


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

246 
 

Original Paper 

A Discussion on the Legal Regulation of the Circulation and 

Use of Public Data in China 

Xiangying Lin
1*

 & Weiyang Xu
1
 

1
 Dalian Ocean University, Dalian, China 

 

Received: November 2, 2025  Accepted: November 12, 2025  Online Published: November 13, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elp.v8n2p246               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v8n2p246 

 

Abstract 

As a core element of the digital economy, public data possesses public, property, and security 

attributes. Its circulation and utilization not only concern economic development but also involve 

national governance and social equity. By analyzing the legal attributes of public data and examining 

the current status and issues in China’s authorized operation of public data and the opening of 

government data, this study identifies shortcomings such as unclear ownership, lack of profit 

distribution mechanisms, prominent security risks, and imperfect legal systems. It proposes that China 

should establish a legal regulatory framework centered on “ownership 

confirmation—classification—authorization—distribution—responsibility—security” and build a 

unified ownership system, a classified and hierarchical management system, a market-oriented 

authorization and operation mechanism, and a full-chain supervision system. The research concludes 

that improving the legal regulation of public data circulation and utilization is not only a crucial step 

in advancing the construction of the data factor market and the implementation of the digital China 

strategy, but also an inevitable choice to enhance national governance capabilities and the 

competitiveness of the digital economy. 

Keywords 

public data, data factor market, data governance 

 

1. Introduction 

1.1 The Connotation and Scope of Public Data 

In the new wave of technological revolution and industrial transformation characterized by 

digitalization, networking, and intelligence, data has been recognized as a key production factor on par 

with land, labor, capital, and technology. Public data is considered a crucial foundation for enhancing 

national governance capabilities and standards in the information age (Cheng, X., 2023, pp. 77-94). As 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

247 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

early as 2015, central-level regulatory documents began incorporating references to “public data” (The 

State Council’s Opinions on Promoting the Innovative Development of Cloud Computing and 

Cultivating New Forms of Information Industry (Guo Fa [2015] No. 5); The State Council’s Notice on 

Issuing the Action Outline for Promoting Big Data Development (Guo Fa [2015] No. 50)). Public data 

refers to data resources generated, collected, and stored by state organs and enterprises during the 

performance of public management and service functions, which can be recorded, processed, and 

utilized electronically. It is characterized by public origin, public purpose, and social impact. 

According to definitions in policy documents by the National Data Administration, National 

Development and Reform Commission, and other departments, public data primarily includes 

government administrative data held by government agencies, data generated by public institutions in 

providing public services, and data legally obtained by the state that should be made accessible 

(National Data Administration. The First Batch of Common Terminology Explanations in the Data 

Field). 

From an academic perspective, public data differs fundamentally from corporate commercial data and 

private personal data. Its generation logic stems not from market competition, but rather from the needs 

of government functions and social public services. There are significant distinctions between public 

data and private or commercial data: private data emphasizes individual control, commercial data 

prioritizes corporate interests, while public data reflects the collective interests of the nation and society. 

Additionally, the circulation mechanisms vary significantly. Private data circulation typically requires 

individual consent, commercial data circulation relies on contractual agreements and market 

mechanisms, whereas public data circulation often depends on legal authorization and institutional 

arrangements. Moreover, private and commercial data primarily serve individual or corporate interests, 

while public data utilization aims to maximize public welfare. Therefore, accurately defining the scope 

of public data is essential for discussing its circulation, utilization, and legal regulation. Professor 

Zhang Xinbao and Dr. Cao Quanzhi pointed out that public data possesses “public nature” because it 

originates from the exercise of public authority or provision of public services. Consequently, its 

ownership and utilization methods should differ from those of private and corporate data (Zhang, X. B., 

& Cao, Q. Z., 2023, pp. 41-55). 

