed China’s land policy reform, analyzed the prospects and challenges of China’s land reform policy, and investigated its impact on urban development and land use [17]. Nowadays, the subjective problem regarding the qualitative evaluation results of public policy has become increasingly prominent [18]. Therefore, the quantitative evaluation of public policy has been adopted by more and more scholars to overcome the subjective problems that exist in this evaluation. One of the more famous studies was Kreif et al., who evaluated health policies by using a synthetic control method and compared the difference between the synthetic control method and the double difference method [19]. Lin and Zhu used the method of differences-in-difference to study the policy effect of the emission reduction policy, and found that the emission reduction policy not only reduced environmental pollution, but also did not have a negative impact on economic development [20].

Existing research about policy evaluation mostly focuses on the post-evaluation of public policy, while there are very few research studies on the pre-evaluation of public policy, and there is little research linking green development and common prosperity. The high-quality policy of common prosperity is a prerequisite for promoting common prosperity. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to assess the quality of the common prosperity policy against the background of green development to promote the research of common prosperity.

3. Research Design

3.1. Policy Sample

This study aims to assess the policy quality regarding common prosperity. Therefore, the data of this paper are the common prosperity policies of China. Firstly, 40 related policies were collected, but some informal policy texts such as letters with weak relevance were excluded. Finally, 15 common prosperity policies were collected as the data sources of this paper, and they were issued after 2020 (see

Table 1. 15 policy samples of common prosperity.

Policy Code	Policy Name	Issued Date
N1	The opinions about support Zhejiang to promote common prosperity.	20 May 2021
N2	The opinions about support for Zhejiang construct a demonstration area of common prosperity by financial
N3	The notice about support Zhejiang province in exploring and innovating to build a provincial model for common prosperity by fiscal	24 November 2021
N4	The notice on distributing measures to support the revitalization and development of relatively weak towns in old revolutionary base areas and promote common prosperity	15 November 2022
N5	The opinions on the handling of suggestions on improving the efficiency of Shandong’s financial support for common prosperity under the new development concept	31 August 2022
N6	The notice about the action plan to benefit the people, improve quality and promote common prosperity (2022–2025)	6 January 2022
N7	Notice about implement for promoting high-quality development and building common prosperity demonstration zone in the field of human and social affairs of Zhejiang province (2021–2025)	16 July 2021
N8	The notice on accelerating the construction of a new citizen financial service system, promoting peace, contentment and work and contributing to common prosperity	9 December 2022
⋮	⋮	⋮
N14	The implementation opinions on optimizing and innovating farmland protection mechanism to promote common prosperity of the whole city	11 November 2022
N15	The notice on building high-quality cultural highlands in the new era and promote common prosperity (2021–2025)	3 November 2021

).

3.2. Introducing the PMC Index Model

The model of the PMC index (Policy Modeling Consistency) is used to analyze policy by measuring internal consistency, supposing all variables have the same status and all variables are included. The biggest difference between the PMC method and other policy evaluation methods is that the PMC method is based on policy itself and analyzes the content of the policy. By evaluating the consistency of policy content, the decision-maker can find the advantages and disadvantages of policy content. Other policy evaluation methods are mainly used to analyze the effect of policy implementation. Therefore, the PMC method does not involve the analysis of policy implementation, policy coordination and the relationship between different policies. This paper selected 15 policies of common prosperity as the research object and adopted the PMC index model to assess the common prosperity policy, and the process was as follows.

Firstly, we determined the value of all secondary variables of the common prosperity policy evaluation index system by using Formulas (1) and (2). If the second-level indicators of the common prosperity policy met the criteria of assignment (see

Table 2. Indicators for assessing common prosperity policy.

Firstly Index	Secondly Index
Y1 (Policy nature)	Y1.1 (Supervise), Y1.2 (Suggest), Y1.3 (Forecast)
Y2 (Policy function)	Y2.1 (Guidance), Y2.2 (Cooperative), Y2.3 (Supervision), Y2.4 (Coordination)
Y3 (Policy timeliness)	Y3.1 (short-term), Y3.2 (medium-term), Y3.3 (long-term)
Y4 (Content evaluation)	Y4.1 (Detailed planning), Y4.2 (Specific goal), Y4.3 (Scientific program), Y4.4 (Distinctive feature)
Y5 (Social benefits)	Y5.1 (Environmental protection), Y5.2 (Green development), Y5.3 (Circular economy)
Y6 (Policy subjects)	Y6.1 (Central government), Y6.2 (National ministries and commissions)
Y7 (Policy incentive)	Y7.1 (Tax incentives), Y7.2 (Financial subsidy), Y7.3 (Talent support)
Y8 (Policy object)	Y8.1 (industry), Y8.2 (Enterprise, Y8.3 (Relevant department)
Y9 (Implementation guarantee)	Y9.1 (Rule of law), Y9.2 (Social supervision)
Y10 (Policy disclosure)	Y9.3 (Technological innovation)

