Xing Xiaoxu and Li Xiaohua: Research Progress and Outlook on the Evaluation Index System for Chinese-Style Modernization
Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has developed a preliminary theoretical system for Chinese-path modernization. It has established the "Two Centenaries" [1] goals and the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" general layout, clarifying the new objectives, tasks, and requirements for Chinese-path modernization. Based on the fundamental premise, the fundamental guidance, the five major characteristics, the nine essential requirements, the five major principles, and the ultimate goal of Chinese-path modernization, constructing an index system is both an intrinsic requirement for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics and a scientific guide for advancing the great cause of national rejuvenation. The index system for Chinese-path modernization vividly reflects the strategic resolve of "drawing one blueprint to the end" [2] and the practical wisdom of "dynamic adjustment." Looking to the future, process measurement is both a practical report card of "how to view the past" and a strategic starting point for "how to act in the future." As the deployments of the 20th CPC National Congress and the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee continue to deepen, Chinese-path modernization will surely achieve higher-level collaborative advancement across all fields through incremental progress and by persisting over the long term.
The index system for Chinese-path modernization is an important scientific tool for understanding and promoting this modernization, as well as a vital guarantee for ensuring it is measurable, perceptible, accessible, and credible. As the saying goes, "without the compass and square, there are no circles or squares" [3]; without evaluation, there is no way to know progress. Chinese-path modernization is a practical process characterized by historical stages, structural interiority, and the subjectivity of the people. Establishing an index system that possesses both universal commonalities and unique characteristics can refine key elements, major aspects, and transitional conditions within the process into measurable, comparable, and trackable observation points and threshold ranges. This creates a complete closed loop of the historical, theoretical, practical, developmental, and value logics of Chinese-path modernization, driving modernization steadily forward toward higher quality, greater efficiency, increased fairness, better sustainability, and enhanced security. Constructing an evaluation framework that both embodies the essential requirements of socialist modernization and possesses international comparability has become a frontier issue in interdisciplinary research across economics, sociology, and public management.
By systematically combing through the evolution of modernization index systems both domestically and abroad, this article focuses on the theoretical logic, index selection, goal setting, and comprehensive evaluation methods of the Chinese-path modernization index system. It aims to clarify research progress and deficiencies while providing an operational research outlook for subsequent framework refinement and policy practice. The structure of the full text is as follows: Part 1 reviews the evolutionary paths and theoretical paradigms of major global modernization index systems and provides a general overview of the latest research highlights concerning the Chinese-path modernization index system; Part 2 systematically summarizes the key points of constructing the Chinese-path modernization index system from the perspectives of evaluation dimensions and index selection; Part 3 explores the goal-setting methods and comprehensive evaluation practices of the index system, comparing the applicable scenarios of various weighting and evaluation models; Part 4 proposes future research directions regarding top-level design, phased goals, and index dimensions, emphasizing a scientific focus on the multi-dimensional theoretical core, the unification of phased goal standards, and the construction of a multi-level index framework that accounts for both Chinese characteristics and international consensus.
I. Review of Domestic and International Research
(1) Research Progress of Global Modernization Index Systems
Against the backdrop of "changes unseen in a century" [4], global modernization index systems have undergone a profound transformation from industrial-economic modernization to multi-dimensional collaborative modernization.
In the early 20th century, profound changes in the global political, economic, and cultural landscape prompted the academic community to reflect on the connotation and path of modernization, laying the preliminary foundation for the composition of global modernization index systems. In the mid-to-late 20th century, following initial explorations of quantitative evaluation, "post-modernization index systems" gradually emerged. These pushed the evaluation perspective of modernization from a singular focus on economic growth toward a more comprehensive multi-dimensional analysis that considers social structure, cultural change, and political institutional reform. The "new modernization index systems" of the early 21st century further expanded the critical roles of global value chains, information technology, and the ecological environment within modernization theory and index systems.