In practice, public data primarily encompasses the following categories: 1) Government data, generated 

by administrative departments at all levels during governance processes, including information on 

population, industry and commerce, taxation, transportation, and social security. 2) Public service data, 

produced by public institutions (such as education, healthcare, power supply, water utilities, and 

meteorology) during service delivery. 3) Research and public welfare data, including scientific findings 

and environmental monitoring data generated by research institutions and public-funded projects. 4) 

Nationally mandated data collected for national security or social governance purposes. The core 

attribute of public data lies in its “public nature”. As it originates from government or public 

institutions performing official duties, it differs from private information’s individual characteristics 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

248 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and corporate data’s market-oriented nature. This public nature manifests in three aspects: 1) Public 

origin: Data comes from government departments or public institutions supported by public funds. 2) 

Public function: Data serves social governance and public interest realization. 3) Public benefit: Open 

data utilization should benefit the general public rather than specific entities. Despite its public nature, 

public data inherently possesses property attributes. It can be stored, transmitted, and traded, generating 

market value. After anonymization, cleaning, and integration, public data can become productive 

factors driving digital economy development. Therefore, recognizing its property attributes forms the 

foundation for establishing legal frameworks governing public data circulation. Additionally, public 

data carries social and security dimensions beyond its property attributes. As public data encompasses 

sensitive domains such as social governance, national security, and public services, it contains personal 

information like demographic and medical data. Any misuse or leakage could lead to privacy violations, 

market monopolies, or even national security risks. Therefore, the legal attributes of public data must 

strike a balance between public interest, property rights, and security considerations. 

In conclusion, public data possesses both public and proprietary attributes along with security concerns, 

resulting in a complex and multidimensional legal nature. This composite nature dictates that its 

circulation and utilization should not be entirely market-driven or administratively controlled, but 

rather achieve a balanced equilibrium through legal frameworks. 

1.2 Institutional Value of Public Data Circulation and Utilization 

Public data, regarded as the “raw materials” of the digital economy, serves as a crucial catalyst for its 

growth. When governments effectively manage and distribute their vast datasets, it significantly 

reduces corporate data acquisition costs while driving industrial innovation and business model 

upgrades. For instance, opening up transportation data can fuel the development of smart mobility and 

autonomous driving technologies, while sharing meteorological data can advance precision agriculture 

and disaster prevention systems. 

The circulation and utilization of public data can enhance the scientific and refined level of social 

governance. By opening public data, governments can promote social participation, enhance policy 

transparency, and strengthen public oversight. For example, the disclosure of fiscal budget data and 

environmental monitoring data helps improve government credibility and the effectiveness of social 

governance. 

Public data constitutes a vital component of the data factor market (Fan, J. J., 2024, pp. 68-81). Without 

orderly circulation of public data, structural imbalances would emerge in the data market, resulting in 

uneven distribution of data resources and market monopolies. By entering the market through 

authorized operations, public data not only enhances market supply but also creates demonstration 

effects, driving improvements in mechanisms for data ownership confirmation, trading, and pricing. 

The openness and circulation of public data must be conducted within the framework of safeguarding 

national security and social equity. On one hand, it is essential to prevent data breaches that endanger 

national security and personal privacy. On the other hand, we must avoid the monopolistic exploitation 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

249 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of public data by a few enterprises, which could exacerbate the digital divide. Therefore, legal 

regulations governing the circulation and utilization of public data play a vital role in maintaining 

social equity and national security. 

Internationally, the openness and utilization of public data have become a crucial component of digital 

economy policies. The European Union’s Open Data Directive explicitly requires member states to 

disclose high-value datasets, facilitating cross-border data utilization. In January 2009, the Obama 

administration released the “Memorandum on Transparent and Open Government,” followed by the 

launch of Data.gov in May that year, marking the systematic implementation of open government data 

policies in the United States. These initiatives aim to enhance transparency and encourage public and 

corporate reuse and value-added development of public data (Zhang, Z. Q., & Jiang, H., 2016, pp. 

27-28). Japan’s public data strategy, particularly its “Society 5.0” initiative, emphasizes integrating 

cyberspace with the physical world through technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, and 

artificial intelligence (AI). In documents such as the “AI Strategy” and “IoT Strategic Plan”, the 

Japanese government identifies the effective use of public data as a key element to promote AI 

applications in critical sectors including healthcare, transportation, and infrastructure. This supports 

national industrial upgrading and addresses social challenges. These experiences demonstrate that the 

circulation and utilization of public data not only generates economic benefits but also strengthens 

national competitiveness and international governance influence. 

