Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management ISSN: 2766-824X | Vol. 16, No. 2, 2024 164 Independent Directors' Opposition, Earnings Management and the Risk of Stock Price Crash Liyuan Chen 1, *, Zhihui Wan 2 1 Nanchang Normal University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330032, China 2 Jiangxi Institute of Fashion Technology, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330201, China * Corresponding author: chen60285328@163.com Abstract: The multi-subject collaborative supply system for community public cultural services is a crucial component of China's public cultural service system. With the development of the market economy and the diversification of cultural demands among community residents, a single government-led supply system is unable to meet these needs. This paper, based on collaborative governance theory, explores the multi-subject collaborative supply mechanism in community public cultural services and identifies its existing challenges. The research finds that the current multi-subject collaborative supply of community public cultural services is insufficient, primarily reflected in difficulties in safeguarding basic cultural rights, low satisfaction with service levels, fragmented supply decision-making, and a lack of standardized institutional mechanisms. The reasons for insufficient collaborative supply include inadequate supply input, low supply efficiency, imbalanced supply subject structure, and an incomplete supply mechanism. To enhance the efficiency of multi-subject collaborative supply in community public cultural services, it is necessary to continuously expand multi-channel fundraising, establish a long-term funding support mechanism, innovate and integrate cultural resources for precise high-quality supply, optimize the collaborative supply structure of multi-subjects in community public cultural services, and improve the operational mechanisms of multi-subject collaborative supply. Keywords: Community, Public Cultural Services, Multi-Subject, Collaborative Supply. 1. Introduction The report of the 20th National Congress emphasized: "Improve the basic public service system, enhance public service levels, strengthen balance and accessibility, and solidly promote common prosperity." The "14th Five-Year Plan for the Construction of the Public Cultural Service System" pointed out the need to innovate and cultivate public cultural spaces, further advance the construction of the public cultural service system, strengthen community building, and reinforce the guarantee of basic public services. Community public cultural services are a vital component of the public cultural service system. [1] However, with the development of the market economy, the advancement of urban reforms, and the diversification of residents' cultural needs, the government-led unidirectional supply system has become increasingly inadequate in meeting the cultural needs of residents. The Chinese government has begun to emphasize the collaborative supply by multiple subjects and has achieved certain successes, but the effectiveness of this multi- subject collaboration is still less than ideal. Therefore, it is particularly important to explore mechanisms and optimization strategies for multi-subject collaborative supply. This paper, from the perspective of collaborative governance, addresses the issues present in the multi-subject collaborative supply of community public cultural services and proposes targeted improvement measures. The aim is to integrate resources from various parties, improve the quality and efficiency of public cultural service supply, and promote the standardization and equalization of community public cultural service supply, thereby enabling residents to enjoy a more enriching, diverse, and high-quality spiritual and cultural life. 2. The Multi-Subject Collaborative Supply Mechanism for Community Public Cultural Services The supply of community public cultural services is a service activity and cooperative governance process that is government-led, community-based, and oriented toward the needs of community residents, involving the participation of multiple subjects. To effectively realize these services, the involved supply subjects and mechanisms must be well- coordinated to ensure the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of service provision. Therefore, understanding the subject structure and supply mechanisms of multi-subject collaborative supply in community public cultural services is crucial for optimizing the quality of community public service supply and enhancing governance outcomes. 2.1. The Multi-Subject Structure of Community Public Cultural Services The supply subject is the core element in the provision of community public cultural services. The supply and operation of these services involve an interactive process of communication and coordination among multiple subjects. [2] This paper categorizes the supply subjects into four groups: the government, social organizations, enterprises, and community residents, while emphasizing the central role of government leadership. 