城市乌托邦的现实构想:读霍华德《明日的田园城市》

托马斯·莫尔的那由54个相互之间有农田相隔的小城市组成乌托邦中,一半的市民从事农业工作,每两年轮换工作;阳光明媚的太阳城,托马斯·康帕内拉认为那里没有贫富差距,没有暴力邪恶:刘易斯·芒福德对乌托邦作系谱归纳的时候,他发现这些城市设想都是"把田园的宽裕带给城市,把城市的活力带给田园"。工业革命     

近三十年中国近代乡村社会研究的回顾与思考

“国家政权建设”和“国家——社会”二元理论是近年来对中国乡村社会变迁研究的两大视角,晚清时期的乡村动荡、民国时期国家政权嵌入的初步尝试、共产党政权下乡村社会的“国家权力化”努力是近代乡村社会研究的主要内容.多学科知识的广泛应用也促使了众多新成果的问世,其中华北、江南、华南的区域性研究最为深入.但社会实践与制度构建的背离、历史人类学的微观研究与政治社会学的宏观研究的疏离、乡村社会物理机制的研究与乡土人群群体意识研究的脱节,也是近代乡村社会研究的疏漏.     

民国时期省制改革过程及动因研究

民国时期的地方行政制度改革经过了长时间的争论与实践,自北京政府时期省—道—县三级制,省成为行使监察职能的一级政府,到南京国民政府时期的省政府合署办公和新县制,省一级政府从行政区划到机构建制、政府职能等方面都有着重大的变化。这一变化过程集中体现了中央集权与地方分权两种政治主张的斗争,其实质则是中央与地方在利益分配上的博弈。此外,省制改革也考虑到了各省的差异性,整体上呈现出行政现代化的趋势。     

