行政指导权力性辨

鉴于学界对行政指导的性质众说纷纭，运用概念分析法考察行政指导性质之分歧。分析认为，对行政指导性质的分歧来源于“权力”概念的法学立场概念和社会学概念立场的混淆。权力性论在此误用了社会学概念，并且混淆了对“作为行政行为的行政指导”和“作为行政制度的行政指导”两种实践层面的不同描述。后者不仅包括作为行为的行政指导，而且包括其保障措施等构成的一个综合性的制度整体，它作为制度的存在具有消解行政法治的潜力，必须予以抛弃。行政指导权力性的观点来源于对制度性行政指导的描述，它将因理论不规范又因无实践价值而被抛弃，因此必须坚持行政指导权力性的观点。

Power nature of administrative guidance

There are many similar viewpoints between the Chinese and Japanese scholars, which reflect the rule of administrative guidance. Because of the influence of the balanced theory, Chinese scholars show more interesting in administrative guidance than the Japanese. However, Chinese scholars and Japanese scholars have different standpoints about the essence of administrative guidance. The author thinks that the Chinese should withhold the viewpoint that administrative guidance is a kind of non-power administrative behavior, and should not mix the sociological concept of power with the jurisprudence＇s. Besides, it does not mean that the administrative organs should apply administrative power in the process of administrative guidance, and administrative guidance should be based on the administrative function.