2.1.1. Government The primary characteristic of community public cultural services is their public nature, and providing public services is one of the key responsibilities of the government. Service awareness and a focus on the people are fundamental qualities 165 that the government must possess. Additionally, compared to other entities, the government has stronger authority, control, and execution capabilities, enabling it to provide cultural products and services that other social entities are unwilling or unable to offer. Therefore, the government plays a crucial role as both a leader and collaborator within the public cultural service system. In this paper, "government" refers to the main administrative units involved in the supply of community public cultural services, including town (district) governments and street offices, which represent the government’s acting entities. In the process of providing community public cultural services, the government must not only enhance its macro-regulatory functions, set the direction and goals for collaborative supply services, and ensure orderly progress, but also guide and support other entities, create a favorable cooperative environment, establish a mechanism of equal and mutual trust, and broaden the coverage of high-quality public cultural services. However, the government is not omnipotent; due to its own deficiencies and limitations, there is a phenomenon of "government failure" that may lead to the ineffectiveness of collaborative supply. 2.1.2. Community Organizations Community organizations refer to entities established within communities that act as intermediaries, responsible for conveying demands and policy directives between residents and the government. They play a role in transmitting information and take on the roles of collaborators and organizers. Specifically, there are three types of organizations: community party organizations, community committees, and community social organizations. Community party organizations represent the greatest political advantage and solid support for public cultural service provision in China's communities, taking a leading and exemplary role. Community committees are the main organizational bodies within communities, assisting the government with various management tasks. Community social organizations are grassroots organizations spontaneously formed by residents. Community organizations are close to residents, providing public cultural products and services that better meet residents' needs, reducing the government's burden, and coordinating differences in demands and conflicts of interest between residents and other entities. [3] Thus, community organizations, as effective communication channels, help residents to independently participate in and organize various cultural activities, achieving their cultural rights. 2.1.3. Enterprises Enterprises are a crucial component of the market economy and an indispensable supply entity in community public cultural services, playing the role of a collaborator. While pursuing their own interests, enterprises should also shoulder certain social responsibilities. In the process of supplying community public cultural services, enterprises can participate through methods such as equity investment, franchising, legal delegation, and government funding. They can leverage their capital advantages and keen awareness of residents' cultural needs, introduce market mechanisms, alleviate government supply pressures, enrich the supply content, and enhance the social governance framework, while also providing a favorable social atmosphere for their own development. [4] However, due to market externalities and uncertainties, enterprises often focus solely on their own interests, neglecting overall benefits and fairness. This may lead to public risks such as private monopolies, unequal supply, and excessive competition, resulting in "market failure" phenomena. 2.1.4. Community Residents Community residents are the fundamental entities in the supply of community public cultural services, playing multiple roles in the process. They are not only the proposers of cultural demands and beneficiaries of cultural services but also participants and evaluators in community public cultural construction. The extent of residents' participation directly affects the types and quantities of services supplied and determines the orderly development of community public cultural services. Compared to other supply entities, community residents have a clearer understanding of their own cultural needs and are familiar with the actual situation of community public cultural services, making service provision more convenient and targeted, thus significantly improving the efficiency of cultural service supply. Figure 1. Diverse Stakeholder Structure in Community Public Cultural Services 2.2. Diverse Stakeholder Cooperative Supply Mechanism To achieve diverse stakeholder cooperative supply and form a collaborative governance framework, this paper, based on the development trends of community public cultural services and cooperative governance theory, constructs a composite mechanism for diverse stakeholder cooperative supply. This mechanism includes resident participation, volunteer supply, funding support, service procurement, and supervision and evaluation mechanisms. 2.2.1. Resident Participation Mechanism The goal of community public cultural services is to ensure residents' basic cultural rights and meet their cultural needs. Diverse Stakeholder Structure in Community Public Cultural Services Government Community Organizations Enterprises Community Residents 166 Resident participation is not only a process of practicing democratic principles but also a reflection of rational demands for cultural rights, which can effectively enhance the relevance and scientific nature of the supply. Therefore, when establishing a demand-oriented resident participation mechanism, it is crucial to first consult residents and understand their needs, ensure smooth channels for conveying demands, and introduce democratic consultation to ensure that public cultural service supply decisions can achieve both "bottom-up" and "top-down" communication. Secondly, the government should enhance residents' awareness of cultural rights and participation through social publicity and public opinion guidance, creating a democratic and open participation atmosphere. 