【作者】 刘召；

【导师】 庞绍堂；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 行政管理， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪70年代中后期,西方比较社会科学研究领域突然兴起了一股新的“潮流”,那就是众多领域的学者前所未有且不约而同地把目光投向国家,重新认识国家在经济发展与社会变革中的主体地位与重要作用。此后,各种思想不断交织、碰撞,最终导致在20世纪80年代形成一个新的学术流派——“回归国家学派”。回归国家学派的主要代表人物有西达·斯考切波、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳、彼得·埃文斯等,尽管这些学者在一些具体问题上并未达成最终一致,但他们的观点却有一个共同之处,那就是坚持把国家视为独立的行动主体,强调国家自主性与国家能力。本文探讨的国家自主性理论主要是基于回归国家学派有关国家自主性的论述。国家自主性理论的兴起背景是社会中心理论的因应困境。20世纪五六十年代,西方学术界的主流理论学派是多元主义和结构功能主义。前者把国家视为各种利益集团争夺自身利益的“角斗场”,后者则把政治体系(国家)视为一个“黑箱”——接受系统外部环境(要求与支持)输入的同时向系统外部环境进行政策输出。尽管观点分殊,但在把社会及其利益集团而不是国家作为研究中心这一点上两者却是共同的。二战以后,随着经济社会变迁与现代国家发展,“看得见的手”在西方发达国家被频繁运用。伴随新兴民族国家的建立,人们也注意到西方的自由民主体制并不能被简单复制。加之,20世纪70年代中后期,西方国家在激烈的国际竞争中面临更多压力与挑战。由此,社会中心论在解释各种政治社会现象时显得捉襟见肘。在此过程中,以密利本德、波朗查斯等为代表的西方马克思主义学者引入“国家的相对自主性”这一概念,试图对社会中心论的观点加以纠正。国家的相对自主性理论丰富了马克思主义的经典国家理论,为深入认识西方资本主义的新发展提供了一定帮助,但从本质上并未脱离社会中心主义的基本范式。正是在对社会中心论理论批判和国家相对自主性理论继承的基础上,回归国家学派重新解释并发展了国家自主性理论。根据回归国家学派的观点,国家自主性意指作为一种对特定领土与人口实施控制的强制性组织,国家可能会确立并追求一些并非仅仅反映社会利益集团尤其是强势利益集团利益的目标。国家自主性理论的提出再次引起了人们对“国家”问题的关注,而创造经济发展奇迹的“东亚模式”更是为这一理论提供了佐证。20世纪80年代的西方正是新自由主义盛行之时,回归国家学派强调国家自主性,在一定意义上也是对新自由主义理论在实践中的某种纠正。回归国家学派重新把国家拉回学术研究中心,一定程度上弥补了社会中心论的不足,也为当代许多政治、经济与社会问题提供了一个新的解释视角。国家自主性理论在国家自主性的概念,国家自主性的生成及其影响因素,以及国家自主性与国家能力关系等方面确实给出了自己的观点。但另一方面,这一理论也存在较为明显的理论缺陷。尽管回归国家学派一再强调他们无意于根本否定社会中心论,也不是要回归到彻底的国家中心主义,但从其理论推演来看,这样的嫌疑并未消除。在回归国家学派那里,国家更多被描述为一个“独立的行动者”,国家自主性则更多以专断性国家权力的形式表现出来。由于国家自主性理论在“精英主义”和“制度国家主义”之间摇摆不决(在更多时候偏向前者),致使其在概念界定与理论推演上均显得含混不清,再加之研究方法过于单一和受到西方中心主义的影响,导致其理论解释受限。亚洲金融危机爆发以后,东亚国家经济发展严重受阻,国家自主性理论也由此受到了批评与质疑。20世纪90年代初,中国学者开始跟进国家自主性的理论研究,这种积极学习的态度无疑值得赞赏。但另一方面,国内研究也存在浅尝辄止和自说自话的问题,更有甚者,望文生义、不顾中国国情生搬硬套,给理论与实践都带来了误致。应当指出,国家自主性理论在中国既有其适用性语境,例如社会转型需要强化国家能力,强势利益集团影响政府决策,以及全球化给国家发展带来种种压力等,同时与英美等西方发达国家相比也有其适用性限度,主要表现为：在当前中国,“强国家——弱社会”的格局依然存在,专断性国家权力过度膨胀而基础性国家权力相对弱小,以及理性官僚制有待进一步完善等。来自中国的公共政策案例表明,公共利益与个人利益的冲突正在成为考验国家自主性的一个难题,公共管理多元主体的复杂交互对国家自主性的生成产生了重要影响,国家自主性在一些政策领域出现了某种程度的“弱化”。然而,需要指出,当前中国存在的“国家自主性弱化”实际上是专断性国家权力过度膨胀且缺乏制约而基础性国家权力结构性弱化的一种表现,这与西方国家因国家权力分散而导致的国家自主性弱化并非同一概念。案例同时表明,以国家为中心、片面强调专断性国家权力,只能导致“孤立式国家自主性”和绝对化的国家理性。本文认为,应摒弃国家中心论或社会中心论这种非此即彼的单向思维模式,以主体间性的分析路径对国家自主性的概念进行重新解读。在主体间性的语境下,国家自主性的相对性、动态性特征表现得更加明显：国家自主性并不意味着国家行动对社会支持的拒斥,更不代表国家权力的无限扩张；由“孤立式国家自主性”向“互动式国家自主性”转向,更有利于达致国家自主与社会自主之间的均衡。为使国家自主性理论更好地适用中国国家建设与政治发展实际,必须在现代国家构建的框架下对其进行理论重构。国家权力的制度化、规约化是现代国家的本质要求,而现实表明,中国的现代国家建设离这一要求尚存差距。国家自主性理论重构的目标指向是构建制度化的国家自主性,其实质就是国家权力的制度化,具体到中国实际就是：规约专断性国家权力,以构建有限政府；同时完善基础性国家权力,以构建有效政府。为此,需要从国家与社会互动的视角设计相关制度安排。首先,合理界定国家职能,使国家在其最擅长的领域行事。其次,完善宪政制度,夯实公共财政基础,构建责任伦理并壮大社会权力,以此在多重维度强化国家权力的制度约束。再次,构建公共服务型政府,推动政府制度创新,提升国家基础性权力尤其是政府的公共物品供给能力。最后,培养积极公民并健全公民社会组织,以此壮大发展与现代国家相适应的公民社会。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the late 1970s, there was a "new tide" in the Western academics. An unprecedented number of scholars in different fields bent their eyes on the State and its important role, in social transformation, economic development and political change. Since then, various ideas and continuously interwoven, collision had led to the formation of a new academic school in the 1980s, which was named as the School of Returning to the State. The main representatives of the school are Theda Skocpol, Stephen Krasner, and Peter Evans etc. Though the scholars did not reach a final agreement in some specific cognitive problems, their views had one thing in common, that is, they all saw the state as an independent actor and emphasized state ownership and state capacity. The theories of state autonomy discussed in this paper are mainly based on relevant discussion of the School of Returning to the State.The rise of the theories of state autonomy was due to the worse response to social difficulties of the social center theory. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Western mainstream academic theory of factions was the pluralism and structural functionalism. The former regarded the state as an arena where various interest groups competed for self-interest. The latter saw the political system (state) as a "black box", which accepted input from the environment, such as demands, support etc, as well as released output to the environment. Given to different views, they were common in one point that was the society and its interests rather than national was seen as the center of research. After World WarⅡ, with the economic and social changes and the Modern State Development, the "visible hand" in the Western developed