ABSTRACT
The 11th Five Year Plans (FYP) stated an ad hoc policy dedicated to dayizhi which emerged from debates and practices in the field, and evolved into the special funds and regulations provided by the 12th FYP. For a better understanding of the role of cultural heritage FYPs that goes beyond their general orientation function, their relationship with the budgetary system needs to be considered. The traditional funding system had and still has a very broad scope, funding thousands of National Key Protected Units and key museums, covering a variety of expenditures, including maintenance, safety, and fire acquisition and protection collections. The 11th and later the 12th documents have a different nature, and show a more open attitude – where contents are not totally defined/definable, nor in a sense deterministically established. In addition, routine funding is provided at the local level, with the central government providing subsidies to local governments for major cultural heritage in the form of special funds.