2.2.2. Volunteer Supply Mechanism Volunteer service teams are non-governmental cultural organizations with voluntary and non-profit objectives. They are a crucial force in the supply of community public cultural services and embody the attributes of social public welfare.[5] Therefore, it is essential to focus on optimizing the management of volunteer teams, innovating volunteer training models, improving support systems, and establishing stable volunteer teams. The government should use policy incentives and management guidance to mobilize volunteer enthusiasm, create a highly skilled and capable volunteer team, and collaborate with professional teams to jointly provide high-quality community public cultural services to residents. 2.2.3. Funding Support Mechanism The public nature of cultural services dictates the government's leading role in funding investment, while also necessitating the expansion of diversified funding channels. Given the underdevelopment of non-governmental organizations and their reliance on national support for supply capacity, the government should fully exert its leadership to ensure the effective use of funds. This includes: establishing a system where fiscal authority and administrative responsibility in public cultural services are aligned; optimizing the structure of special fund subsidies and broadening funding sources; and enhancing fund utilization efficiency to create a funding assurance mechanism that integrates "blood transfusion" with "blood production." 2.2.4. Service Procurement Mechanism Purchasing public cultural services is a key method led by the government and a crucial measure for businesses to participate in and enhance supply efficiency and quality.[6] Given the current needs for new urban development in China, the significant community public cultural demands place a substantial economic burden on the government. Therefore, attracting social funding has become one of the important tasks. It is necessary to clarify the government's leading role among supply entities, foster social participation forces led by community organizations, businesses, and residents, and appropriately mobilize market forces to fill the public finance gap, forming a cooperative supply mechanism with diverse stakeholders. Specifically, this includes: the government securing funding through fiscal guarantees and purchasing community public cultural services via outsourcing, franchising, and agency arrangements; and businesses or third-party organizations utilizing their market production techniques and management to produce and provide cultural products and services to residents. 2.2.5. Supervision and Evaluation Mechanism The supervision and evaluation mechanism includes strengthening regulatory responsibilities and overseeing the entire process of cooperative governance. Although cooperation among diverse stakeholders can address many supply issues, the deficiencies of various stakeholders may affect the efficiency of community public cultural service provision. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a standardized and scientific supervision and evaluation mechanism. This includes: improving supervision and management systems, establishing internal supervision mechanisms, and emphasizing the role of social oversight; developing a performance evaluation system with accountability and reward mechanisms; and creating a comprehensive assessment feedback mechanism, including a quantitative evaluation system and a multi-stakeholder evaluation mechanism. This will provide a basis for performance evaluation and service supply adjustments, establish information feedback and sharing mechanism, and ensure transparency and optimal use of information. Figure 2. Mechanism for Collaborative Supply of Community Public Cultural Services by Multiple Stakeholders Mechanism for Collaborative Supply of Community Public Cultural Services by Multiple Stakeholders Resident Participation Mechanism Volunteer Supply Mechanism Service Procurement Mechanism Funding Support Mechanism Supervision and Evaluation Mechanism 167 3. Problems in the Collaborative Supply of Community Public Cultural Services by Multiple Stakeholders 3.1. Basic Cultural Rights Are Difficult to Guarantee Currently, most community cultural facilities are still rudimentary, especially in underdeveloped areas, where public cultural services have not yet met the growing demands of the public. Insufficient funding for community cultural activities has weakened residents' enthusiasm for participating in cultural events. On one hand, since the tax- sharing system reform, local governments have gained some financial capacity, but the funding sources for community public cultural services mainly rely on regular grants, special subsidies, and government purchases. [7] However, local government finances are limited, particularly in underdeveloped regions. As the content and scope of public services expand, the demand for cultural services increases, but the special funds for public cultural services are scarce, leading to insufficient resources for grassroots cultural development. On the other hand, funding for community public cultural services primarily relies on government input, with limited involvement from social forces. The main forms are government purchases of public cultural services provided by social organizations and corporate sponsorships. Government assistance for culture events hosted by social forces is rare, making multi-stakeholder cooperation superficial and formalized. Additionally, the funds provided by enterprises and institutions within the district are limited, and community operational income and social donations have not yet formed a regular mechanism. Grassroots organizations and associations also face developmental difficulties, making it hard to maintain the continuous operation of community public cultural services, resulting in difficulties in ensuring basic cultural rights and meeting cultural needs. 