Public data, as a special type of data resource, combines elements of publicness, property, security, and 

personal information protection. In terms of legal attributes, it differs from both private data and purely 

commercial data, exhibiting multidimensional and composite characteristics. The institutional value of 

public data circulation and utilization is reflected in promoting the development of the digital economy, 

optimizing social governance, facilitating the construction of the data market, and ensuring social 

equity and national security. Therefore, legal regulation of public data circulation and utilization is not 

only an inevitable requirement for legal systems to respond to the challenges of the digital era, but also 

an important aspect of building a digital China and achieving the modernization of the national 

governance system and governance capabilities. 

 

2. The Current Situation and Problems of Public Data Circulation and Utilization in China 

2.1 The Current Situation of China’s Public Data Circulation and Utilization Policies and Practices 

(1) Institutional layout at the national level 

In the era of the digital economy, public data has gradually been regarded as an important factor of 

production. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee first proposed “to treat 

data as a factor of production in distribution, officially recognizing data as a factor of production.” 

Subsequently, a series of laws, regulations, and policy documents such as the “Data Security Law”, the 

“Personal Information Protection Law”, the “Overall Layout Plan for Digital China Construction”, and 

the “Digital China Construction 2025 Action Plan” were successively issued, forming an institutional 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

250 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

framework with security as the premise, openness as the orientation, and utilization as the goal. 

The December 2022 release of the “Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on 

Establishing a Data Infrastructure System to Better Leverage Data as an Economic Factor” emphasized 

the need to “focus on data property rights, circulation and trading, revenue distribution, and security 

governance. It called for active participation in formulating international high-standard digital rules, 

aiming to establish a data infrastructure system that adapts to data characteristics, aligns with the laws 

of digital economic development, safeguards national data security, and highlights innovation 

leadership.” This provides top-level institutional guidance for the circulation and utilization of public 

data. The establishment of the National Data Administration in 2023 further demonstrates the state’s 

emphasis on public data management and utilization, marking China’s entry into a new phase of 

institutionalized and standardized public data circulation and application. 

(2) Local exploration and pilot practice 

Driven by national policies, some regions have pioneered the exploration of authorized operations and 

market-oriented utilization of public data. As a national leader in public data authorization pilot 

programs, Shenzhen has implemented government data openness in transportation, healthcare, 

education, and other sectors while establishing a data trading platform (Guangdong Provincial 

Government Services and Data Administration. Experience Sharing: Accelerating the Construction of 

Digital Shenzhen, Building a Benchmark for New Smart Cities and a Model for Digital China Cities). 

Shanghai established China’s first data exchange, promoting compliant circulation of public and 

enterprise data. Zhejiang Provence introduced the nation’s first local regulation in public data 

management—the “Zhejiang Public Data Regulation”—developing an integrated intelligent data 

platform across provincial, municipal, and county levels. The province has also hosted continuous data 

innovation competitions and issued China’s first provincial-level operational guidelines for public data 

authorization. 

These local explorations have provided practical experience for the circulation and utilization of public 

data in China, but many problems have also been exposed. 

(3) Preliminary construction of public data authorization operation mechanism 

“Public Data Authorized Operation” is an innovative mechanism in China’s public data utilization 

sector. In 2024, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the 

“Opinions on Accelerating the Development and Utilization of Public Data Resources,” further 

emphasizing the inclusion of public data authorized operation within the “Three Major and One 

Important” decision-making scope. Under strong national policy guidance, regions across the country 

are actively advancing legislative work related to public data authorized operation. Some local 

governments have experimented with entrusting state-owned enterprises with public data operations, 

promoting data circulation through market-oriented approaches. This initiative has achieved social 

utilization of public data resources and stimulated industrial innovation to some extent. However, due 

to the lack of clear ownership definition and unified national legal standards, this mechanism remains 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

251 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

in its exploratory phase with numerous uncertainties. 

2.2 Main Problems in the Circulation and Utilization of Public Data 

(1) Unclear ownership and legal positioning 

Currently, the ownership of public data in China remains undefined. Some scholars argue that public 

data should be state-owned with government-managed administration, while others propose a 

“state-owned, government-managed, and socially shared” model. The absence of unified legal 

regulations often results in unclear rights holders and ambiguous usage permissions when public data 

enters circulation. This not only reduces data utilization efficiency but also creates potential conflicts of 

interest. 