), the value of second-level indicators was assigned 1; otherwise, it was assigned 0. Secondly, we calculated the first-level indicators using Formula (3). Finally, the PMC index value of common prosperity policy was calculated by Formula (4).

$$M:N\left[0\sim 1\right]$$

(1)

$$M=\left\{PR:[0\sim 1\left.]\right\}\right.$$

(2)

$$M_i={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{h=1}^n\frac{M_{ij}}{T\left(M_{ij}\right)}$$

(3)

where j = 1,2,3, … n and i are first-level variables and h is a second-level variable.

$$PMC=\left[\begin{array}{c}{M}_1\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{a=1}^3\frac{P_{1j}}{3}\right)+M_2\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{b=1}^4\frac{P_{2j}}{4}\right)+M_3\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{c=1}^3\frac{P_{3j}}{3}\right)+\\ M_4\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{d=1}^4\frac{P_{4j}}{4}\right)+M_5\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{e=1}^3\frac{P_{5j}}{3}\right)+M_6\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{f=1}^3\frac{P_{6j}}{3}\right)+\\ M_7\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{g=1}^3\frac{P_{7j}}{3}\right)+M_8\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{h=1}^3\frac{P_{8j}}{3}\right)+M_9\left({\displaystyle \sum }_{k=1}^3\frac{P_{9j}}{3}\right)+M_{10}\end{array}\right]$$

(4)

3.3. Designing an Assessment Index System of Common Prosperity Policies

The scientific design index system of common prosperity policy is the most important part of the PMC index model; it determined the success of this research. This paper firstly referred to Estrada’s research and related studies [21,22], and then sorted out the sample of common prosperity policy and finally designed an evaluation index system of the common prosperity policy. The index system of the common prosperity policy is shown in Table 2.

The purpose of the PMC method is to evaluate whether the contents of policy are comprehensive. Figure 1 shows the relationship between different policy characteristics. Firstly, the process of implementing the common prosperity policy, policy nature, policy timeliness, policy subject and policy object can affect the policy implementation effects [23]. Secondly, due to the differences in the subjects and fields of policies, the contents about policy functions, policy incentives and policy guarantees are different, which means that the formulation of the policy is more distinctive and targeted [23]. Finally, the key point of policy evaluation is to consider whether the social benefits brought by policy implementation and the formulation contents are comprehensive and feasible [23].

3.4. Calculating PMC Index Value and Determining the Evaluation Grade of Policy

Once the assessment index system of common prosperity policy is designed, the value of each common prosperity policy can be calculated according to Formulas (1)–(4). Before calculating the value of the policy, the second-level index values of each policy should be determined. For example, policy N₁ has the recommendation feature, so the value of Y_1.2 in policy N₁ is determined to be 1; policy N₄ does not have the supervision feature, so the value of Y_1.1 in policy N₄ is determined to be 0. Using the combined PMC index values of 15 common prosperity policies and the study of Dai et al., the assessment grade of each common prosperity policy can be determined [23]. The evaluation grade is shown in

Table 3. The grade of policy evaluation.

PMC Index Value	0 ≤ Value < 5	5 ≤ Value < 7	7 ≤ Value < 9	9 ≤ Value < 10
Grade	Bad	Good	Excellent	Perfect

.

3.5. Drawing PMC Surface

The PMC curved figure is helpful for analyzing the common prosperity policy by directly presenting the deficiencies of the common prosperity policy [24]. All common prosperity policies come from the official website of the Chinese government; they are publicly available and so the values of Y₁₀ of all common prosperity policies are 1. The other 9 first-level variables, except Y₁₀, can constitute a $3\times 3$ matrix, so the PMC curve figures can be drawn using MATLAB software. The$3\times 3$ matrix is presented in Formula (5).

$$3\times 3 \mathrm{matrix}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}{Y}_1& Y_2& X_3\\ Y_4& Y_5& Y_6\\ Y_7& Y_8& Y_9\end{array}\right]$$

(5)

4. Research Results

4.1. Calculating PMC Index Value

The binary assignment method is used in this paper to determine the values of all second-level indicators. If the secondary indicators meet the assignment criteria, the value of the indicator is assigned as 1; if the secondary indicators do not meet the assignment criteria, the value of indicator is assigned as 0. Obtaining the value of secondary index is the premise of calculating the value of policies. In order to obtain the values of all second-level indicators, we need to read all policy content. For example, through reading the contents of policy N₁, it is found that the contents of policy N₁ involve policy nature and policy nature involves supervision, and thus the indicator Y_1.1 of policy N₁ is assigned the value of 1. The values of the secondary index are shown in

Table 4. The secondary index value in the index system of common prosperity policy.