3.2. Satisfaction with Service Levels Is Low Public cultural resource allocation includes aspects such as the quantity of cultural service activities and facilities, and supply-demand conflicts. Firstly, there are differences in the quantity of public cultural service supply between old and new communities, and between developed and underdeveloped cities. In older communities and underdeveloped cities, public cultural service facilities limit the number of participants, resulting in only small-scale and limited cultural activities being held. Additionally, community cultural activities and facilities are often monotonous, existing cultural facilities are generally outdated, and the level of cultural product and service supply is insufficient to meet the increasingly diverse needs of community residents. [8] Secondly, there are prominent supply-demand conflicts, including issues of redundant or inappropriate supply. Community public cultural services have not fully considered the needs of residents of different age groups and educational levels, leading to some cultural facilities and activities being underutilized while others are overcrowded, causing resource waste. Moreover, under multi- stakeholder cooperative supply, problems such as the underdevelopment of enterprises and community organizations, and lack of active resident participation lead to a mismatch in supply and demand. Residents' diverse cultural needs cannot be effectively communicated to service providers, resulting in a particularly noticeable problem of supply-demand asymmetry, and a continuous decline in community residents' satisfaction and recognition. 3.3. Supply Decision-Making Fragmentation Current, the supply of community public cultural services is characterized by an imbalance of stakeholders, with the government still bearing most of the responsibility for public cultural provision. Participation from businesses, community organizations, and individual residents is relatively limited. [9] When providing community public cultural services, the government not only considers public interests but often prioritizes political benefits. Consequently, the decision- making mechanism for community public cultural services is predominantly "top-down," with limited awareness and influence from community residents. This single-layered decision-making process often fails to meet the needs of the public. Furthermore, social forces themselves are weak in terms of survival capability, with loose management, small organizational scale, and insufficient cultural functionality, failing to address the shortcomings of government cultural provision. The government also lacks sufficient financial and technical support for other supply stakeholders, making it challenging to meet the increasingly diverse needs of residents. As a result, the supply of community public cultural services struggles to offer more and better cultural products and services, losing momentum for sustainable development. 3.4. The Institutional Mechanisms Are Not Standardized A well-established supply mechanism is essential for the effective provision of community public cultural services. However, during the supply process, the lack of standardized institutional mechanisms leads to frequent issues such as a shortage of specialized personnel, redundant construction, and inefficient operation. Without normative institutional safeguards, related policies are difficult to implement effectively, and the supervision of public cultural services remains predominantly under government administrative oversight, with limited social oversight. Additionally, there is a lack of specific satisfaction surveys and objective evaluation systems, and related policy standards and assessment criteria are inadequate. The indicators for cultural construction are hard to quantify, resulting in the neglect of community public cultural service development. This leads to prioritizing public services that directly affect community construction indicators, significantly weakening the public and inclusive nature of public cultural services and failing to meet public needs. 4. Causes of Issues in Multi-Party Cooperation for Providing Community Public Cultural Services 4.1. Insufficient Supply input Funding is the foundation for the supply of community public cultural services and a prerequisite for the sustainability of service projects. The basic cultural rights of community residents are difficult to ensure, and cultural needs are hard to meet, mainly due to insufficient funding. On one hand, as the main provider of public cultural services, the government holds a mindset that emphasizes economics over culture, which affects the investment in urban community 168 public cultural services. Some local governments, in response to performance assessments from higher authorities, allocate limited resources extensively to economic construction and rarely consider the investment in cultural construction, which is costly and yields slow results, leading to an imbalance in the relationship between the economy and culture. On the other hand, the funding sources are singular, primarily relying on government investment, resulting in a limited total amount of funding. Although social donations provide another source of funding, the government has not planned the use of funds scientifically and rationally, failing to effectively guide and encourage enterprises and community organizations to support public cultural services. This, to some extent, limits the development of community cultural undertakings and weakens the diversification and sustainable development of public cultural services. 