Since the 20th century, different theoretical schools have proposed modernization paths led by economy, society, politics, and culture, providing qualitative frameworks for early modernization index systems. Regarding the economic dimension, Rostow divided modernization into five stages: traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, maturity, and the age of high mass consumption, emphasizing that industrialization and capital accumulation are the core forces driving social transformation. On the social dimension, Parsons' social systems theory viewed modernization as a process of functional differentiation and reintegration, focusing on the mobility and adaptability of social structures. The political dimension is represented by Huntington's theory of political modernization, which highlights the key roles of political participation, the rule of law, and governance capacity in modern transformation. From the cultural perspective, Weber used the Protestant ethic to explain the promotional effect of value reform on industrialization, injecting cultural variables into modernization research. On this basis, starting from the mid-to-late 20th century, the international academic community gradually quantified these qualitative frameworks into operational index systems. For example, the Hakone Conference model proposed seven major areas: industrialization, urbanization, marketization, democratization, social mobility, cultural heritage, and political participation. The Levy model further emphasized the non-linear evolutionary characteristics of the interaction between social organizational specialization, bureaucratization, and ethical concepts. In terms of quantitative practice, the Inkeles system was the first to systematically include economic, social, and health indicators; the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) introduced the Human Development Index (HDI) to assess national development levels through life expectancy, years of schooling, and gross national income per capita. Although these index systems laid the methodological foundation for modernization index research, they were limited by the development stage of the time; most ignored emerging dimensions such as the ecological environment, the information society, and infrastructure, and suffered from problems such as low standards and imperfect methodological norms. There is an urgent need to achieve theoretical updates and framework reconstruction in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
With the deepening of the globalization process and the advancement of the sustainable development agenda, the diversity of modernization paths dictates the inclusiveness and forward-looking nature of modernization index systems. In this context, "new modernization index systems" have gradually broken through traditional economic and social development categories, beginning to include elements such as the environment, culture, and social diversity. Some international organizations have also begun using terms like "sustainable" and "development" to replace or expand the original "modernization" conceptual framework. For example, in September 2000, the UN Millennium Summit established the "UN Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs) centered on eliminating extreme poverty, universalizing primary education, promoting gender equality, and reducing child mortality, covering 8 dimensions and 22 specific indicators. Building on this, the World Bank continuously monitors national performance in areas such as population, environment, economy, governance, and global ties, constructing a "World Development Indicators" system containing 20 dimensions and approximately 1,500 indicators. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) followed suit by releasing a country profile index system covering over 100 indicators across 12 dimensions, including economic growth, education, employment, social welfare, and energy. In 2015, the United Nations adopted the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," establishing 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) covering economic, social, and environmental fields with a total of more than 200 specific indicators. This system reflects the diversified characteristics of new modernization index systems—for instance, Goal 3 focuses on health and well-being, Goal 13 on climate action, and Goal 16 on peace and justice. Furthermore, global modernization index systems continue to deepen at specific field and regional levels, such as the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), the UN Competitive Industrial Performance (CIP) index system, the EU European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) index system, and the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS). Currently, China has produced representative results in the research of world modernization index systems. Taking the system built by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CASS) team as an example, this system uses 131 countries as research subjects spanning from 1750 to 2050. It includes 100 indicators across six fields—economy, society, politics, culture, environment, and personal life—further divided into 15 themes and 35 sub-themes. It contains 50 level indicators, 28 characteristic indicators, and 22 state indicators, systematically reflecting the multi-dimensional structure and dynamic evolution of the global modernization process.
(2) Research Progress of the Chinese-path Modernization Index System
The system of socialism with Chinese characteristics determines that Chinese-path modernization possesses distinct features—different from Western modernization—in its political system, social structure, strategic layout, development concepts, and development modes. Building upon global modernization research and since the 18th CPC National Congress, the domestic academic community has carried out a series of localized theoretical innovations around Chinese-path modernization, focusing on systematic discussions of qualitative dimensions such as its basic characteristics, development stages, and theoretical origins. Although the academic community has made some progress in recent years in constructing comprehensive modernization index systems, systems based on the New Development Philosophy, and evaluation systems for modernization in specific fields, research is still in a stage of continuous expansion and deepening regarding evaluation dimensions, index construction, and quantitative standards.
Based on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, this article adopts the knowledge graph analysis method of keyword clustering to systematically reveal the research hotspots, evolutionary paths, and knowledge structures of the Chinese-path modernization index system. First, using the CNKI advanced search function, "Chinese-path modernization index," "Chinese-path modernization evaluation," and "Chinese-path modernization index/score" were set as subject terms. Considering the temporal characteristics of concentrated publication in this field, the search range was limited to January 2020 to October 2025, obtaining bibliographic information (including titles, keywords, abstracts, authors, institutions, and references) for 63 relevant documents. After cleaning the raw data, it was imported into CiteSpace 6.1.R1 software for format conversion and deduplication to ensure the accuracy of the analysis base. In CiteSpace, the data was divided into four time slices by publication year (2022 to October 2025), with each slice lasting one year; the number of references for 2022 through 2025 were 3, 19, 36, and 10, respectively. To effectively identify high-influence literature and reduce noise interference, this article adopts the g-index algorithm (k=25), combined with a frequency threshold (L/N=10), a minimum citation count (LBY=5), and a link reduction factor (LRF=2.5) to optimize the network structure. The final keyword co-occurrence network contains 62 nodes and 65 edges, with a network density of 0.0344. On this basis, the LLR (Log-Likelihood Ratio) algorithm was used to extract cluster labels, and the cluster quality was assessed through modularity (Q=0.8794) and the weighted silhouette value (S=0.9871). A Q-value greater than 0.3 indicates a significant cluster structure, while an S-value close to 1 indicates high homogeneity within the clusters. The harmonic mean of the two is 0.9301, further verifying the reliability of the clustering results. As shown in Figure 1, the knowledge structure map of the "Chinese-path modernization index system" research field contains several closely related clusters. Among them, "dynamic evolution" and "regional differences" constitute core research themes, respectively pointing to the application of index system construction in differentiated temporal and spatial contexts. Nodes in the figure represent research keywords, while the lines between nodes represent the strength of conceptual association.