(2) Lack of profit distribution mechanism 

The utilization of public data involves multiple stakeholders including governments, enterprises, and 

the general public. In practice, the absence of a clear profit-sharing mechanism often leads to 

ambiguous revenue attribution during authorized operations and commercial applications (Tong, N. N., 

Yang, M. X., Mo, X. Y. et al., 2023, pp. 23-35). While businesses can generate substantial commercial 

value through public data usage, the public—being the true source of this data—frequently receive 

inadequate compensation. This imbalance in benefit distribution may exacerbate social inequities. 

(3) Insufficient data opening and low utilization efficiency 

While China has made progress in government data openness, the overall level of public data 

accessibility remains limited. Most regions have only established data catalogs, with truly 

machine-readable and accessible data resources still insufficient. Compared to the EU and the US, 

China’s public data openness needs improvement in both scope and depth. For instance, the US 

data.gov platform has already made over 250,000 datasets publicly available, while China lags behind 

in quantity, quality, and accessibility. 

(4) Privacy protection and data security risks are prominent 

Public data often contains vast amounts of sensitive personal information, such as demographic, 

healthcare, and educational data. During the process of opening and utilizing such data, the absence of 

strict security measures can easily lead to privacy breaches and information misuse (Li, Y., 2014, pp. 

439-444). Although the Personal Information Protection Law establishes principles and restrictions for 

public sector handling of personal information, practical implementation of public data circulation still 

faces technical and managerial loopholes like “insufficient anonymization” and “incomplete 

de-identification.” Moreover, the misuse of public data may endanger national security. For instance, if 

public data in sectors like energy, transportation, and communications is leaked, it could be exploited 

by foreign entities, thereby compromising the security of critical national infrastructure. 

(5) Market order is not standardized and monopoly risk 

The exploration of public data authorization mechanisms has, to some extent, driven the development 

of the data market. However, due to the absence of unified national regulatory frameworks, local pilot 

programs have encountered issues of irregular market practices. In some regions, a small number of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

252 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

state-owned enterprises monopolize the operation rights of public data, resulting in a lack of 

competitiveness and transparency in data utilization, and even posing risks of secondary monopolies. 

This phenomenon contradicts the fundamental goal of public data to “benefit all citizens.” 

(6) The legal system is not perfect 

While China has enacted the Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law, it has yet to 

establish a dedicated legislation governing the circulation and utilization of public data. The current 

legal framework remains fragmented and principle-based, lacking concrete operational provisions. 

Critical issues such as defining the scope of public data openness, establishing unified authorization 

mechanisms, and distributing benefits all lack clear legal support. This institutional gap has hindered 

the further development of public data circulation and utilization. 

Public data, as an emerging legal issue, remains in its nascent stage of theoretical exploration. 

Academic circles exhibit significant divergence regarding ownership rights, legal attributes, and 

regulatory frameworks, with a lack of consensus-driven theoretical achievements. This theoretical lag 

directly results in institutional designs and legal practices lacking solid academic foundations. 

Compared to the EU and the US, China’s public data legislation started later, with existing provisions 

scattered across fragmented regulations like the Data Security Law, Government Informatization 

Regulations, and Government Information Disclosure Regulations. This fragmented state hinders the 

formation of systematic and operational frameworks. Meanwhile, public data circulation involves 

multiple government departments, yet a widespread “data silos” phenomenon persists. The absence of 

cross-departmental coordination mechanisms leads some agencies to prioritize data collection over 

sharing, even treating data as “departmental assets,” which obstructs public data sharing and circulation. 

Effective public data openness and circulation require technical measures such as data governance, 

privacy protection, and cybersecurity. However, some local governments lack sufficient data 

governance capabilities, talent reserves, and technical expertise, resulting in superficial data openness 

that fails to meet societal and market demands. 

