“一体多面”：中华帝制时期的国家—社会关系再研究

关于中华帝制时期国家与社会的关系特征国内外学术界提出了诸多理论概括,诸如“士绅自治”“吏民社会”“官民合作”,等等。本文从行政发包制理论的视角重新审视关于中华帝制时期国家—社会关系的现有理论概括,借助“行政外包”这一分析概念,强调特定的治理领域特征与行政外包的具体形态之间的对应关系,进而揭示国家与社会互动关系的运行机制和内在逻辑。本文试图提出“一体多面”的概念,重新概括中华帝制时期国家与社会关系的总体特征,为理解中华帝制的“权力一元性”与“治理多样性”的奇妙结合提供新的观察视角和分析框架。     

中西方国家治理逻辑的分析与比较——兼论西方国家治理困境的成因与镜鉴

基于不同的历史传统、文化基因与当代社会制度,中西方在国家治理若干基本逻辑方面呈现出鲜明对比。在资本主义制度下,资本逻辑、市场逻辑、选票逻辑和对抗逻辑主导着西方国家治理;社会主义制度下的中国则呈现出民本逻辑、国家逻辑、选贤逻辑和协商逻辑交织而成的治理取向。在各自国家治理传统与基本逻辑的交互作用下,西方国家治理的总体性逻辑表现为“二元对立结构中的制衡与分治”,而中国国家治理的总体性逻辑可以概括为“一体多元结构中的协商与共治”。当前,西方国家治理普遍遭遇系统性困境,这是其固有的国家治理逻辑在新环境中演进失衡的结果,其根源可以追溯至新自由主义和治理理论兴起等因素造成的“国家缺位”问题。在西方国家治理陷入系统性困境的背景下,现代治理理论出现了明显的“国家转向”。我国应以西方困境为镜鉴,立足于发扬国家治理的中国逻辑,致力于构建彰显自身特色与优势的现代国家治理体系。这一进程也有助于推动形成超越西方治理理论、更具世界性意义的现代治理理论。     

邻里政治: 城市基层的权力操作策略与国家社会的粘连模式

在社会转型期国家对城市邻里社会的动员控制能力这一问题上存在着“断裂”论与“嵌入”论两种对立的观点。本文提出了一种介于两者之间的“粘连”理论，即国家对城市邻里仍旧拥有一定的动员控制能力，但这种能力受到各种社会政治因素相当大的限制。本文通过对相关经验资料的分析，指出国家与城市邻里社会间的这种粘连状态是由邻里中具有非制度化特征的权力操作模式及其背后的社会结构、动力机制等因素决定的。     

试论全球治理的国家自理机制

学术界经常讨论的全球治理机制主要集中在全球性机制、俱乐部机制和地区性机制等类型上,而这些国际导向的机制都在一定程度上忽视了民族国家在全球治理中的作用.在全球治理的背景下,民族国家更多地成为一种连接国内社会和国际社会以对公共资源进行传输和再分配的制度通道.从这一意义上讲,国家自理也是全球治理的一种重要机制.与之前的“国际谈判—国际监督”模式不同,国家自理强调民族国家在一种非强制和非绑定的状态下对全球规范的主动学习和积极内化.在中文的意义中,治理的内涵有着丰富的国家自理特征.具体而言,国家自理机制包括自我学习机制、自我转化机制、自我实施机制、自我监督机制和自我总结机制等.总体来看,国家自理机制只是全球治理机制中的一种,这表明其无法取代其他机制的作用.通过国家自理机制,全球治理的观念可以更多地变成实际行动,并且在这一过程中民族国家的自主性得以重建.     

乡村技术治理的实践过程与优化路径

近年来,在社会变革、信息技术普及、国家治理转型和乡村治理转型等因素的推动下,乡村社会中技术治理逐渐兴起,并被赋予新的功能和治理效能,不断重塑乡村治理样态。技术治理作为一种现代化治理方式,其本质追求是善治。然而,实践中技术治理的政绩化、监督化和科层化倾向导致了技术系统的泛化和“技术控制”的强化,使得乡村治理被技术系统困住。技术治理与乡村社会、乡村治理之间产生了较大的张力,偏离了善治的本质。对此,应当积极引导乡村技术治理回归治理属性,把以人为本、解放乡村干部、适配基层社会、回归善治本质作为目的和归宿。乡村治理现代化的建设离不开技术治理的加持,而只有将技术治理置于善治的考量和目标约束之下,才有利于治理效能的充分释放。     

理顺关系与国家治理结构的塑造（英文）

在政府各类文件中,理顺关系往往与机构改革、转变职能放在一起表述。不理解关系及关系的理顺,就无法理解中国国家治理体系。理顺关系包括四个维度:政府与市场、中央与地方、经济与社会以及政府与社会,其理顺路径可以归纳为分开、保留与延迟。一方面,这三条路径的相互抵牾,影响了中国国家治理结构,并使其在闭合和开放中寻求平衡。另一方面,理顺关系的路径行程,根源又在于中国国家治理同时并存的总体性诉求和现代性诉求。可以说,理顺关系再塑了中国国家治理特质。在持续不断的理顺中,中国国家治理的一些重要要素也发生了关键变化。从理顺关系角度而言,未来对更大系统的"关系"的开放性吸纳,对中国国家治理的变革至关重要。     