Specifically, through the figure—
By observing the visualized knowledge graph, one can see that current research hotspots for the Chinese-path modernization index are concentrated on key phrases such as the "entropy weight method," "Chinese characteristics," "civilizational development," "common characteristics," and "theoretical basis." Concurrently, when analyzing regional differences in the Chinese-path modernization index, methods such as "dynamic measurement," "spatio-temporal differentiation," "coupling coordination," and the "entropy method" have become key research tools. First, "Chinese characteristics" constitute the core element in studying the Chinese-path modernization index system. Domestic scholars generally emphasize the uniqueness of Chinese-path modernization and are committed to quantifying the modernization process by constructing an index system consistent with China's national conditions. For example, Jiang Yongmu et al. (2022) based their work on the "New Development Philosophy" featuring five major characteristics—innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing. The Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics research group (2024) based theirs on the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" layout, covering economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction. Chen Shengli and Wan Zheng (2023) focused on the five major features of Chinese-path modernization: a huge population, common prosperity for all, the coordination of material and ethical-cultural [5] advancement, harmony between humanity and nature, and the path of peaceful development. Regarding evaluation methods, the entropy method is widely applied in the construction and weight distribution of the Chinese-path modernization index; principal component analysis, multi-objective decision-making, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) are also employed. Furthermore, regional difference analysis has become a major research direction; for instance, Wu Jifei and Yang Shixin (2025) and Xiong Xing et al. (2025) utilize methods such as "dynamic measurement," "coupling coordination," and "spatio-temporal differentiation."
Figure 1: Knowledge Graph of Research on Chinese-path Modernization Index Systems (2020–2025)
II. Evaluation Dimensions and Indicator Selection of the Chinese-path Modernization Index System
(1) Evaluation Dimensions of the Chinese-path Modernization Index System The construction of a Chinese-path modernization index system is a multi-dimensional, comprehensive systemic project rooted in China's unique developmental background and strategic goals. Current research has proposed various construction frameworks, which can generally be summarized as follows: (1) designing the system based on the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" layout; (2) designing the system with the five major features of Chinese-path modernization at the core; (3) designing the system based on the "New Development Philosophy"; (4) approaching the design from the perspective of the coordinated development of "Production-Living-Ecological Spaces" [6]; and (5) designing the system by combining dimensions of characteristic regional governance and development. These approaches demonstrate that the construction plan for the Chinese-path modernization index system is a comprehensive consideration and systemic plan integrating multiple levels and fields.
First, some scholars base their dimensions on the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" layout, emphasizing the coordinated advancement of the economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization. Jia Xiaofen and Zhang Hongli (2022), Lu Jiang and Guo Zi’ang (2023), and Guo Chunli (2025) argue that Chinese-path modernization should be evaluated across five dimensions: economic modernization, cultural modernization, social modernization, ecological modernization, and political modernization (referred to in some studies as "governance modernization").
Second, many scholars design their systems around the "five major features" of Chinese-path modernization. This approach highlights core contents such as the modernization of a huge population, modernization of common prosperity for all, modernization of the coordination between material and ethical-cultural advancement, modernization of harmony between humanity and nature, and modernization of the path of peaceful development, emphasizing the unique path China takes in promoting modernization. The index systems of Chen Shengli and Wan Zheng (2023), Fu Xianguo et al. (2024), Hu Hao (2023), and Zhang Xiaohe et al. (2024) include dimensions such as population scale characteristics, the effectiveness of regions in promoting common prosperity, the degree of coordination between material and ethical-cultural advancement, the features of harmony between humanity and nature, and the level of regional opening-up.