4.2. Low supply Efficiency Community public cultural service supply efficiency refers to the level and capability of service provision to the public by multiple entities led by the government. In practice, residents' cultural needs play a decisive role, but the imbalance between supply and demand is a major manifestation of low supply efficiency. On the demand side, influenced by the information network era and traditional administrative management models, residents have diverse ways to access public cultural services. However, there is a lack of recognition and enthusiasm for community cultural activities, resulting in low willingness to participate in cultural activities and express needs. On the supply side, there is a lack of mechanisms for expressing demand, and residents cannot convey their opinions and appeals through appropriate channels. Affected by political factors, the government finds it difficult to fully reflect public opinion, and other supply entities also cannot promptly understand residents' real needs, leading to superficial resident participation in supply. The poor bidirectional communication between supply and demand results in an imbalance and inefficiency in community public cultural supply. 4.3. Imbalance in the Structure of Supply Entities The key to collaborative supply by multiple entities lies in the active and effective participation of each entity, which directly impacts the quality and efficiency of service provision. Although the supply of community public cultural services has developed into a situation with multiple coexisting entities, the government-led supply concept has not fully transformed. From overall planning to specific implementation, the government participates throughout the process of community public cultural service provision and has not adequately guided the involvement of private enterprises, community organizations, and other non- governmental organizations, nor has it provided them with policy support and tax incentives, severely affecting the cultivation of a collaborative awareness among multiple entities. Additionally, unclear division of responsibilities and authority among multiple entities leads to overlapping functions, difficulty in defining responsibilities, and the phenomenon of passing the buck, resulting in a chaotic situation. Finally, the heterogeneity of interests among entities leads to the dispersion and fragmentation of supply entities, hindering the effective realization of co-construction, co-governance, and shared benefits. 4.4. Underdeveloped Supply Mechanism The collaborative supply mechanism is essential for ensuring the cooperation among multiple entities and maintaining the continuous and healthy operation of the process. It mainly includes mechanisms for resident participation, service procurement, volunteer supply, supervision and evaluation, and related legal system development. The ultimate goal of community public cultural services is to meet residents' needs, and residents have the most say in the supply process. However, the inadequacy of participation mechanisms results in low satisfaction and engagement among residents, leading to an imbalance between supply and demand. [10] Inadequate service procurement and funding support mechanisms place excessive economic pressure on the government, making it difficult for community public cultural services to develop sustainably. The imperfect volunteer supply mechanism makes it challenging to ensure the quantity and quality of cultural supply. The absence of a supervision and evaluation mechanism results in the government taking on the roles of producer, manager, and supervisor, lacking an effective social and public oversight mechanism, and making it difficult to scientifically assess the performance of public cultural services. Additionally, the effectiveness of collaborative supply by multiple entities not only requires internal system interaction and cooperation but also depends on external environmental support. Insufficient supporting legal regulations and policy safeguards result in a lack of concrete guidance for constructing the collaborative supply mechanism for community public cultural services. 