专家系统驱动的技治主义运动式治理——基于F市创建禁毒示范城市的转译社会学解释

地方政府的治理创新正在出现一种新的趋势：在“稳中求进”的政治考虑下,结合技术治理与运动式治理以实现特定的目标。借鉴拉图尔转译社会学理论,对F市“创城”过程中专家系统的转译行为进行研究发现,转译行动的实施赋予了专家系统行动者的身份,由此编织起的行动者网络能够实现治理资源的流动并促进治理效能的提升,从而形成技治主义运动式治理。作为技治主义运动式治理范式的“创城”是在转译行动建构下的内部转型与外部适配的过程。此种寓技术治理于运动式治理的范式并非简单的要素叠加,而是受到了专家系统的行动建构,将技术与政治进行了结构性整合,以使其匹配现阶段社会治理的总体目标。现实的合理性与治理的有效性是采取这一模式的根本原因。     

技治主义与当代中国关系刍议

20世纪80、90年代以来，一些国外学者认为，当代中国正在从社会主义走上技治主义的道路。因为定义不清，数据和论证存在问题，以及对中国政治精英选拔理解偏差，这种观点是错误的。技治主义对当代中国政治产生了一定程度的影响，但远未到影响社会根本制度的程度。对技治主义的评价必须结合中国的具体国情，不能一味追随西方的观点。作为一种工具，对中国政治进行适度的技治主义改良在现阶段具有一定的积极意义。     

Land-use planning and participation: The case of inuit public housing (Nunavik, Canada)

This article examines the role of participation in land-use planning. It discusses a concrete example of planning, related to the construction of social housing in Nunavik, the most northerly region of Québec, Canada, inhabited mainly by Inuit. It looks at how the responsibilities of the various parties involved in the planning process have changed over the past 30 years and strives to understand the exact nature of their responsibilities at the present time. In so doing, it focuses on the role of citizens. This study shows that citizen participation plays a relatively limited role in planning, even though existing legislation makes it an integral part of the process. It helps to fulfil basic land-use planning functions, namely, an economic rationalization function and a political legitimization function. From this perspective, discourse on the democratic virtues of participatory planning is misleading.     

从“后常规科学”看环境风险治理的技治主义误区

传统的环境风险治理,主要采取的是基于“常规科学”方法的技治主义模式,旨在以“技术统治论”寻求关于风险的确定性、真理性的科学结论。当前,科学已经进入“后常规”时代,环境风险的不确定性和复杂性程度极大提高,原有的“常规科学”方法已经在某种程度上失去其合理性,技治主义治理模式的弊端和局限性日益显现。应充分认识“后常规科学”的特点,适当调整权威式、中心式的精英决策过程,超越技治主义误区,建构多元开放型的科学家-政府-公众联合治理模式,才能真正提高环境风险治理的实效。     

Rethinking the policy influence of experts: From general characterizations to analysis of variation

This paper first surveys the four principal positions in the debate about the policy influence of professional experts — technocracy, extensive mandates, limited mandates, and servants of power — and finds none entirely satisfactory. While the limited mandates position is the best general characterization of the policy influence of experts, many instances reveal more extensive influence. The papers argues for shifting the discussion from general characterizations to the systematic analysis of variation in the extent and significance of professional influence. A framework for analyzing this variation is proposed. The framework highlights the importance of depoliticization, the framing of issues as narrowly technical or involving the protection of a central cultural value, political situations that encourage the informal capture of power by professional experts or the delegation of power to experts, and the differing level of legitimacy enjoyed by professional occupations, based on their centrality in social regulation.     

民国时期专家治国的理念研究

民初,随着封建帝制的推翻,传统价值体系也遭到破坏。科学技术被视为解决一切社会问题的灵丹妙药,在当时受到追捧,逐步攻占旧体系被打破之后的空白。由此,人们也对新兴的专家群体赋予了许多特殊期待,"专家治国"作为一种思路在民国脱颖而出。与同时期的西方专家治国理念不同,国内的专家治国方案表现出鲜明的中国特色。     

论技治主义

技治主义的定义、历史、特征、存在理由。技治主义虽然胜于官僚政治,但是它也有诸多缺陷:缺乏管理现代社会的其他的必要知识和素质;作为手段而非目的的科学和技术对目标确定和价值选择的问题先天乏力;在思想上和行动中易于陷入传统的科学和技术固有的机械决定论或因果一义论的模式,无视或轻视社会和人的问题的复杂性、多变性乃至混沌性;排斥乃至剥夺政治家和公民行使、参与政治的权利或权力;尤其是侵害或消弭人的自由和自主性。我们对此必须有明确认识,并从思想认识和公共教育两方面双管齐下逐渐予以克服。     

西方专家治国论合法性的历史演变及其困境

专家治国论是西方一种重要的社会思潮,它主张技术专家全面管理社会。它的合法性的历史演变经历了三个阶段。培根把科学家视为上帝在人间的代表;圣西门认为科学家代表实业社会的理性原则;现代工业社会论认为技术专家的权力源于生产领域技术的要求。当代技术统治论已经陷入难以解决的困境之中。     

专家系统驱动的技治主义运动式治理——基于F市创建禁毒示范城市的转译社会学解释

地方政府的治理创新正在出现一种新的趋势：在“稳中求进”的政治考虑下,结合技术治理与运动式治理以实现特定的目标。借鉴拉图尔转译社会学理论,对F市“创城”过程中专家系统的转译行为进行研究发现,转译行动的实施赋予了专家系统行动者的身份,由此编织起的行动者网络能够实现治理资源的流动并促进治理效能的提升,从而形成技治主义运动式治理。作为技治主义运动式治理范式的“创城”是在转译行动建构下的内部转型与外部适配的过程。此种寓技术治理于运动式治理的范式并非简单的要素叠加,而是受到了专家系统的行动建构,将技术与政治进行了结构性整合,以使其匹配现阶段社会治理的总体目标。现实的合理性与治理的有效性是采取这一模式的根本原因。     

Global Development Goals: The Folly of Technocratic Pretensions

This article argues that, although effective strategic choices for achieving global development goals need to be based on assessments of the costs and benefits of alternative approaches, existing methods of arriving at such assessments are highly unreliable, in particular deriving from implausible and restrictive assumptions and often depending on data of poor quality, and on the pretence that the future can be adequately known. Such weaknesses can be mitigated, but not easily overcome, without abandoning deeply held technocratic presumptions.