Third, some scholars have constructed index systems based on the "New Development Philosophy," emphasizing the key roles of the five dimensions—innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing—in the modernization process. The system built by Jiang Yongmu et al. (2022) covers these five core areas, highlighting the philosophy of focusing on social equity and environmental sustainability while promoting economic growth. The evaluation system constructed by Zhou Mi et al. (2024) starts from the perspective of common prosperity and unfolds based on the goals (people's livelihoods and result-sharing), capabilities (economic growth, infrastructure, and governance capacity), and potential (innovation capacity, cultural development, opening-up, and environmental protection) of Chinese-path modernization, emphasizing the core essence of the New Development Philosophy. Li Yingying (2024) added economic and cultural modernization to the foundation of the five New Development philosophies.
Additionally, other scholars have proposed dimensions focusing on the coordinated development of "Production-Living-Ecological Spaces" or characteristic regional governance and development. These emphasize the relationship and balance between production, living, and ecology, focusing on how to coordinate China's urban-rural and regional differences during the modernization process, thereby enriching the perspectives of the multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation system. Regarding the coordination of the "Three Spaces," Zou Hong et al. (2023) constructed an index system by mapping the relationship between the "five major features" and a collaborative development model of "developed production, affluent life, and sound ecology." Using production, living, and ecology as three horizontal criteria, they developed a vision of high-quality development and internal demand driving both sides, efficient coordination of material and spirit, and equal emphasis on harmony between humanity and nature. Pei Changsheng and Qu Jianwu (2023), while articulating the typical features of Chinese-path modernization, also emphasized the importance of green development and ecological civilization construction, proposing dimensions to deepen green development modernization and technological innovation modernization within the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan."
Finally, regarding characteristic regional governance and development, the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics research group (2024) constructed a provincial-level statistical monitoring index system from the five dimensions of the economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization. Liu Xingyuan (2023) suggested constructing an evaluation index system for the "New Jiangsu Practice" of Chinese-path modernization, using the promotion of well-rounded human development as the value orientation.
To systematically analyze the keywords within the main frameworks of the Chinese-path modernization index system, this study adopts a word cloud generation method based on word frequency statistics. This involves steps such as text collection, Chinese word segmentation, frequency statistics, and stop-word filtering. First, to maintain data consistency, this paper uses the literature analyzed in Figure 1 as its source. From 63 documents indexed in CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) involving Chinese-path modernization index systems, all text containing specific index tables was crawled, and primary indicator names were identified and extracted to form the corpus for basic analysis. Second, a Chinese segmentation tool was used to process the corpus, cutting continuous text into independent word units and filtering common stop-words before selecting high-frequency keywords through frequency statistics. Finally, visualization tools such as WordCloud were used to generate a word cloud, where font size is positively correlated with frequency. The generated word cloud shows that keywords revolve around core concepts such as "civilization," "ecology," "society," "economy," and "population." Keywords with a frequency over 10 include: Society (23), Ecology (22), Economy (21), Civilization (18), Population (16), Harmony (13), Coordination (12), Symbiosis (11), Governance (11), and Ethical-cultural Civilization (11). Additionally, terms like "sharing" and "innovation" appeared, further highlighting the driving roles of the platform economy, technological innovation, and resource sharing in the process of Chinese-path modernization.
(2) Indicator Selection for the Chinese-path Modernization Index System Under the comprehensive framework of primary dimensions, the selection of secondary and tertiary indicators must follow scientific principles: being scientific, systemic, representative, measurable, and dynamic, to ensure the validity and authority of the system. Based on these principles and the preceding analysis, existing research generally sets primary indicators around the economic, social, political, cultural, and ecological fields, subdividing them into several secondary indicators to measure the developmental connotations of Chinese-path modernization. By reviewing representative literature, one can summarize the high-frequency secondary indicator categories, selection bases, functional positioning, and trends of relative consensus.
As a fundamental dimension, economic modernization emphasizes a balance between total scale, structural optimization, innovation-driven growth, and open synergy, aiming for the simultaneous improvement of economic aggregates, development quality, and shared benefits. Existing studies generally list economic scale and development level as core secondary indicators, often measured by GDP per capita and per capita disposable income to reflect regional economic strength and the degree of prosperity.
Social modernization indicators aim to measure the comprehensive level of livelihood guarantees, social security, and income structure. Existing research commonly lists income structure as a high-frequency secondary indicator, using metrics like per capita disposable income, the Gini coefficient, the Engel coefficient, and the poverty incidence rate to assess the level of popular prosperity and basic living standards.