	Y1			Y2				Y3
	Y1.1	Y1.2	Y1.3	Y2.1	Y2.2	Y2.3	Y2.4	Y3.1	Y3.2	Y3.3
N1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
N2	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0
N3	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0
N4	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0
	…			…				…
N14	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0
N15	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0
	…			…				…
	Y7			Y8				Y9
	Y7.1	Y7.2	Y7.3	Y8.1	Y8.2	Y8.3		Y9.1	Y9.2	Y9.3
N1	1	1	1	1	1	1		1	1	1
N2	1	1	0	1	1	0		1	1	0
N3	1	0	0	1	1	1		1	0	1
N4	1	0	0	1	1	0		0	1	1
	…			…				…
N14	0	1	0	0	0	1		0	1	0
N15	1	0	0	1	0	1		1	0	0

.

After the values of all secondary indicators of the 15 common prosperity policies against the background of green development were determined (see Table 4), this study adopted Formula (4) to calculate the PMC index values of the 15 common prosperity policies, which is the basis of evaluating common prosperity policies. Combining Table 4 and

Table 5. The values and evaluated grades of common prosperity policy.

	Y1	Y2	Y3	Y4	Y5	Y6	Y7	Y8	Y9	Y10	PMC Index	Grade	Ranking
N1	1.00	1.00	0.67	1.00	1.00	0.33	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	9.00	Perfect	1
N2	0.67	0.50	0.33	0.75	1.00	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67	1.00	6.59	Good	9
N3	0.67	0.75	0.67	0.75	1.00	0.33	0.33	1.00	0.67	1.00	7.17	Excellent	4
N4	0.67	0.50	0.67	0.75	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.67	1.00	6.26	Good	10
N5	0.67	0.75	0.67	0.75	1.00	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.67	1.00	6.84	Good	7
N6	1.00	0.75	0.67	0.75	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.67	1.00	1.00	7.51	Excellent	2
N7	0.67	0.50	0.33	0.50	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.33	1.00	5.33	Good	13
N8	0.33	0.50	0.33	0.50	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	1.00	4.31	Bad	15
N9	0.67	0.50	0.33	0.50	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67	1.00	6.01	Good	11
N10	0.67	0.50	0.67	0.50	1.00	0.33	0.67	1.00	0.33	1.00	6.67	Good	8
N11	1.00	0.50	0.33	0.75	1.00	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67	1.00	6.92	Good	6
N12	0.67	0.75	0.67	1.00	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67	1.00	7.10	Excellent	5
N13	0.67	0.75	0.33	0.75	1.00	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67	1.00	7.18	Excellent	3
N14	0.33	0.50	0.33	0.50	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	1.00	4.65	Bad	14
N15	0.33	0.75	0.33	0.50	0.67	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.33	1.00	5.58	Good	12
Mean value	0.67	0.63	0.49	0.68	0.80	0.38	0.53	0.69	0.60	1.00	6.47	Good	-

, the PMC index values of the 15 common prosperity policies can be calculated and the assessment grade can be determined, which is helpful in order to analyze common prosperity policies (see Table 5).

Table 5 not only shows the values of the PMC index of 15 common prosperity policies, but also the values of the first-level index in the 15 common prosperity policy evaluation index. The specific analysis was conducted as follows.