全球治理中的知识生产与结构性权力竞争——以专业性国际组织FATF为例

为什么在军事等强制性力量使用受限的当下,以美国为首的西方发达国家仍然拥有国际秩序中的决定性权威？“结构性权力”解释框架将金融信贷、知识生产提到了和国家安全、产业布局同等重要的地位,这是对当代国际政治经济格局极具洞见性的观察和预测。相较于其他三个维度,知识生产仍是结构性权力相关学术讨论的薄弱点。本文提出知识生产如何发挥作用的分析框架,即知识生产在结构性权力建构和运用中,因其在概念框架界定与议程设置、行业标准与规范制定、合规评估、监督与制裁中占据关键性角色而发挥重要作用。本研究选择当今全球反洗钱和反恐融资最权威的国际金融制裁组织——“金融行动特别工作组”（FATF）为案例,以档案查询和对FATF国别专家进行访谈为方法,通过对FATF概念框架界定与议程设置、行业标准与规范制定、合规评估过程、监督与制裁机制的分析,呈现“知识生产”在新时期全球治理结构性权力竞争中的关键角色和重要作用,同时讨论了知识生产与国家实力、国家战略的关系,提出知识生产这一结构性权力竞争的非零和博弈特质。最后部分总结了“知识生产”作为中国提高全球治理结构性权力入手点的具体策略。     

国家治理危机：对21世纪初美国政治的解释

美国遭遇的系统性挑战是国家治理危机。国家治理危机是指根源于政治体制能力衰退而形成的国家与社会之间关系的性质由相互支持转向相互冲突的过程和状态。从现象上看,国家治理危机表现为一种双重危机,一方面国家与社会之间通过政治体制建立起来的相互支持关系趋于瓦解,整体上转向相互冲突的关系,这就是国家与社会之间关系的危机,另一方面自由民主体制出现了难以克服的障碍,出现了系统性的功能失调,这就是自由民主体制的危机。就实质而言,国家治理危机是政治体制能力的危机,这就是说政治体制作为国家治理赖以发生的支撑框架不能继续发挥足够的作用。政治体制能力是理解国家治理危机的关键所在,当一个国家的政治体制能力出现衰退时,既会导致国家与社会之间关系出现危机,又会导致政治体制的危机,还会导致国家与社会之间关系的危机和政治体制的危机相互影响从而形成恶性循环的局面,所以增强政治体制能力才是解决国家治理危机的根本途径。国家治理危机说明政治体制都是特定历史条件下解决时代问题的产物,实施政治体制改革以实现政治体制能力的发展,既是民主政治体制发展的常态,又是现代国家政治发展的题中之义。     

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。     

乡村振兴过程中的治理底气化与效能目标化——陕西汉阴县乡村“三治”新框架

科学规范乡村治理机制，避免乡村治理权责简单、泛化、随意，是乡村振兴的题中应有之义。德治、法治和自治的“三治”制度设计是健全现代乡村治理体系的重要举措，有利于规范而准确地使用管理手段，有效纠正乡村治理存在的问题，提升乡村治理成效。陕西汉阴县乡村“三治”从“国家-社会”一体化出发，把对上负责和对下负责、权力规制和任务对等、规范行为和指标管理、合规控制和法律秩序、绩效改进和治理有效内在统一。乡村治理是“制度设计”与“系统治理”的实施过程，治理有效来自于方法要素的接底气，新时代“三治”要从乡村实际出发，增加乡村治理制度中权责匹配、协同互动、创造转化、规范组织和激励约束，重塑国家、乡村组织和乡村民众的关系，进一步提升和优化乡村的治理效能。     

The Implications of State Governance for Effective Global Governance

Since the Third Plenary Session of the 18^th Central Committee of the CPC put forward the goal of modernizing the state governance system and state governance capacity, research on state governance theory and practice has taken off in the Chinese academic community. However, very little research has been undertaken on the relationship between state governance and global governance. In an interdependent world where domestic and international boundaries are becoming ever more blurred, state and global governance are not just mutually connected and consistent; they also influence and constrain each other. This paper looks into the influence of state governance on global governance in terms of the differences and internal linkages between state and global governance, arguing that enhancing governance capacity is an effective way for China to participate in global governance, promote the transformation of global governance system, wield its influence as a major power, and boost its right of discourse.     

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.     

The Interplay between Global and State Governance: Theoretical Origins and Practical Reflections

Global governance largely grows out of the externalities in state governance. At present, global governance and state governance are integrated into a kind of “holistic governance” based on their interaction and interpenetration. Our understanding of their interplay can be traced back to ideas that developed from ancient Greek and Roman times to the early 20^th century. More recently, from the second half of the 20^th century, theories of the interaction between global and state governance essentially revolved around the externalities in state governance and efforts to overcome those externalities by designing an ideal world. Today, the interaction between global and state governance is of great practical significance, serving to inspire the establishment of a global order based on sharing, integration and symbiotic harmony. However, we should also be aware that this interaction may be converted by great powers to the service of their own interests. At present, China can help reshape the global governance order of the 21^st century by strengthening its own development, promoting benign interaction between global and state governance, actively harnessing the potential of its state governance capacity and sharing its experience and ideas.     