南京国民政府时期全国性议政机构中少数民族代表考察

China is a multi-ethnic country. From the wuzu gonghe ( Five nationalities under one union ) in the early Republic of China to the current union of 56 ethnic groups, the participation of ethnic minorities in political affairs has always been a vital and important factor for the develop-ment of China’s democratic politics. On one hand, the Nanjing National Government was dedicated to the model of a“civil identification” and weakening ethnic characteristics. On the other hand, due to the immense pressure from the resistance of the Japanese invasion and the increase of minority representatives’ appeals, they had to gradually al-low some ethnic elites, as ethnic minority repre-sentatives, to participate in the national affairs so that they could acquire more political identity. Al-though the government of the Republic of China claimed “Five nationalities under one union” as well as declaring many times to guarantee extensive and orderly ethnic minority participation in national affairs, by analyzing cases of elections in the state council agencies during the period of Nanjing na-tional government, not all the promises were imple-mented. I. The general situation of the elections for ethnic minority representatives in the state council agencies. In the National Conference in 1931 , only Mongolia and Tibet were allowed to organize their own elections and send their own ethnic representa-tives. Among the total of 520 national conference representatives, Mongolian representatives accoun-ted for 12 , and Tibetans accounted for 10 . The National Political Council, which also known as“the Congress during war”, was founded on July 6 , 1938 , and was abolished on March 28 , 1948 . It lasted for 9 years and held conferences a total of 4 times. In all the 4 conferences, 10 people were elected as participants to represent Tibet to discuss political affairs, and 18 people were elected as participants representing Mongolia. However, al-though other minorities were not regarded as elec-ted units, yet still some outstanding personages from these ethnic minorities were recommended by their provinces or other political organs as partici-pants to discuss national political affairs. In the National Assembly held on November 15 , 1946 , each of the following provinces, including Yun-nan, Guizhou, Xikang, Sichuan, Guangxi and Hunan, were allowed to send ten people who re-presented their local ethnic minorities to discuss political affairs. In the National Assembly held in March of 1948 , not only the numbers of ethnic mi-norities increased, but also the way of electing them was improved. II. An analysis of the election conditions of the ethnic minority representatives in the national state agencies. 1 . Although the numbers of ethnic minority representatives increased, nevertheless, the pro-portion of them did not. During 18 years ( 1931-1948 ) , the number of the ethnic minority repre-sentatives increased from the initial 22 to 147 . However, the proportion of them only increased by 0. 7%, which was not so remarkable. 2 . The structure of the ethnic minority repre-sentatives was complicated, but most came from the “upper classes”. In the year of 1931 , there were only 6 representatives for the state conference from both Mongolia and Tibet. By the year 1948, there were 148 ethnic minority representatives coming from Mongolian, Tibetan, Hui, Manchu, Miao, Yi, and, so on, ethnic groups. As a result, the structure of ethnic representation was more complex as the numbers increased during the peri-od of Nanjing National Government. Many repre-sentatives were elected by the selection method, and most of them came from the upper classes. Therefore, structurally, representatives from the bottom rung of society who deeply understood the sufferings of ethnic people, were lacking. 3 . The regional characteristics of the ethnic minorities were weakened and the ethnic character-istics were strengthened. With regard to the elec-tion of representatives for the National Conference held in 1931, in consideration of regional politics, only Tibet and Mongolia were chosen as election u-nits which could hold their own elections. When the National Political Council was held in 1938 , the situation had not changed. Many provinces, for example, Xinjiang, and Ningxia, and many south-western provinces, which were home to many eth-nic minority people, could only select their repre-sentatives through elections held either by organiza-tionsor elections on the provincial or municipal lev-el. It was not until the victory of the war against Japan, that the National government acknowledged the particular characteristics of the southwestern ethnic minorities. It was only at the time of the e-lection for the representatives for the National As-sembly, that the Manchu and Hui achieved the right to hold their own election separately. III. “Five nationalities under one union” or“Single nation state”? Although the Nanjing National Government claimed “Five nationalities under one union” and asserted to the public that all the nationalities were equal, Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek were hopeful of building a country which promoted the situation of a “single nation state”. Their ethnic policies embraced the hope of the national govern-ment, i. e. to replace“ethnic identity” with“state identity”. In fact, with the awakening of ethnic consciousness in modern times, it was obvious that the idea that 400 million of people came from the same nationalities was only the government’s view. During that time, although the political status of a few ethnic minorities was acknowledged by the gov-ernment and the number of the ethnic minority rep-resentatives increased, the change was not promo-ted by the national government on its own accord. First of all, because of the pressure from the resist-ance to the Japanese invasion, all the social clas-ses needed to unify. In addition, many ethnic elites tried their best to gain the opportunity to par-ticipate in national affairs. What’s more, the eth-nic policies in those regions governed by the Com-munist Party were also one of the influential fac-tors. From the National Conference to the National Assembly, the criteria for holding elections were still only acquired by the Mongols, Tibetans, Hui, Manchus and the ethnic minorities in the southeast-ern border areas. All in all, it was an unequal way for ethnic minority representatives to participate in national affairs. Objectively, the ideal of a “Single Nation state” which was pursued by the nationalists was not suitable for China’s situation. Instead, it might be the cause of ethnic conflicts. China has a vast territory with uneven economic development. The transportation, economy and education in the re-gions where ethnic minorities live were mostly un-developed. As a result, it was difficult for the eth-nic minorities to win when they campaigned with the inner regions which held many resources. Fur-thermore, although a few of the ethnic minorities were gradually granted the status of political sub-ject by the Nanjing National Government, this process lacked efficiency. A large group of the ci-vilians belonging to ethnic minorities had trouble approaching state identification while, moreover, their own ethnic identification was not acknowl-edged by the government. Therefore, the ethnic minority region naturally found it difficult to identi-fy with the rule of the national government.     

民国史研究的新路径探索:政府史的产生及研究视角

政府管理史(简称"政府史")即政府如何运用技术手段行使其管理职能的历史(技术手段包括行政手段、经济手段、法律手段等)。政府史与政治史、政制史的区别即在于它关注的是行政管理技术的变迁及动因,是动态的、发展的历史。政府史的研究视角可以从"行政生态学""现代化转型""组织的通权达变"等方面入手,丰富的历史资料也可为政府史的研究提供支撑。