China’s public data circulation and utilization have entered a phase of institutional exploration. While 

the national government has established top-level design frameworks and local authorities have 

launched pilot programs, the authorization and operation mechanisms for public data are still in their 

infancy. However, persistent challenges—including ambiguous ownership rights, lack of benefit 

distribution mechanisms, insufficient openness, prominent security risks, irregular market practices, 

and incomplete legal systems—continue to severely hinder orderly circulation and efficient utilization 

of public data. These issues stem from theoretical research and legislative delays, departmental barriers, 

and inadequate technical capabilities. Moving forward, it is imperative to promote standardized and 

legally compliant public data circulation and utilization through a multi-dimensional approach 

combining institutional improvements, legal regulations, and technological safeguards. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

253 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Legal Regulation Logic of Public Data Circulation and Utilization 

Public data inherently combines public and proprietary attributes, creating a dual challenge of 

balancing social welfare with market efficiency in its circulation and utilization. While the open access 

to public data serves to enhance government transparency, optimize social governance, and ensure 

equity and justice, its market integration as a production factor demands improved resource allocation 

efficiency and innovation-driven development. Overemphasizing market efficiency risks monopolizing 

or misusing public data, potentially harming public interests. Conversely, excessive focus on public 

attributes may stifle the market value of data, leading to resource wastage. Therefore, establishing a 

balance between public welfare and market efficiency remains the fundamental principle in regulating 

public data through legal frameworks. 

Another prominent contradiction in the circulation and utilization of public data lies in the conflict 

between openness and security protection. While open sharing enhances transparency and innovation 

capabilities, public data often contains sensitive information and personal privacy. Without effective 

safeguards, this could lead to data breaches, misuse, or even national security risks. Although the Data 

Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law have established the principle of prioritizing 

security, striking a balance between “maximizing openness” and “security first” remains a key 

challenge in institutional design. 

The circulation and utilization of public data require a dual approach of state leadership and societal 

participation. The government maintains macro-management authority through authorized operation 

mechanisms and data trading platforms, while the public and market entities seek more accessible and 

convenient ways to leverage these resources. Balancing national strategic security with stimulating 

social innovation has become a key principle in regulating public data systems. 

3.1 Basic Principles of Public Data Legal Regulation 

(1) Principle of public interest priority 

The legal nature of public data dictates that public interest must be the primary objective in its 

circulation and utilization. This principle requires: the use of public data must not harm the overall 

social interest; the distribution of benefits from public data should reflect universal sharing; and the 

opening of public data should prioritize serving public welfare, scientific research, and infrastructure 

development. 

(2) Safety and control principle 

Data security is the baseline for public data circulation. The Data Security Law explicitly states in its 

first article that “national sovereignty, security, and development interests must be safeguarded” (Data 

Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 1: This Law is formulated to regulate data 

processing activities, ensure data security, promote data development and utilization, protect the 

legitimate rights and interests of individuals and organizations, and safeguard national sovereignty, 

security and development interests). Therefore, all public data circulation and utilization must be 

conducted within controlled parameters, including measures such as classification and tiered protection, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

254 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

cross-border flow review, and cybersecurity safeguards. 

(3) Legal compliance principle 

Public data circulation must be based on legal compliance, in line with the requirements of the Personal 

Information Protection Law, the Cybersecurity Law and other laws. Especially when it comes to 

personal privacy data, the principles of minimum necessity and de-identification should be strictly 

followed. 

(4) Fair and reasonable principle 

The opening and utilization of public data should avoid the formation of a new unfair pattern. When 

promoting data authorization and operation, the government should prevent the formation of a 

monopoly of state-owned enterprises or specific entities, and ensure the equal status of different market 

entities in the utilization of data. 

(5) Transparency and oversight 

The process of opening and using public data should be transparent and subject to public and social 

supervision. By establishing open data catalogs, open use rules and regulatory mechanisms, public trust 

can be enhanced and data abuse can be prevented. 

3.2 Regulatory Model of Public Data Circulation and Utilization 

(1) Ownership 

The foundational principle of public data governance lies in clarifying ownership. The prevailing 

consensus advocates a “state-owned, government-managed, society-shared” framework. Specifically, 

state ownership signifies that public data belongs to the nation, representing the collective interests of 

society. The government exercises management authority through mechanisms including data openness, 

authorization, and security oversight. Within legal frameworks, stakeholders enjoy both utilization 

rights and beneficiary rights. This model prevents public data from becoming “ownerless” or 

“fragmented across departments,” ensuring the fulfillment of public-interest objectives. 