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.     

Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol*

Objective. The turn to participatory, stakeholder modes of governance has been accompanied by the legitimization of a new “particularist knowledge regime” emphasizing the knowledge claims made by private interests and local voices. It has also tended to de‐legitimize the ways of knowing that had characterized central state governance, namely, state expertise based on general welfare analytics such as cost‐benefit analysis. This turn away from state expertise, what we call the “anti‐technocratic consensus,” while stemming from democratic motivations, may actually make environmental governance less democratic. Method. We examine the problems that arise from the abandonment of general welfare economic analytics and technical expertise—the anti‐technocratic consensus—through a specific case study: the recent handling of “critical use exemptions” to the ban on methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol, a treaty that mandates the elimination of methyl bromide in order to protect the ozone layer. We show that decisionmakers specifically rejected general welfare analytics as a basis of regulatory action in favor of a particularist form of analytics based on measuring market disruption. Results. This case illustrate how the de‐legitimization of technical expertise can weaken the effectiveness of an environmental agreement in meeting its regulatory mandate. Critics have often criticized technical expertise as supporting the economic status quo. However, in the case of methyl bromide and the Montreal Protocol, technical experts using general welfare analytics represented a challenge to U.S. regulatory officials who supported industrial interests and their request for significant exemptions to the ban. Conclusion. The legitimization of a particularist knowledge regime opens up policy making to domination by private interests playing the stakeholder game. Stakeholder input and particularist knowledges are important to democratic decision making. However, technical expertise, despite all its weaknesses, is a form of knowledge that remains necessary to the protection of the environment and public health.     

Towards a Public Management Paradigm for Global Governance: An Analysis Based on an Issue-Actor-Mechanism Framework

The concept of global governance first appeared in research on international political governance in the early 1990s. At the time much of the theoretical research on global governance was to some extent isolated from the realities of world development, but since the beginning of the 21th century, global governance research has been turning to real world issues, We propose the construction, from a public management perspective, of a governance “i ssue-act or-mec ha ni sm” fram ework. T hi s sees postwar gl oba l governance practice as the old paradigm. The paper points out that the rapid global development after the end of the Cold War has had a crucial impact on the traditional governance paradigm, followed by the emergence of new global governance issues and changes in new governance actors resulting from the changing world of the last twenty or thirty years which have led to the failure of traditional governance mechanisms. These “issue-actor-mechanism” changes are closely interlocked, and hence require a new global governance paradigm that can reflect the complex interconnections of governance issues, actors and mechanisms. We thus need to reexamine and refresh our perceptions of the world and open up a new research agenda.     

中国现代国家治理的文化精神及其路向

现代国家治理是当前亟需破解的重大现实课题,国家治理不能疏离于文化,必须彰显文化精神,体现民族价值情趣。“文化”介入国家治理能有效规避人治和法治的诸多弊端,需要在继承中激活传统文化基因,在创新中展布现代文化精神,在对接中开辟后现代文化路径,在引领中弘扬社会主义先进文化,促进行政文化由传统型向现代型转变。     

Metagovernance,political demand and policy advice: a case from Brazil

ABSTRACT

There has been a call for a “second wave” of scholarship on policy advice to expand our understanding of the relational dynamics within a policy advisory system (PAS). In this article, we use a case from Brazil to address two key gaps in the PAS literature – the lack of attention to systems of network governance and the current predominance of “Westminster” empirical cases. To better understand the impact of policy advice within a system of networked governance, we apply the frame of “metagovernance” – the steering of governance networks. We then introduce and employ the concepts of funnelling, political brokering and gate-keeping to better understand how policy advice is shaped, modified and then either rejected or accepted. The contribution of the article is that, while much of the existing PAS literature describes the contours and key actors within an advisory system, we develop new conceptual scaffolding to better understand the trajectories and impact of policy advice, and the interplay between actors and agents, within a broader system of metagovernance.     

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

Based on the 1997-2007 panel data of 676 listed companies and in-depth interviews with the senior executives, independent directors, fund managers and securities analysts of these companies, this paper tries to analyze the relationship between corporate governance and firm performance from a sociological perspective. The results show that the relationship between corporate governance and firm performance in the Chinese institutional environment is sharply different from the predictions of the agency theory. The empirical findings from China lend strong support to the new institutional argument that “best” corporate governance practices are socially “constructed” by various social forces and interests groups in specific social, political and cultural contexts, and how “good” a corporate governance practice is depends to a large extent on whether it fits in with the institutional environment in which it is embedded. There exists no universally “best” model of corporate governance across the world. Our empirical sociological study based on Chinese experience offers new perspectives and evidence for deconstructing the global myth of corporate governance.