5. Optimization Strategies for Collaborative Supply of Community Public Cultural Services by Multiple Entities 5.1. Expand Diverse Funding Channels and Establish a Long-Term Financial Support Mechanism Currently, the supply of community public cultural services still requires national support and financial backing from government departments. Efforts can be made in the following areas: First, improve the fiscal cultural funding policy system by fully utilizing channels such as the general public budget, government fund budgets, and state-owned capital management budgets, and optimize support directions and priorities. By means such as tax incentives and cultural industry development plans, attract market forces and private capital, broaden funding sources, and encourage social forces to fund cultural public welfare undertakings. Second, refine fiscal support methods, with government investment as the primary source, coordinating multi-channel funding sources, conducting competitive project funding, providing appropriate support for key projects, playing a policy guidance role, and stimulating the endogenous development power of operating entities. Support methods should focus on capital injection, reduce direct subsidies, and adjust and optimize the structure of cultural funding usage to promote dynamic balance between public cultural investment and demand. Third, strengthen the performance management of funding budgets. Implement the 'Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Comprehensive Implementation of Budget 169 Performance Management' and accelerate the construction of a performance management closed-loop system to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of fiscal cultural fund allocation and use. 5.2. Innovate and Integrate Cultural Resources to Seek Precise Supply of High-Quality Resources As China enters a stage of high-quality development, people have higher demands for the quality, taste, and style of cultural products, requiring public cultural services to precisely provide more specialized, personalized, and diversified high-quality products. First, provide high-quality cultural service supply by improving the diversification supply mechanism of public cultural service products. Through government procurement of services and government-social capital cooperation, guide and encourage social forces to participate in community public cultural services, forming a service pattern of cooperation among multiple entities. Second, improve the demand expression mechanism and the supply-demand matching mechanism. Shift from the traditional top-down 'push' supply model to a bottom-up 'demand-oriented' supply model, establish more public communication channels, enable the government and other entities to better understand the new changes in residents' spiritual and cultural needs, and conduct 'order- based' and 'menu-based' services to enhance supply effectiveness. Third, promote the integration and development of public cultural services with related industries. Use a 'cultural +' approach to activate various public service resources, explore cross-regional, cross- departmental, and cross-level linkage mechanisms, and connect multiple entities with different service themes to form a new model of public cultural service supply driven by multi- departmental government cooperation. Fourth, implement the national cultural digital strategy, accelerate the construction of public digital cultural projects, coordinate the advancement of the national cultural big data system and public cultural cloud, expand the coverage of high-quality public cultural products, and use big data technology to accurately identify residents' potential cultural needs, provide precise cultural services preferred by residents, and enhance their experience and sense of gain. Finally, strengthen community cultural infrastructure, improve infrastructure utilization, and integrate community cultural resources to maximize residents' access to convenient, close-range, and regular high- quality public cultural services. 5.3. Optimize the Collaborative Supply Pattern of Community Public Cultural Services by Multiple Entities To address the issues of weak overall integration, decentralization, and fragmentation in the participation of multiple entities in cultural service supply, it is necessary to establish a reasonable and effective collaborative framework for multi-entity involvement in cultural service provision. First, in terms of concepts, community public cultural services should embrace the idea of multi-entity cooperation, reassess and redefine the role of the government, and emphasize the decisive role of the market in allocating public cultural resources. Second, in terms of responsibilities and authorities, clarify the functions and responsibilities of social entities to ensure that the socialized operation of community public cultural services is regulated and legally compliant. Strengthen the supervision of the entire process of socialized operation and conduct regular assessments to ensure equal consultation among the government, enterprises, community organizations, and residents under standardized procedures. Third, in terms of goals, the government and multiple entities should be guided by residents' needs, respect the primary role of residents, ensure residents' right to information and participation in supply decisions, guide social forces to actively participate in community public cultural service provision, strengthen corporate social responsibility, achieve the goal of equalization of public cultural services, and leverage the comparative advantages of market entities to build a multi-faceted supply pattern involving the government, social forces, and community residents. Only through collaborative efforts among the government, enterprises, community organizations, and residents can the effectiveness of community public cultural service supply be truly enhanced. 