Social governance: Corporate governance in institutions of social security, welfare and healthcare

Corporate governance is a concept that attracted the attention of jurists and economists in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. It has become widespread in Belgian company law since the 1990s. Lately, corporate governance elements have popped up in other fields as well. When applied to social institutions, this model is referred to by the term "social governance". The corporate governance concept can be very valuable in the social area. After all, the debate on corporate governance is much more fundamental than the debate on the relationship between shareholders and management and between minority and majority shareholders. The essence of corporate governance can be found in the pursuit of a situation of "checks and balances", which gives the stakeholders the possibility of complementing and controlling each other. We analyse the existing social governance elements in social security and welfare law. We conclude that the implementation of a social governance model should have a positive influence on the policy and practice of social institutions.     

论代理问题与公司治理安排

本文在综述前人公司治理理论的基础上，分析了公司代理问题和世界上现有的三种主要公司治理安排。我们认为任何有效的公司治理安排必须考虑一、该国的文化传统和社会现实；二、构成公司治理的权力基础；三、股东的法律保护和大股东(债权人)在公司治理中的作用。     

A nice thing to do but is it critical for business? Corporate responsibility and Australian business

There is said to be a “new paradigm in business” proposing that business has far broader social and environmental responsibilities than simply making profits for shareholders. This paper examines the concept of corporate responsibility to see how far Australian business has moved towards the new paradigm. Fifty‐four different stakeholders from one large business were interviewed about the meaning of corporate responsibility. Most acknowledged that business has a responsibility beyond simply making profits, however, profit remained the primary motivation in moves towards corporate citizenship, community involvement and social responsibility.     

效率逻辑还是权力逻辑——公司政治与上市公司CEO强制离职

基于1997-2007年676家中国上市公司的面板数据及其CEO、董事长、独立董事、基金经理和相关政府官员的访谈资料,本文深入分析了中国上市公司CEO强制离职的影响因素及作用机制,揭示出一种与代理理论预测和西方经验不同的中国的CEO解职规律。研究表明,CEO解职不仅仅是一个经济过程,受“效率逻辑”的支配,更是一个社会政治过程,受“权力逻辑”的强烈影响。组织中普遍存在的“权力逻辑”压倒“效率逻辑”的现象可能是阻碍中国公司治理改革和其他组织和制度变迁的深层原因,从而使改革流于形式,新制度止于表象。     

建构具有中国特色社会主义的国家治理体系

自党的十八届三中全会后,“国家治理”这一概念正式进入当代中国的政治话语体系。准确深入地探讨国家治理的概念内涵,将建构现代国家治理体系与社会建设事业同步进行,不仅是我国克服社会转型发展问题的必然路径选择,更是我们在总结、借鉴国际经验与反思改革实践中不断实现自我超越,凝炼我国社会的公共价值共识、建设社会主义现代国家的内在要求。     

Corporate Governance and Firm Performance： A Sociological Analysis Based on Chinese Experience

基于676家上市公司1997-2007年问的面板数据及对上市公司高管、独立董事、基金经理和证券分析师等的深度访谈资料,分析公司治理和企业绩效之间的关系,揭示在中国制度背景下与代理理论的预测颇为不问的公司治理与企业绩效的关系模式。而所谓的“最佳”公司治理做法是在特定社会、政治、文化等制度环境下各种复杂社会力量和利益群体进行“建构”的结果,其作用的发挥在很大程度上取决于是否契合所在的制度环境,因此,并不存在普适的“最佳”公司治理模式。基于中国经验的社会学实证研究,为解构这一世界性公司治理迷思提供了新视角和证据。     

Survey on Perceptions of Social Fairness and Their Implications for Social Governance Innovation*

At the present stage, social fairness or equity is an important area of governance in China, and increasing the level of fairness is an important theme of work. In 2016, the Chinese government laid down specific arrangements and operations relating to equity in education, social security, market competition, etc. The participatory governance model entails testing policy outcomes in relation to the sense of fairness of the mass of the people. Our survey found that perceptions of fairness are higher among middle- and high-income groups and are lower in the eastern region than in the central and western regions. In social security, however, perceptions of fairness and of improvements in the level of fairness are lower than they are for education and market competition. Overall, specific policies relating to fairness in education have been quite effective in enhancing people's perceptions of fairness. Accordingly, if we are to make effective improvements in the fairness of social governance, we need a more rational distribution system that takes into account public opinion and expands the scope of fairness in social security.     