Table 5 shows that the average value of the PMC index of 15 common prosperity policies is 6.4. Except for indicator Y₁₀, the average values of the other 9 indicators are 0.67, 0.63, 0.49, 0.68, 0.80, 0.38, 0.53, 0.69 and 0.60. Among the 15 common prosperity policies, one policy was evaluated as perfect grade, four policies were evaluated as excellent grade, nine policies were evaluated as good grade and two policies were evaluated as bad grade. There were 12 common prosperity policies evaluated as excellent or good grade, accounting for 80% of all common prosperity policies, indicating that the overall level of the 15 common prosperity policies is relatively high, and that the policy formulation is scientific. Among the 15 common prosperity policies, the value of policy N₁ is 9.0 which is the highest among all policies, and the evaluation grade of policy N₁ is perfect. Policy N₁ is “The opinions about support Zhejiang to promote common prosperity” issued by CPC Central Committee and The State Council. In policy N₁, except for indicator Y₆, the values of the other indicators are relatively high. Among the 15 common prosperity policies, N₈ has the lowest PMC index value. The value of policy N₈ is 4.31, and the evaluation grade of policy N₈ is bad. The value of policy N₁ is 4.69, which is higher than the value of policy N₈. Policy N₈ is “The notice on accelerating the construction of a new citizen financial service system, promoting peace, contentment and work and contributing to common prosperity” issued by Chongqing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau Office. In policy N₈, except for indicator Y₁₀, the values of the other indicators are lower than the average values of the 15 secondary indicators of the common prosperity policy; this means policy N₈ needs to be improved. Among the 15 common prosperity policies, except for index Y₁₀ (policy disclosure), the average values of index Y₆ and Y₇ are relatively low, indicating that the contents of policy subject (Y₆) and policy incentive (Y₇) of the common prosperity policy need to be improved. The values of indicator Y₁₀ of all common prosperity policies are 1. This is because the 15 common prosperity policies are all available on the official website of the Chinese government.

To sum up, Table 5 shows that the PMC index values of 15 common prosperity policies against the background of green development are quite different. Besides the index Y₁₀, the values of the other 9 first-level indexes of the 15 common prosperity policies are also quite different.

4.2. Quantitative Evaluation of Common Prosperity Policies by Drawing PMC Curve Figure

This paper comprehensively considers policy evaluation grade, policy representation and the differences in policy subjects. Four policies are selected as the policy samples for analysis. In this study, the values of index Y₁, index Y₂, index Y₃, indexY₄, indexY₅, index Y₆, index Y₇, index Y₈ and index Y₉ in policy P₁, policy P₃, policy P₁₇ and policy P₁₄ were selected to construct a 3 × 3 matrix. Then, MATLAB software was used to draw the PMC curve figures of the common prosperity policies (see Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). In Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, the raised part (red) on the figure represents a higher value of first-order index corresponding to a common prosperity policy and the sunken part (blue) represents a lower value of first-order index corresponding to a common prosperity policy. From the values of the first-order variable in Table 5 and the combined PMC curve figures, this paper can analyze the common prosperity policies more comprehensively.

The PMC index value of policy N₁ is 9, which ranks first among the 15 common prosperity policies against the background of green development and is evaluated as perfect grade. This indicates that the internal consistency of policy N₁ is at a relatively high state. Policy N₁ is “The opinions about support Zhejiang to promote common prosperity” issued by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council in 2021. Policy N₁ aims to make substantial progress in building a demonstration area of common prosperity of Zhejiang province by promoting high-quality development before 2025, and to make greater achievements in high-quality development in Zhejiang province by 2035. In order to achieve these goals, policy N₁ requires Zhejiang to improve the ecological environment, narrow the development gap among different areas, deepen the distribution system, and improve the quality of economic development and other aspects. The depression part in Figure 2 is little, which indicates that the internal consistency level of policy N₁ is high on the whole. From Table 5, it can be found in policy N₁, except for index Y₆, that the other values of the first-level index are higher than the first-level index values of the other 14 common prosperity policies and only the value of Y₆ of N₁ is 0.33. This indicates that policy N₁ needs to be adjusted in policy subjects (Y₆).

The PMC index value of policy N₃ is 7.17, which ranks 4th among the 15 common prosperity policies against the background of green development and was evaluated as excellent grade. Policy N₃ is “The notice about support Zhejiang province in exploring and innovating to build a provincial model for common prosperity by fiscal” issued by the Ministry of Finance in 2021. The goal of policy N₃ is to portray the function of finance and to support Zhejiang to create a provincial model of fiscal promotion for common prosperity. Policy N₃ emphasizes that the financial department of Zhejiang province should study and implement fiscal reward and punishment policies for achieving carbon peak and carbon neutrality, linking the completion of energy consumption intensity and carbon emission intensity index with financial fund reward and punishment. In addition, policy N₃ emphasizes that the Ministry of Finance should focus on energy and other key areas, support Zhejiang to implement fiscal policies, and strive to provide solid support for achieving carbon peak and carbon neutrality. The values of Y₆ and Y₇ in policy N₃ are 0.33, lower than the other 8 indicators, indicating that policy N₃ has deficiencies in policy subject (Y₆) and policy incentive (Y₇). In addition, the area of the concave (blue) surface in Figure 3 is significantly larger than that of the concave (blue) surface in Figure 2, but the area of the convex (red) surface in Figure 2 is larger than that of concave (blue) surface, which indicates that the internal consistency level of policy N₃ is relatively high.