Governance modernization (political modernization) primarily unfolds across three dimensions: democratic participation, law-based governance, and government efficacy, focusing on government governance capacity and institutional guarantees. Regarding democratic participation, indicators such as the participation rate in primary-level self-governance, election participation, and the composition of deputies to People's Congresses are used to quantify the extent to which whole-process people's democracy guarantees citizens' democratic rights. For law-based governance, indices for the construction of a government based on the rule of law and the number of lawyers per capita are used to measure progress. For government efficacy, government service efficiency, transparency, and business environment evaluations reflect the modernization of the administrative system and the improvement of governance performance. Additionally, some studies include the effectiveness of clean government construction [7] and public safety status (e.g., work safety accident rates, crime rates) to reflect the integrity of the political system and its capacity to maintain social order.
Cultural and ethical-cultural construction is a concentrated expression of the "coordination between material and ethical-cultural advancement" in Chinese-path modernization. Existing systems center on three high-frequency indicator types: first, the improvement of cultural quality (measured by average years of education and the proportion of the population with university degrees); second, public cultural services and participation (reflected via per capita public library collections, the number of cultural centers/stations per 10,000 people, and comprehensive reading rates); third, cultural industry and communication power (evaluating the modernization and influence of the cultural industry through its value-added share of GDP, export volume of cultural products, and internet penetration rate). Some studies also attempt to introduce indicators such as volunteer service participation rates, social credit indices, and cultural identity to quantify the implementation of Core Socialist Values and actual progress in ethical-cultural construction.
The ecological environment dimension is a distinctive feature distinguishing Chinese-path modernization from traditional modernization models, embodying the core value of "harmony between humanity and nature." Existing research generally regards energy and resource utilization efficiency, environmental quality, and pollution control performance as core secondary indicators. Commonly, energy consumption intensity per unit of GDP and emission levels of CO2 or major pollutants per unit of GDP are used to measure the environmental costs and clean production levels of economic activity. Simultaneously, environmental quality indicators like the proportion of days with "good" air quality, surface water quality compliance rates, forest coverage, and per capita urban green space provide intuitive reflections of ecosystem health and living environment improvements. Regarding ecological governance capacity, most scholars include investment intensity in industrial pollution control and the harmless treatment rate of household waste to measure input and performance. Furthermore, the green development transition receives constant attention, with indicators like the share of new energy consumption, the circular economy index, and green technology innovation intensity used to characterize the shift toward low-carbon and circular development patterns.
III. Target Setting and Comprehensive Evaluation of the Chinese-path Modernization Index System
(1) Target Setting of the Chinese-path Modernization Index System
Planning and targets are the foundational tools that guarantee the long-term stability of major national development strategies. Based on the mid-term goal of basically achieving socialist modernization by 2035 and the second centenary goal of building a great modern socialist country by 2050, incorporating future target values into the construction of the evaluation system for Chinese-path modernization can not only provide consistent indicator designs for the "15th Five-Year Plan" through to the "19th Five-Year Plan," but also ensure effective linkage between staged planning and long-term vision. There are three main methods for setting the target values of specific indicators: first, direct calculation based on explicit targets in relevant policy documents; second, referencing actual data from typical countries for similar international indicators; and third, rational extrapolation based on current developmental levels combined with future trends.
For indicators where economic and social development goals have already been set by explicit policy documents, calculations can be made directly based on the target values in the relevant policies combined with base-year data. For example, the Recommendations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Furthering the Formulation of the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035 (hereinafter referred to as the "Recommendations") mentions "attaining a doubling of the total economic volume or per capita income by 2035"; based on this, with 2020 as the base year, the target value for national GDP per capita in 2035 can be extrapolated. By combining the base-year data and growth rates from the policy milestones of China’s Education Modernization 2035, and referencing data from OECD countries and developed nations, the target value for the gross enrollment rate in preschool education can be comprehensively determined. Furthermore, referencing the "14th Five-Year Plans" of the state and Zhejiang Province, provincial target values for indicators such as overall labor productivity, the proportion of core digital economy industries in GDP, the death rate from production safety accidents per 100 million yuan of GDP, the average years of education of the working-age population, the proportion of skilled talents among employees, the proportion of labor compensation in GDP, the ratio of urban-to-rural per capita disposable income, the proportion of the population with family disposable incomes (calculated for a family of three) between 200,000 and 600,000 yuan, the surveyed urban unemployment rate, the number of nursery places for infants and children under 3 per 1,000 people, energy consumption per unit of GDP, and the proportion of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption can all be determined and adjusted through the linkage between base-year data and policy development goals.