(2) Open 

The essence of public data openness lies in classification and tiered management. Data should be 

categorized into three levels based on their importance and sensitivity: 1) High-sensitivity data 

(involving national security, public safety, and critical livelihoods, such as defense and energy data, 

which must be strictly restricted) 2) General-sensitive data (including personal information or trade 

secrets, requiring limited disclosure after de-identification) 3) Low-sensitivity data (such as public 

information on transportation, weather, and geography, which can be prioritized for wider access). This 

tiered approach ensures “maximizing openness where feasible, prioritizing disclosure where possible, 

and maintaining security where necessary”. 

(3) Authorization 

In the utilization of public data, “authorized operation” has emerged as a significant institutional 

innovation. The fundamental principle involves the government granting specific entities (primarily 

state-owned enterprises or public institutions) legal or policy authorization to manage public data, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

255 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

while facilitating data circulation through market mechanisms. This approach maintains national 

control over public data while enhancing utilization efficiency through market-oriented approaches. 

However, legal regulations are essential to prevent authorized operations from creating “secondary 

monopolies”. 

(4) Regulatory 

The circulation and utilization of public data must establish a comprehensive regulatory framework 

encompassing three key phases: Pre-event oversight through data openness cataloging and cross-border 

flow reviews; In-process monitoring of data usage to prevent unauthorized exploitation; and Post-event 

accountability mechanisms for penalizing data breaches and misuse. This dynamic regulatory system 

requires multi-stakeholder participation involving governments, enterprises, and society to achieve 

diversified governance. 

 

4. Construction of Legal Regulation Path for Public Data Circulation and Utilization in China 

Under the background of data factorization and the digital China strategy, the circulation and utilization 

of public data in China urgently require the establishment of a sound legal regulatory system. Although 

existing systems are mentioned in laws and policies such as the “Data Security Law”, “Personal 

Information Protection Law”, and “Regulations on Government Information Disclosure”, there are still 

issues such as fragmentation, strong principle-based nature, and lack of operational details. The legal 

regulatory logic for the circulation and utilization of public data is an institutional response formed on 

the basis of composite attributes such as publicness, property, and security. Its core lies in balancing 

public interest and market efficiency, open sharing and security protection, and state control and social 

participation. In terms of specific approaches, a logical framework of “ownership 

confirmation—openness—authorization—supervision” should be established. This involves clarifying 

the ownership of public data through legislation, building a classified and graded open system, a 

market-oriented authorization and operation mechanism, and a dynamic supervision system across the 

entire chain. At the same time, emphasis should be placed on comparing and learning from 

international experiences and aligning with international rules to ensure China’s initiative in global 

digital governance. This ensures both national security and public interest while unleashing the 

economic and social value of public data. 

In conclusion, the institutional design for future public data circulation and utilization should adhere to 

the following guiding principles: 1) Establish a property rights framework for public data under the 

principle of state ownership with government management, while considering social sharing. 2) 

Implement differentiated circulation regulations based on the importance and sensitivity of public data, 

creating a classified and tiered management system. 3) Within legal boundaries, allow specific 

institutions to operate public data through market mechanisms to drive value transformation, 

establishing authorized operation and market-oriented mechanisms. 4) Improve benefit distribution and 

accountability mechanisms to reasonably balance interests among the state, market entities, and the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

256 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

public. 5) Strengthen security safeguards and regulatory measures to ensure public data circulation and 

utilization under the premise of national security and personal privacy protection. 

4.1 Construction of Public Data Ownership System 

Public data generated or managed by government agencies at all levels during the performance of 

public functions shall be owned collectively by the state, not individual departments. Its legal status 

should be defined as state-owned, government-managed, and socially shared. State ownership ensures 

public data does not become departmental interests or local resources, guaranteeing unified national 

ownership of data assets. Government management entails authorities as custodians and administrators 

of public data, responsible for proper preservation, rational utilization, and lawful disclosure. Social 

sharing grants the public and enterprises legal rights to access and utilize public data within legal 

frameworks. By enacting the Public Data Management Law or amending the Data Security Law, the 

ownership of public data shall be clarified. Data catalogs shall specify ownership, circulation methods, 

and usage boundaries for different types of public data. Specialized institutions like the National Data 

Administration shall uniformly exercise functions of rights confirmation, management, and openness 

for public data. 