5.4. Improve the Operational Mechanism for Collaborative Supply by Multiple Entities In the context of the shift in the focus of social governance, the involvement of multiple entities in the supply of community public cultural services has become inevitable. An effective operational mechanism is crucial for the successful collaboration among multiple entities. First, the resident participation mechanism: High resident participation can enhance the relevance and scientific approach of community public cultural service supply. Regular surveys should be conducted, close contact with the community should be maintained, and channels for conveying needs should be kept open. Through online and offline promotions and social opinion guidance, residents' awareness of community and cultural rights should be increased. Second, the service purchasing mechanism: Improve the supervision system for purchasing community public cultural services. Integrate and allocate cultural resources through market mechanisms to provide financing possibilities for public cultural services, enhance service performance and efficiency, and reflect the mutual promotion of cultural undertakings and industries. [11] Third, the funding support mechanism: The government should play a leading role in ensuring sufficient funds for community public cultural service provision. Fourth, the volunteer supply mechanism: Actively recruit community cultural volunteers and utilize college students returning home during their holidays to serve as temporary cultural instructors in the community, creating a team of volunteers with high professional skills and service capabilities. Fifth, the supervision and evaluation mechanism: Improve the supervision system and evaluate aspects such as service guarantees, service content, public participation, satisfaction, talent team development, and service effectiveness to promote the improvement of service quality and innovation by staff. 6. Conclusion The collaborative supply of community public cultural services by multiple entities is a crucial issue in the modernization of Chinese society and an important approach to improving the quality of public cultural services. This paper examines how to optimize service quality and efficiency through a multi-entity collaborative supply 170 mechanism. Currently, community public cultural services face issues such as insufficient protection of basic cultural rights, low service satisfaction, fragmented supply decision- making, and irregular institutional mechanisms. To address these issues, it is necessary to establish a multi-entity collaborative governance framework that includes the government, social organizations, enterprises, and residents. By clarifying the responsibilities and rights of each entity, promoting information sharing and resource integration, and optimizing the decision-making process, the precision and satisfaction of services can be improved. Specific strategies include expanding diverse funding channels and establishing a long-term funding support mechanism; innovating and integrating cultural resources to seek high-quality resource provision; optimizing the collaborative supply pattern of community public cultural services; and improving the operational mechanism for multi-entity collaboration. These measures will enhance the overall quality of community public services, meet the growing cultural needs of residents, and ensure effective protection of basic cultural rights. Acknowledgments Nanchang Normal University Level Project: Research on the Collaborative Supply Model of Multi-Stakeholders in Urban Community Public Cultural Services (Project Number: 23XSKY11) References [1] Peng Liling. Research on the Optimization of Urban Community Public Cultural Service System from the Perspective of Multi-Governance Theory: A Case Study of Changsha City, Hunan Province [J]. Journal of Taiyuan Urban Vocational and Technical College, 2019(11): 28-30. [2] Qin Huaxia. Practice and Exploration of Public Cultural Service Provision in Relocation Communities for Poverty Alleviation: Reflections Based on the “Hubei Longyun” Experience [J]. Rural Economy and Technology, 2023, 34(5): 202-204. [3] Cao Liyuan, Bao Hongze. Construction of a Multi-Subject Collaborative Supply Model for Community Public Cultural Services from the Perspective of Governance Theory: A Case Study of Community M in Baoding City [J]. Journal of Baoding University, 2020, 33(5): 130-136. [4] Hu Zhiping, Xu Xiaozhen. How to Achieve Precision in Multi- Subject Collaborative Supply Model for Community Public Cultural Services: A Social Enterprise Perspective [J]. Journal of the Central Party School (National School of Administration), 2021, 25(6): 103-110. [5] Gao Yibo, Ma Xiaoyong. Innovation in the Mechanism of Multi-Subject Collaborative Supply Model for Community Public Cultural Services: A Multi-Center Governance Perspective [J]. Modern Business, 2018(6): 64-66. [6] Yu Jingyuan, Ma Guoxian. Evaluation and Influencing Factors of Effective Public Cultural Service Provision in China: A Perspective Based on Fiscal Decentralization [J]. Fiscal Supervision, 2020(6): 39-47. [7] Zeng Shuiying, Yuan Jingjing. Issues and Strategies for Precise Supply in the Multi-Subject Collaborative Supply Model for Community Public Cultural Services: Based on Field Research in Dezhou City [J]. Journal of the Northeast, 2023(5): 37-44. [8] Dai Xin. Current Status and Prospects of High-Quality Development of Public Cultural Services: A Perspective of Xi Jinping’s Cultural Thought [J]. Ningxia Party School Journal, 2024, 26(2): 94-101. [9] Zhang Shuju, Yan Deru. Why Does Community Governance and Service Innovate through “Nesting”: An Analysis Based on Functional Transfer, Policy Experimentation, and Goal Execution [J]. Party and Government Research, 2023(5): 113- 122+128. [10] Zhan Shaowen, Qin Yamei. Formation, Dilemmas, and Countermeasures of Project-Based Governance in Public Cultural Services [J]. Decision-Making and Information, 2023(10): 43-51.