The PMC index value of policy N₇ is 5.33, which ranks 13th among the 15 common prosperity policies against the background of green development and was thus evaluated as good grade. Policy N₇ is “The notice about implement for promoting high-quality development and building common prosperity demonstration zone in the field of human and social affairs of Zhejiang province (2021–2025)” issued by the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security in 2021. The goal of policy N₇ is to promote more adequate and high-quality employment in Zhejiang, and promote common prosperity through high-quality employment. It can be found from Table 5 that the values of index Y₃ (policy prescription), Y₆ (policy subject), Y₇ (policy incentive) and Y₉ (policy guarantee) of policy N₇ are 0.33, and the values of index Y₂ (policy content) and Y₄ (policy function evaluation) are 0.5, which indicate that policy N₇ has deficiencies in these aspects. In addition, Figure 4 shows that the convex surface (red) area is significantly less than that in Figure 2 and Figure 3. In addition, the areas of convex surfaces (red) and concave surfaces (blue) in Figure 4 are almost the same, which indicate that the internal consistency level of policy N₇ is relatively low.

The PMC index value of policy N₁₄ is 4.65,which ranks 14th among the 15 common prosperity policies against the background of green development and was thus evaluated as bad grade. Policy N₁₄ is “The implementation opinions on optimizing and innovating farmland protection mechanism to promote common prosperity of the whole city” issued by the General Office of Hangzhou Government in 2022. The purpose of policy N₁₄ is to optimize and innovate the cultivated land protection mechanism of Hangzhou, create a new situation of farmland protection, and finally promote Hangzhou’s high-quality development and common prosperity. Policy N₁₄ aims to promote common prosperity by strengthening the protection of cultivated land. It can be seen from Table 5, except for indicators Y₁₀ and Y₅, that the values of the N₁₄ policy indicators are very low, indicating that policy N₄ needs to be improved in aspects other than policy openness (Y₁₀) and social benefit (Y₅). The convex surface in Figure 5 is small, which indicates that the internal consistency level of policy N₁₄ is low.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

5.1. Conclusions

Green development and common prosperity are two goals that must be achieved. The goal of the Chinese government when issuing a lot of common prosperity policies is to solve the problem of income inequality; so, a high-quality common prosperity policy is they key to solving the problem of income inequality, but the quality of common prosperity policies is unknown. This paper assesses the policy quality of common prosperity by using the PMC index model. This paper first finds the average PMC index value of 15 common prosperity policies, which is 6.47. Secondly, among the 15 common prosperity policies measured against the background of green development, 1 policy was of perfect grade, 4 policies were of excellent grade, 8 policies were of good grade and 2 policies were of poor grade. Thirdly, the design of most common prosperity policies is scientific, and the Chinese government promotes common prosperity from many aspects, such as finance, farmland protection and employment. Fourthly, the average value of variables in the 15 common prosperity policies decreases from high to low in the order: Y₁₀-Y₅-Y₈-Y₄-Y₁-Y₂-Y₉-Y₇-Y₃-Y₆.

5.2. Discussion

Among the 10 first-level indicators of the 15 common prosperity policies, the average values of indicators Y₃,Y₆ and Y₇ were relatively low and less than 6. So, this paper proposed some recommendations to improve the quality of China’s common prosperity policy. First, it is important to better align the long-term, medium-term and short-term goals of the common prosperity policy and to avoid emphasizing long-term policy goals while ignoring short-term policy goals, or vice versa. Second, the realization of common prosperity requires the coordination of multiple departments and requires the policy to be formulated by the higher administrative level government. The common prosperity policy if formulated by a government of lower administrative level is not sufficiently authoritative. Third, it is important to strengthen the incentive for formulating and implementing common prosperity policies so as to enhance the motivation for governments at all levels.

At present, there is a lot of research about policy evaluation. Most of these studies focus on evaluating the effect of policy implementation; in other words, these studies analyze the impact after policy implementation [25,26]. There are few studies evaluating the policy prior to implementation. This paper analyzes the contents of China’s common prosperity policy by using the PMC method to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the common prosperity policy; however, it does not involve the evaluation of the policy implementation effect. The most important contribution of this research is an evaluation of the quality of common prosperity policies by using quantitative methods, and the shortcoming is that only 15 policy samples were selected as the research objects. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the research samples in the future to further deepen and improve the research on common prosperity. In addition, this study can be seen as the beginning in the policy analysis, but, in the future, the study could be completed by the results of policy implementation.