国家治理现代化进程中的社会治理创新

国家治理概念在近几年的学术研究中时时出现。将国家治理与现代化结合起来,将国家治理现代化作为一个国家改革攻坚阶段的重大战略是执政的中国共产党启动新一轮思想解放运动的标志。国家治理现代化是在扬弃旧式现代化之后探寻的中国特色社会主义建设之路。国家治理现代化不仅让改革具有了新的意义,而且赋予社会治理创新全新的性质,规定了未来中国式社会治理的新体系。     

过渡治理情境下的中国社会服务困境:基于Z市社会工作服务的研究

社会工作近十年来在创新社会治理的推动下发展迅速。本文将重点关注于社会服务组织的服务供给过程及其导致的社会服务困境。通过对治理情境的拓展分析,引入过渡治理情境概念,分析我国社会服务供给。在此情境下,本文以Z市家庭综合服务中心为例,围绕自由裁量权这一概念讨论社会服务组织的服务供给策略及其所导致的服务困境。在过渡治理情境中,消极的自由裁量权与社会工作的半专业化发展结合在一起,社会服务组织选择了“活动化”和“指标化”的服务供给,令社会服务处于创新和碎片化之间,而导致社会服务陷入困境。社会服务困境根源的解决在于建立合作的治理情境、强化本土化社工专业力量以及充分发挥第三方的社会服务供给效力。     

多元主体协同治理下的我国城市社区研究

随着社会利益多元化的时代变迁和社区建设的发展,治理理论和协同思想逐渐被运用到社区领域。社区协同治理的思路可以概括为社区公共事务社会化,其本质是国家与社会关系的再调整与治理结构的转变。多元主体协同治理的社区模型更注重治理过程中各种社会力量多元化目标的有效凝聚与整合,实现各种力量整体功能的优化和重组,从而实现社会整合的总体目标。     

改革深水区个体极端暴力事件应对与社会治理创新

中国改革进入深水区后个体极端暴力事件呈高发态势,暴露出的是政府与社会关系长期疏离致使社会进入转型期后一些社会个体境遇问题愈益突出和复杂,而基于传统管制思维的公共危机管理应对乏力。治本之策是立足“以人为本”,从国家治理体系和政府治理能力现代化层面推动创新社会管理向创新社会治理转变,构建善治意义上的治理服务型政府,通过改进社会治理方式解决公共安全问题,为民造福。     

完善公司治理加强国有企业中小股东权益法律保护

股权结构是决定股份公司内部权力和利益的分配,影响公司治理结构和治理效率的基础性因素.资本多数决原则下国有企业国有股权一股独大决定了中小股东对公司经营管理决策的形成、贯彻能施加的影响微乎其微.行政上的超强控制、内部人控制、隧道效应、国有资产的流失等均与之难脱干系.究其实质股东的利益冲突造就了公司控制权的产生,公司治理必须通过权利制约的安排调节平衡股东的利益冲突.在国有企业改革的实践中,针对中小股东权益受损事件频发的态势,应以控制权与公司治理的相应关系为切入点,挖掘中小股东权益受损的深层原因,从公司表决机制、少数股东权以及中小股东诉权的制度设计三方面完善公司治理,规制控制权滥用,加强中小股东的权益保护.     

论我国上市公司的制度性缺陷

文章所述上市公司制度性缺陷主要是指公司治理的缺陷 ,它包括内部治理和外部治理两个方面 :从内部治理来看 ,主要是 :行政权力和行政机制几乎控制了从企业股票发行到上市直至公司运作的全过程 ;股权结构的畸形和单一 ;内部人控制 ;上市公司目标的扭曲 ;公司治理组织架构的矛盾和冲突等。从外部治理来看 ,主要是 :市场治理机制的不完善或治理力度不够 ;有关监管机构的监管不力和市场中介机构的不健全等     

浅析股东知情权制度

随着公司所有权与经营权分离治理结构的出现,使得公司管理层凭借信息优势侵犯股东权利的现象时有发生,若想恢复经营和管理信息在管理层和普通股东间的对称和平衡,构建和完善股东知情权制度显得尤为必要.股东知情权的确立是基于股东平等原则、公司履行对社会的责任等法理基础之上;股东知情权具有固有权利、基础性权利等性质.我国的股东知情权的完善要从以下方面着手:扩大股东查阅的范围,允许股东选任代理人,隐名股东被确认有股东资格的情况下具有知情权,而隐名股东资格的认定可以从公司章程和股东名册记载、实际出资及工商机关的登记内容等方面来加以认定;未履行出资义务的股东是否剥夺其知情权要视股东未履行出资的主观恶性及客观后果综合认定.     

Legal Mechanisms for the Joint Governance of Public and Private Rights

Traditional jurisprudence has produced few studies at the level of institutional operation, resulting in a lack of knowledge about the structure, actors and symbols involved in the modernization of social governance. This is so much so that modernization of social governance is in practice misunderstood as the rule of law, informatization and adoption of technology. The core issue of social governance is the division of oversight and penalty costs between the state and individuals, but we need to call upon a statutory platform to facilitate cooperation between public and private rights. The modernization of social governance involves the use of legislation to provide techniques and statutory platforms for cooperation in an open society, ensuring the reasonable division of social governance information and penalty costs when public and private rights overlap. The social governance techniques that enable public and private rights to work together involve taking a group of observable symbols or organizations on which consensus has been reached as a statutory platform, with all sides bringing greater accountability to bear on this platform in order to maximize their interests and minimize their transaction costs, with no need to inquire further into its particular constitution.     