For indicators with a high degree of international alignment, target values can be set according to the phased goals of Chinese-path modernization by referencing data from countries at corresponding developmental levels. Generally, data from moderately developed countries serve as the reference for basically achieving modernization by 2035, while data from developed countries serve as the target reference for building a great modern socialist country by 2050. For instance, according to the statement in the report to the 20th CPC National Congress that "by 2035, China's per capita GDP will reach the level of moderately developed countries," Zhang Zhanbin et al. (2024) argue that China's economic modernization needs to achieve the goal of a per-capita GDP of 20,000 USD by 2035. The research group of the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics (2024) has further refined the target hierarchy: under the low-level goal of basically achieving modernization by 2035, indicator target values can be set at a level equivalent to the current 40th rank among modern countries; under the medium-level goal of reaching the average level of modern countries, target values must enter the top 20; and under the high-level goal of building a modern power by the middle of this century, target values need to reach the world's top 10. Based on this principle, the target values for common quantitative indicators such as GDP per capita, the household consumption rate, the gross enrollment rate in higher education, and per capita disposable income can all be set by comparing them with relevant standards and existing data from developed countries. Additionally, Liang Haoguang and Li Li (2024) defined the concept of "moderately developed countries" by screening 21 major developed countries that simultaneously meet four criteria—UN developed economies, World Bank high-income economies, IMF advanced economies, and OECD members—to identify a sample of 9 moderately developed countries. Their research suggests that the 2035 target values for Chinese-path modernization indicators can be calculated with reference to the average values of the corresponding indicators in these moderately developed countries.
For certain indicators that are difficult to align with policy references or international benchmarks and are based on China’s unique national conditions, target values are primarily determined through rationalized extrapolation of existing levels combined with future developmental trends. Examples include the profit margin on corporate operating income, the scientific and technological innovation index, the proportion of "Three New" [8] economy added value in GDP, economic openness, the per capita actual utilization of foreign capital, the proportion of service trade exports in GDP, the non-performing loan ratio of banking financial institutions, the grain production stability rate, the adoption rate of mobile law enforcement applications, the rate of litigation per 10,000 people, the ratio of lawyers per 10,000 people, public satisfaction with the rule of law, the criminal offense rate per 10,000 people, and the "single-network access" [9] rate for administrative services requested by the public. Taking these as examples, the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics research group (2024) combined various forecasting methods and referenced the developmental levels of the whole country and developed regions to perform trend extrapolation, setting the 2035 forecast values as the target values for the corresponding indicators. Similarly, Ma Xiaohe and Zhou Wanbing (2023) comprehensively determined target values for Chinese-path modernization indicators based on the text of the overall goals proposed in the report to the 20th CPC National Congress combined with actual progress in various dimensions of development. Zhu Tao (2024), when determining target values for indicators related to people's well-being, social governance, and social structure, also extensively utilized trend extrapolation methods; for example, he calculated the 2035 target value for the number of licensed (assistant) physicians per 1,000 people based on historical trends from 1980 to 2022.
(2) Comprehensive Evaluation of the Chinese-path Modernization Indicator System
In the practice of comprehensive evaluation of the Chinese-path modernization indicator system, the academic community has primarily developed three technical paths: subjective weighting, objective weighting, and unified weighting. First, the subjective weighting method is based on expert experience, with representative methods including the Delphi method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Delphi method is often used for preliminary screening of indicators, while AHP, by virtue of its hierarchical structure and judgment matrix, is suitable for constructing indicator systems with complex hierarchical relationships and relatively weak statistical foundations. Second, objective weighting methods rely primarily on the variability or correlation structure of sample data to automatically determine weights, with typical tools being the entropy method, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), factor analysis, and grey relational analysis weighting. The entropy method effectively reflects indicator dispersion information when data is complete; PCA and factor analysis primarily eliminate redundant information through dimension reduction. Third, the unified weighting method balances value orientation with objective differences. For example, Wang Chengzhe (2023) proposed that various methods such as expert consultation, AHP, entropy correction, and fuzzy evaluation should be used comprehensively to enhance the scientific rigor and practicality of the indicator system. Niu Rui and Wu Shiyi (2023) further enriched the technical connotations of unified weighting by introducing models such as BP-DEMATEL, which combines neural networks with Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory, to re-rank indicator weights based on dimensions such as centrality, causality, and priority.