countries were being frequently used, coupled with the oil crisis in 1970s, the social center theory was facing the interpretation difficulty. Subsequently, in order to correct the shortcomings of the social center theory, Ralph Miliband and Nicos Poulantzas, the representative scholars of the neo-Marxist issued the concept of "state relative autonomy", but they also did not shake off the constraints of the social center theory. Based on the criticism to the social center theory and neo-Marxist theory, the School of Returning to the State re-interpreted and developed the "state relative autonomy" theory. According to this theory, state autonomy meant that, as a specific territory and population control of the mandatory implementation of organization, the state could pursue its aims which were not merely the reflection to the interest of some strong interest groups.The theories of state autonomy once again raised attentions to the state as an institutions form, and the "East Asian model" just provided the evidence for this theory. In 1980s, the economic liberalism was still popular, so in this context to emphasize national ownership was also a theory of courage. At the same time, we note that state autonomy theory gave indeed different views in the concept of state autonomy, state autonomy and morphological generation, national independence and national capacity, state autonomy and other issues with the modern state However, the theory has its quite obvious flaws. Though they repeatedly stressed neither they simply denied the social center of the view nor return to complete the "state-centrism", from the theoretical explanation and logic interpretation we can see obviously there is strong "state-centrism" color in it. Theory of state autonomy was hesitated between value rationality and instrumental rationality, which lead to some problems in the concept definition and theoretical deductions. In addition, the unity of research methods made the theoretical explanation be not thorough enough. With the outbreak of the Asian financial crisis, the economic development in East Asian countries was impeded, which made the state autonomy theory being questioned.In the 1990s many scholars in China began to follow up study on the theories of state autonomy, which was undoubtedly commendable. However, many studies were still remaining on the surface. Even worse, some of them were too mechanical to regard our conditions, which have had a negative impact on the theory and practice. This paper argues that, on one hand the theories of state autonomy had its applicability in China. On the other hand, it also had limits in the application. The limit of application was mainly due to the different environment, which including incomplete bureaucracy, the over-expansion of the despotic power and the weakness of state capacities. The public policy cases in local government of China shows that, the conflicts between public interest and personal interest is becoming a difficult problem for state autonomy to response, and the complex interactions of multiple subjects in public administration are having important impact on the formation of state autonomy. An indisputable fact is that, the situation of over-expansion of the despotic power combining with the weakness of state capacities has given China’s political development and nation-building much negative impact.Considering the reality, we have to revisit state autonomy theory. This paper argues that, the State should abandon the one-way thinking which was either state-centrism or society-centrism, mode the introduction of the theories of inter-subjectivity. Under the context of inter-subjectivity, state autonomy shows its fundamental nature in two sides, which are the limit of despotic power and the effectiveness of infrastructural power.In order to make state autonomy theories apply to Chinese reality much better, it necessary to expand its structure under the framework of modern state theory. The theoretical development of the point is the institutionalization of state autonomy, which including two levels, the limit of despotic power and the effectiveness of infrastructural power. The former aims can be gained through the constitutional system, public finance and accountability system of ethics designed and the latter through state capacity building, active citizens shaping and civil society building.更多还原