Page 145 - JOURNAL OF LIBRARY SCIENCE IN CHINA 2018 Vol. 44

144 Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.10, 2018

and enhance social cultural welfare via subsidizing public cultural venues by national finances, the
core of the free admission policy is financial subsidy, which is essentially a special fiscal policy
arrangement. While actively assisting the construction of public culture, many problems have
occurred during the implementation of free admission policy, especially the issue of the financial
guarantee mechanism. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a phased evaluation of the seven-year free
admission policy, especially to promote the continuous implementation of the free admission policy
through the evaluation, inspection and optimization of the financial guarantee mechanism.
Regarding the study of free admission financial guarantee, the academic circles believe that there
are two major problems: insufficient funding guarantees and incomplete mechanisms. The first is
the insufficient funding guarantees, many scholars have clarified the importance of funding and the
status quo of its shortcomings. An (2013) considers that with the implementation and promotion of
the free admission policy, the operating costs of public libraries have changed and the costs have
risen, but the corresponding funds have not increased. The second is incomplete funding guarantees
mechanism. Li (2011) points out that at the beginning of free admission, there have been emerged
problems like “only sharing the central financial subsidy funds, but not taking the local financial
support funds”, shrinking investment, lowering standards, and generalizing free admission scope.
Based on investigation and analysis, Xiao, Yu, Xu and Liu (2012) find that the current increase
in free admission funds has not yet been included in the institutional budget, and the financial
departments at all levels have not been able to improve and implement the free admission funding
guarantee mechanism in time as well. Cheng (2011) believes that The Opinions obviously lacks
maneuverability, it’s not an institutional finance, but a temporary financial arrangement opinion,
which is arbitrary and insecure.
In response to the two major problems of free admission financial guarantee, the academic circles
have proposed corresponding solutions. According to the mainstream view, the source of funding
for public libraries is mainly national and local financial allocations. Therefore, it is necessary
to do a good job in the application and implementation of special funds, actively seek support
from the national and local financial departments (An, 2013), strive to share more points in the
“cake” of local fiscal expenditure (Yi, 2011). Some scholars have also suggested that in addition
to the national financial resources, we should actively mobilize social forces and open up funding
sources so as to explore the establishment of a diversified investment mechanism for public culture
(An, 2013; Fang, Ding, & Chen, 2012). Some specific measures are proposed including moderate
income generation, fund establishment, corporate sponsorship cooperation, social organization
and individual donation, and the establishment of industry association system (Chen & Hu, 2015).
Li (2011) suggests using the international “critical level” concept and standards to determine the
quantity standard for input. At the same time, establishing an interrelated proportional relationship
among personnel funds, operating expenses, maintenance funds for facilities and equipment,
management funds, resource acquisition funds, and basic service funds. Moreover, making the
allocation of different funding items coordinated, scientific and reasonable. P. Wang (2014)