Based on the theoretical connotations of Chinese-path modernization, academia has formed evaluation systems covering multidimensional elements, enabling a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the modernization process and identifying its spatio-temporal evolutionary characteristics. Regarding temporal trends, since 2010, the comprehensive evaluation scores for Chinese-path modernization at the national level have shown a steady upward trend, manifesting as a continuous advancement and gradual acceleration. Regarding the spatial pattern, there are obvious regional differences in the developmental level of Chinese-path modernization, but these differences are generally tending to converge. Among them, the eastern coastal areas represented by the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River Delta urban agglomerations have modernization levels significantly higher than the national average, constituting a "core belt" of high-value clusters. The central region, relying on hub cities such as Wuhan, Changsha, and Hefei within the Yangtze River middle reaches urban agglomeration, is gradually developing into a "secondary growth pole" connecting north and south and integrating east and west, though the gradient gap between regions remains significant. Additionally, the spatial correlation of Chinese-path modernization levels presents a multi-layered nested network structure; inter-provincial links continue to strengthen, forming a complex spatial pattern characterized by "core-periphery" differentiation. Regarding driving mechanisms, Jian Xinhua and Nie Changfei (2024), based on an analysis of the benchmark measurement results for the overall index of China's new quality productive forces, pointed out that the combination of a promising government and an effective market is a crucial mechanism for promoting the formation of new quality productive forces. Furthermore, the realization of Chinese-path modernization relies on promoting the organic linkage between regional strategies; the construction of transport corridors, high-speed rail economic belts, and digital infrastructure has significantly enhanced the hub functions of central provinces, driving the diffusion of modernization elements outward along "axis-belt" structures.
IV. Research Prospect for Constructing the Chinese-path Modernization Indicator System
(1) Top-level Design: Scientifically Focusing on the Multidimensional Theoretical Core
The construction of the evaluation system for Chinese-path modernization is rooted in the logical continuity of its theoretical framework, making it essential to scientifically grasp its multidimensional theoretical core. The theoretical lineage of Chinese-path modernization is supported by the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan," the "Five Characteristics" [10], and the coordinated development of the "Five Civilizations" [11]. Among these, the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" incorporates the five major fields of economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization into a unified governance system, constituting the practical path for socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics and answering the question of "what to rely on to advance modernization." The "Five Characteristics" proposed at the 20th CPC National Congress profoundly reveal the unique essence of Chinese-path modernization that distinguishes it from Western modernization; they define both the direction of modernization and the value pursuits of socialism, answering the question of "what kind of modernization to achieve." The coordinated development of the "Five Civilizations" integrates material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations as the carriers of a new form of human civilization, ensuring that modernization construction has both "form" and "soul" [12], answering the question of "what value criteria should modernization construction follow." However, at present, these three systems have not yet formed an organic linkage at the micro-level—such as in target scales, indicator thresholds, and evaluation paradigms—leading to dimensional misalignment and weight imbalances in current indicator construction.
Promoting the cross-mapping and fusion of multidimensional theoretical systems will become an important foundation for the future construction of the Chinese-path modernization indicator system. This requires, first, a systematic sorting and organic integration of the internal logic of related theories to ensure the indicator system structurally reflects the theoretical core in a comprehensive and coherent manner. Currently, the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan," the "Five Characteristics," and the "Five Civilizations" may seem to have different emphases, but they are in fact interwoven, common constituents of the theoretical logic and practical framework of Chinese-path modernization. Future research needs to explore the cross-mapping relationships between these theoretical systems. For example, the coordinated advancement of political and material civilization constitutes a dual drive for institutional innovation; the positive interaction between common prosperity and high-quality economic development forms a composite development path; and the basic national condition of a huge population size is both a fundamental constraint throughout the modernization process and an endogenous driver for its sustained development. At the operational level, one might consider establishing evaluation dimensions based on mature frameworks like the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" while taking the core tenets of other theoretical systems as value orientations, integrating them into the selection of secondary indicators and the allocation of weights. This would build a comprehensive evaluation model where goals, paths, and values are unified. By systematically sorting the mapping relationship between theoretical dimensions and specific indicators, clarifying the logical structure and weight configuration among tertiary indicators, and combining this with elastic threshold settings and dynamic monitoring mechanisms, a scientific, systematic top-level design for the Chinese-path modernization indicator system with practical guiding significance can be formed.
(2) Process Planning: Establishing Unified Standards for Phased Goals
Given that the process goals for certain indicators of Chinese-path modernization are benchmarked against moderately developed countries, when establishing the target values for the Chinese-path modernization indicator system, it is necessary to proceed from...
The index values of "developed countries" and "moderately developed countries" are used to calculate and calibrate indicators related to Chinese-path modernization. However, there is no unified international standard for the concepts, scopes, or levels of "developed countries" and "moderately developed countries," which poses challenges for establishing the target values of the indicator system. Classification standards for countries differ across various international organizations: the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, in its World Economic Situation and Prospects 2025, categorizes member states into three groups—developed economies, economies in transition, and developing economies—covering a total of 36 countries. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) classifies countries based on the Human Development Index (HDI); in the Human Development Report 2024, 68 countries are listed as having "Very High Human Development," which can be viewed as developed economies. The World Bank usually classifies the economic development level of countries based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, where developed countries are categorized as high-income economies. Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are generally recognized as developed countries; as of early 2025, the organization consists of 38 formal members, with several other countries in the application and review stage. Additionally, "advanced economies" is the term used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to describe the world's developed countries. Referencing the World Economic Outlook 2024, the IMF utilizes three primary criteria—GDP per capita, export diversification, and integration into the global financial system—to classify 38 countries and regions as advanced economies.
