中央决定将2019年作为“基层减负年”，各级各地纷纷出台举措，落实基层减负任务，但是基层干部感觉依旧“压力山大”。本文试图探究基层减负的含义和政策目标，分析基层减负存在的问题和减负难问题的本质和逻辑，并为优化基层减负路径提供新的思路，具有一定的理论价值和现实意义。论文采用了文献分析、数据分析、田野调查和深度访谈方法，对125份中央、省级政策文件、167份基层政策文本以及从A市收集到的4万余条数据进行整理和分析；对31名相关人员进行了深度访谈并结合工作进行了长期观察。从精简会议文件、清理“一票否决”及责任状、减少督查检查考核、权力下放和规范“属地管理”、保障激励等5个方面进行案例分析，认为A市的基层减负工作取得了一定成效，但基层干部的获得感并不强，基层责负担较重的局面没有实质性变化。论文运用委托代理理论和官僚制理论，从个体逻辑、系统逻辑、博弈逻辑三个维度，对基层行政制度体系内上下级官员的权利行为和关系博弈进行了描述和审视，分析基层减负难问题的原因。本文认为，由于当前行政体制中压力型管理方法，官员依照本人特点和偏好的“理性选择”、上下级政府信息不对称条件下的目标偏离和“上下博弈”的系统失灵是导致基层减负难的原因所在。制度缺乏，考核监督激励异化等现象使得这些行为难以得到遏制。论文建议通过优化任务委托路径、规范科学考核评价体系、构建全方位监督机制、提高正向激励力度等4各方面破解基层减负难问题。论文主要创新点和贡献在于通过大量第一手资料，对基层负担进行分类讨论，全面客观地展现了基层减负的实际情况，发现了基层减负存在的诸多问题；构建了基层减负难问题的个人逻辑、系统逻辑、博弈逻辑的分析框架；提出了解决基层减负难问题的对策建议。不足之处在于仅以A市一地为例进行剖析研究，获取的样本数量不足；基层减负还涉及心理、社会等各方面因素影响，本文仅结合管理学相关理论进行研究，难以面面俱到。

The central government decided to make 2019 the "year of reducing the burden on the grassroots level", and various localities at all levels have introduced measures to implement the task of reducing the burden on the grassroots level, but the grassroots cadres still feel "great pressure".This paper attempts to explore the meaning and policy goals of grass-roots burden reduction, analyze the nature and logic of the existing problems and difficult problems of grass-roots burden reduction, and provide new ideas for optimizing the grass-roots burden reduction path, which has certain theoretical value and practical significance.The paper adopts the methods of literature analysis, data analysis, field investigation and in-depth interviews to organize and analyze 125 central and provincial policy documents, 167 grass-roots policy texts and more than 40,000 pieces of data collected from city A; 31 In-depth interviews were conducted with relevant personnel and long-term observations were made in combination with the work.Through case analysis from five aspects: streamlining meeting documents, cleaning up "one vote veto" and certificate of responsibility, reducing supervision, inspection and assessment, decentralization and standardizing "territorial management", and ensuring incentives, it is considered that the grass-roots burden reduction work in city a has achieved certain results, but the sense of gain of grass-roots cadres is not strong, and the situation of heavy responsibility burden at the grass-roots level has not changed substantially.Using principal-agent theory and bureaucracy theory, the thesis describes and examines the rights behavior and relationship game of officials at lower and lower levels in the grass-roots administrative system from three dimensions: individual logic, system logic, and game logic, and analyzes the difficulty of reducing burdens at the grassroots level. reason. This paper believes that due to the pressure-based management methods in the current administrative system, officials' "rational choice" according to their own characteristics and preferences, target deviation under the condition of information asymmetry between the upper and lower governments, and system failure of "up and down game" make it difficult to reduce the burden on the grassroots level. The reason. The lack of systems and the alienation of assessment, supervision and incentives make it difficult to contain these behaviors. the paper proposes to solve the problem of reducing the burden on the grass-roots level by optimizing the task delegation path, standardizing the scientific assessment and evaluation system, building an all-round supervision mechanism, and improving positive incentives.The main innovation and contribution of the thesis lies in the classification and discussion of grassroots burden through a large number of first-hand materials, comprehensively and objectively showing the actual situation of grassroots burden reduction, and discovering many problems existing in grassroots burden reduction; constructing a personal logic for the difficulty of grassroots burden reduction , system logic and game logic analysis framework; put forward countermeasures and suggestions to solve the problem of reducing the burden on the grassroots level. The disadvantage is that the analysis and research only takes City A as an example, and the number of samples obtained is insufficient; the reduction of grassroots burden also involves the influence of various factors such as psychology and society.