4.2 The Classification and Grading Management System of Public Data 

Public data is categorized into three types based on their nature and purpose: 1) Sensitive Data: Public 

data involving national security and social stability, such as military, diplomatic, and public safety 

information. 2) Restricted Data: Public data related to citizens’ privacy or commercial secrets, 

including medical records, educational data, and business registration records. 3) Open Data: Public 

data that can be freely shared with society, such as weather forecasts, transportation data, geographic 

information, and statistical statistics. 

Based on classification, public data is categorized into three levels—General, Important, and 

Core—according to their significance and associated risks, with differentiated access policies 

implemented. General-level data: Open access is the default, with restrictions as exceptions. 

Important-level data: Requires official review and authorization before use. Core-level data: Generally 

not open to the public, but may be authorized for research or security purposes under specific 

conditions. 

4.3 Public Data Authorization Operation Mechanism 

Public data authorization operation refers to the government’s legal authorization to entrust specific 

public data to qualified operators for market-oriented development and utilization. The primary models 

include: 1) Data Exchange Model: Standardized trading and utilization of public data through dedicated 

platforms. 2) State-Owned Enterprise Model: Development and service of public data by 

state-controlled data operation companies. 3) Hybrid Model: Allowing private capital participation in 

public data utilization while maintaining government control over core data. 

The authorization conditions, scope and duration for operation shall be clearly defined. The rights and 

obligations of the government and the operator shall be specified in the authorization contract. A 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

257 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

supervision and review mechanism for operation activities shall be established to prevent abuse or 

illegal use. 

4.4 Mechanism for Benefit Distribution and Responsibility for Public Data Circulation and Utilization 

The circulation and utilization of public data involve three stakeholders: the state, enterprises, and the 

public. To achieve balanced interests through institutional arrangements, three key principles should be 

implemented. First, ensure that public data usage aligns with national strategies and public interests. 

Second, allow enterprises that bear risks and costs to obtain reasonable returns through lawful 

utilization. Finally, enhance public services and promote inclusive applications to enable the public to 

benefit from public data utilization. 

Operational entities must implement data security measures and bear legal liability for any data 

breaches or misuse. If public data utilization infringes upon citizens’ privacy rights or corporate trade 

secrets, civil liabilities shall apply. For serious violations including national security breaches and 

illegal cross-border data transfers, corresponding administrative penalties or even criminal liabilities 

shall be imposed. 

4.5 Security Guarantee and Supervision Mechanism for Public Data Circulation and Utilization 

Before opening or authorizing the operation of public data, a national security and privacy protection 

risk assessment must be conducted. Public data involving personal information should undergo 

de-identification. Dynamic supervision and traceability mechanism: Utilize blockchain and other 

technologies to achieve full traceability of data circulation. 

The National Data Administration will lead the establishment of a cross-departmental coordination 

mechanism, and set up specialized public data regulatory agencies in key industries such as medical 

care, finance and transportation. A public participation mechanism will be established to enhance the 

transparency of public data governance. 

The legal regulatory path for the circulation and utilization of public data in China should be a 

closed-loop system of “rights 

confirmation—classification—authorization—allocation—responsibility—security”. Through a unified 

ownership system, scientific classification and grading, standardized authorization and operation, fair 

benefit distribution, strict responsibility mechanisms, and comprehensive security safeguards, orderly 

circulation and efficient utilization of public data can be achieved. In the construction of the system, it 

is necessary to absorb international experience while being grounded in China’s national conditions, 

forming a public data governance model with Chinese characteristics, thereby providing a solid legal 

guarantee for the development of the digital economy and the modernization of national governance. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

258 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

5. Conclusions and Perspectives 

The legal nature of public data is inherently complex, differing from both ordinary personal 

information and traditional state assets. It combines public and proprietary attributes, serving as both a 

foundational resource for national governance and a crucial production factor driving digital economic 

development. Its legal framework should be defined as “state-owned, government-managed, and 

socially shared” to prevent fragmentation and departmental self-interest. Although China has 

established foundational regulations like the Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection 

Law, along with the National Data Administration, the sector still faces challenges including unclear 

ownership, fragmented management, inefficient circulation mechanisms, and relatively high security 

risks. Particularly in the commercial utilization of public data, there remains a lack of clear legal basis 

and standardized operational mechanisms. 