Reorganizing Social Policies through Social Partnerships: Greece in European Perspective

In postwar Western Europe social policies in the wider sense relied in many countries on neo‐corporatist policies of implementation. Since the 1980s such policies have ceased to be as dominant as they used to be, being associated with what has been called “policy communities” and “policy networks”. As far as the reforms pursued by many countries in order to readjust their economies and labour markets are concerned, significant shifts of such a kind were observed. Illustrations of these trends are presented in a comparative section. We attempt to demonstrate the dual structures of social policy formation and implementation, i.e. neo‐corporatist and network/policy community policies, and to discuss the “how” of such policies, i.e. their “raison d’être” and their “real world” enforcement. Against a background of various semi‐corporatisms and adversarial trade union politics, Greece is trying at the moment to adopt this pattern in several social policy areas, though this is not yet quite visible. Neo‐corporatism is also enhanced. We attempt to show where neo‐corporatism is tried (e.g. certain “social dialogue” structures) and where policy communities are encouraged (e.g. public health, local social policies, etc.). Sometimes the boundaries between the two systems are blurred, with some social dialogue committees appearing as quasi‐policy communities. Finally we endeavour to examine the outcomes of such policies and to see their inner logic against the theoretical background. The concept of multilevel governance as a wider policy instrument which incorporates both the above systems is of special interest here.     

重大公共政策社会稳定风险评估中风险沟通机制的构建--基于北京市水价调整政策的案例分析

针对重大公共政策社会稳定风险评估（以下简称“稳评”）中利益相关方之间风险沟通不足的问题,引入IRGC的风险治理理念,建立重大公共政策稳评中风险沟通机制的分析框架,将风险沟通作为稳评工作的核心环节并贯穿于政策制定与实施的全过程。为了验证该分析框架的适用性,选取北京市水价调整政策为典型案例,对稳评过程中风险沟通机制的现实运作进行深入剖析和经验总结,并从注重评估工作与风险沟通的全程性、加强多元主体间的协商对话、充分发挥媒体作用等方面,就如何进一步推进和完善重大公共政策稳评机制展开探讨。     

股东与员工:利益的冲突与整合

现代企业制度的缺陷在于以股东会为企业的最高权力机构 ,而股东利益并不等同于企业利益 ,这实质上形成企业利益的代表者在企业法人治理结构中的缺位 ,并且也现实地会损害企业员工利益 ,从而影响企业的健康发展。企业利益是股东利益与员工利益的统一 ,现代企业制度的内容创新是十分必要的 ,这应体现在两个方面 :一是要确立代表企业利益的机构 ;二是要确立职工代表大会为企业员工最高权力组织进入企业法人治理结构。     

A National Governance Perspective on the Transformation of Rural Property Rights: The Chinese Experience*

Property rights have multiple attributes, and these are correlated with national governance. In the West, property rights have the economic function of maximizing efficiency and the political function of rights protection, but in China, they also have a strong social character. With the modernization of national governance, these functions interact with and transform each other. When the state’s ability to supply public goods is relatively weak, property rights take on more of a social character, meeting public demand for welfare at the grassroots level. When the state is better able to provide public goods, the social function of property rights lessens as their economic function grows. The social character of property rights was the institutional foundation for China, as a huge agrarian state, to realize “governance through inaction,” and at the same time was the secret key that could break the code to the millennial continuity of Chinese agrarian civilization. Reforms including the collectivization of rural property rights after 1949, the “separation of two rights” (to collective ownership and household contracted land, with a focus on the latter), and the “separation of three rights,” (to collective ownership, household contracts and revitalized land management). These changes constitute a process in which the economic function of property rights has been growing while their social character has lessened under conditions of national governance modernization.     

Global Governance and State Governance: Two Strategic Considerations in Contemporary China

Governance is a kind of holistic governance and the notion of governing holistically should be established. The holisticity of governance is reflected in the unity and coordination between value rationality and instrumental rationality, normative appeal and practical appeal as well as global governance and state governance. Global and state governances are two strategic considerations in contemporary China. Actively participating in global governance and rationally promoting state governance is the rational choice of contemporary China, which plays a unique and significant role in realizing the social transformation and national rejuvenation and modernization of contemporary China. Deepening state governance with the help of global governance and promoting global governance with the support of state governance is the basic idea and dimension of understanding and grasping the interaction, coordination and overall planning between the two. The restrictions and effects of global governance on state governance are mainly reflected in such considerations as objects, mechanisms, concepts and interests of governance, and modernization of state governance system and improvement of governance capacity can promote and deepen global governance in a more effective way.