The standards for "basically realizing modernization" and becoming a "great modern power" [13] also present challenges for establishing indicator targets. To establish a consensus-based reference standard for target values, one may consider the following approaches for integrating multi-source information. For example, Dong Xiangrong (2021) proposed that countries satisfying all five conditions—being an OECD member, a UNCTAD [14] industrial country, an IMF advanced economy, a UNDP very-high HDI country, and a World Bank high-income country (26 countries in total)—can serve as the benchmark scope for "developed countries." Liang Haoguang and Li Li (2024) selected 30 countries that simultaneously meet four criteria (UN developed economy, World Bank high-income economy, IMF advanced economy, and OECD membership) as countries that have "basically realized modernization." Regarding the definition of "moderately developed countries," Liu Wei (2021) suggested identifying the scope by excluding "major developed countries" from the total pool of "developed countries," or regarding economies classified by the UNDP with development levels between "very high" and "high" as moderately developed. For actual numerical calculations, one could also use the average index values of developed economies, high-income countries, or OECD members from international organizations as the modernization benchmark, and establish classification standards based on this. For instance, achieving a level of 50% or more of the high-income country average could be defined as "basically realizing modernization," while reaching 80% or more of the standard value could be defined as "comprehensively (high-standard) realizing modernization."
(3) Indicator Dimensions: Balancing Chinese Characteristics with International Consensus
In the current process of constructing an indicator system for Chinese-path modernization, how to properly balance the dual demands of Chinese characteristics and international consensus has become a prominent dilemma for researchers. On one hand, an overemphasis on localized characteristic indicators may lead to a decrease in the international comparability of the indicator system, weakening China's ability to conduct horizontal comparisons and mutual learning with other countries and regions worldwide. On the other hand, if there is an excessive reliance on international general-purpose indicators, the unique connotations of Chinese-path modernization might be diluted, making it difficult to effectively reflect the institutional advantages, cultural characteristics, and key strategic layouts of the socialist modernization path. Meanwhile, although existing mainstream international evaluation systems—such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Human Development Index (HDI), and the OECD Better Life Index—possess universal applicability, they do not fully cover emerging fields or development issues with Chinese characteristics, such as common prosperity, ecological civilization [15], and the digital economy. Therefore, how to reflect the institutional and cultural connotations of Chinese characteristics in index construction while effectively linking them with current international evaluation systems has become one of the significant practical difficulties in current modernization assessment.
To effectively address the aforementioned dilemma, the future construction of the Chinese-path modernization indicator system should adopt a multi-layered, dual-dimensional, and dynamic comprehensive design approach. First, an indicator framework can be built covering three levels: international consensus, Chinese characteristics, and local flexibility. The international consensus dimension can align with general standards like the UN SDGs, HDI, and the OECD Better Life Index, selecting key globally comparable indicators such as life expectancy, carbon emission intensity, and years of schooling. The Chinese characteristics dimension should center on major goals such as common prosperity, Digital China, and ecological civilization, setting core indicators that embody the advantages of the Chinese path, such as a common prosperity index, digital economy penetration rate, and green innovation intensity. The local flexibility dimension would add extensible sub-indicators based on regional development stages and actual needs—such as the public service accessibility rate in ethnic minority areas or trade facilitation at border ports—to achieve differentiated assessments within a unified framework. Second, the alignment of indicators should be strengthened across both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Horizontally, correspondences between international and Chinese indicators can be established through thematic mapping, such as linking the UN Climate Action goals with China’s ecological civilization construction indicators. Vertically, a combination of outcome-based indicators to measure the level of modernization and process-based indicators to monitor progress can be used, thereby balancing static evaluation with dynamic tracking. Furthermore, regarding the setting of weights and thresholds, a mechanism combining public parameters with situational flexibility can be established. Public parameters would be determined with reference to international standards to enhance horizontal comparability, while situational flexibility parameters would be dynamically adjusted according to the actual development conditions and medium-to-long-term strategic tasks of different regions. Simultaneously, multi-source real-time data—such as remote sensing, nighttime light data, and digital economy platforms—should be actively introduced to improve the monitoring sensitivity and trend-forecasting capabilities of the indicator system, driving assessment work toward greater refinement and foresight.
Source: Studies on Chinese Socialism [16], Issue 6, 2025 Editor: Huihui