The fundamental framework for regulating public data in China should follow the sequence of “rights 

confirmation—classification—authorization—allocation—accountability—security”. In institutional 

development, the process should begin with clarifying ownership rights of public data. Next, establish a 

classification and grading system to scientifically differentiate between open and restricted scopes. 

Thirdly, enable market-oriented development of public data through authorized operations. Building on 

this foundation, improve mechanisms for benefit distribution, accountability systems, and security 

safeguards, ultimately forming a closed-loop governance structure for public data. 

Overall, public data serves as a crucial pillar for the modernization of national governance systems and 

capabilities, as well as a core resource for the development of the digital economy (Liu, J. F., & Yu, Y. 

W., 2023, pp. 93-100). Its circulation and utilization not only involve economic efficiency but also 

concern national security, social equity, and the protection of individual rights. By establishing a 

scientific, rational, and operational legal regulatory framework, China can unleash the immense 

potential of public data while safeguarding public interests, thereby promoting the high-quality 

development of digital China and the digital economy. In the future, as international rules continue to 

evolve and domestic systems remain refined, public data governance will advance to a higher level of 

standardization and legalization. Researchers and legislators should maintain close attention to this 

field, striving to establish a China-characteristic legal system for the circulation and utilization of 

public data that balances openness and security, efficiency and fairness, contributing China’s wisdom 

and solutions to global data governance. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

259 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Cheng, X. (2023). On data rights. Journal of the National Prosecutors College, 31(05), 77-94. 

Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 1: This Law is formulated to regulate 

data processing activities, ensure data security, promote data development and utilization, protect 

the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and organizations, and safeguard national 

sovereignty, security and development interests. 

Fan, J. J. (2024). Research on the Integration of Public Data into the Data Element Market Model. 

Journal of Information Resource Management, 14(02), 68-81. 

Guangdong Provincial Government Services and Data Administration. Experience Sharing: 

Accelerating the Construction of Digital Shenzhen, Building a Benchmark for New Smart Cities 

and a Model for Digital China Cities. Available from: 

https://zfsg.gd.gov.cn/xxfb/ywsd/content/post_4677766.html [Accessed 11th November 2025]. 

Li, Y. (2014). Analysis of Mobile Internet Information Security Threats and Vulnerabilities. 

Communication Technology, 47(04), 439-444. 

Liu, J. F., & Yu, Y. W. (2023). The Conceptual Definition, Influencing Factors, and Development Path 

of Digital Government Transformation. Nandu Xuetan, 43(06), 93-100. 

National Data Administration. The First Batch of Common Terminology Explanations in the Data Field. 

Available from: https://www.nda.gov.cn/sjj/zwgk/zcfb/1230/20241230160715745237413_pc.html 

[Accessed 11th November 2025]. 

The State Council’s Opinions on Promoting the Innovative Development of Cloud Computing and 

Cultivating New Forms of Information Industry (Guo Fa [2015] No. 5); The State Council’s 

Notice on Issuing the Action Outline for Promoting Big Data Development (Guo Fa [2015] No. 

50). 

Tong, N. N., Yang, M. X., Mo, X. Y. et al. (2023). Data Finance: A Model Framework for Promoting 

Interest Distribution in Public Data Authorization Operations in the New Era. E-Government, 

2023(01), 23-35. 

Zhang, X. B., & Cao, Q. Z. (2023). Research on Legal Mechanisms for Public Data Ownership 

Authorization. Comparative Law Studies, 2023(03), 41-55. 

Zhang, Z. Q., & Jiang, H. (2016). Seven Years of Experience and Insights from Data Openness in the 

United States. Communication World, 2016(24), 27-28. 

 

 


