【作者】 赵伯艳；

【导师】 常健；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 行政管理， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 我国已经进入公共冲突多发时期，公共冲突呈现出类型多样化、规模群体化、原因层次深化等特征。公共冲突的有效管理、化解和转化非常迫切。政府担负着公共冲突治理的主要责任，承担着巨大的冲突治理压力。但是，社会中间缓冲阶层缺失所导致的结构性断裂、“维稳”体制性压力都影响了政府治理的效果。为了满足当前公共冲突治理的迫切要求、弥补政府在公共冲突治理中的不足、缓解政府的压力以及提升公共冲突的治理效果，需要对当前以政府为主导的公共冲突治理模式和相关治理理念的合理性进行深入地反思，探讨政府部门之外的社会主体参与公共冲突治理的必要性、可能性、可行性和可能的效果。社会组织参与公共冲突治理的作用是一个具有理论意义和现实意义的研究问题。社会组织的公益性、非营利性、独立性、民间性等属性是其参与公共冲突治理的动力基础。从理论上以及境外经验来看，社会组织作为政府和市场力量之外的第三部门具有监督公共权力行使、抑制市场暴力的使命感，而参与公共冲突治理是实现其使命的重要通道。那么，我国的社会组织是否有必要、有可能参与公共冲突治理，社会组织能够在公共冲突治理中承担何种角色、发挥何种作用等问题需要进行系统地研究。从实际来看，社会组织在公共冲突治理中主要扮演两大角色，即辩护型第三方和中立型第三方。一方面，社会组织以冲突中相对弱势方的利益代言人的身份介入冲突过程，以维护冲突中相对弱势方的利益为首要诉求，同时兼顾推动公共冲突化解的目标。在公共冲突中，相对松散的冲突群体或者自己成立组织或者寻求利益代言组织，以组织化的方式来维护自身权益，这一过程体现的是公民自由结社权的行使，在后果上是松散的冲突群体有具体的利益代表者、有明确的意见表达者、有有效的协调沟通者。组织化的代表、表达和沟通既能促进冲突各方的利益协商，也有助于冲突进程的平稳发展和争议结点的打开。在一种公开、透明的谈判和协商过程中，以一种理性的方式来寻求争议解决的办法。另一方面，社会组织以中立第三方的身份介入公共冲突，在公共冲突中扮演信息员、真相调查者、治疗者、咨询者、评估者等辅助者角色以及交流促进者、后续监管者等保障型角色，致力于通过各种方式推动公共冲突的化解。第一方面的作用，以自下而上建立起来的劳动者维权组织为典型代表，维护劳动者权益、推动劳资冲突化解、构建和谐的劳资关系是其主要目标；第二个方面的作用，以一些环保团体为典型代表，推进环境正义、反对环境破坏、保护公共资源是其使命和目标，因此，这类社会组织也积极地介入到环境冲突个案当中，积极地影响冲突进程。总体而言，我国的社会组织较少地介入到宏大的公共冲突事件之中，而是在微观社会矛盾化解和冲突预防方面发挥作用，这与社会组织的艰难处境、低调行事风格、参与治理的外部制度空间不足有关。然而，这些微观参与依然对公共冲突的总体预防和化解具有重要意义。社会组织参与公共冲突治理需要自身和外部环境两方面的条件：角色意识的苏醒，参与治理功能的拓展，参与的热情和动力，较为完善的自律机制和公信力，公益性、民间性、非营利性等属性的秉持，较强的行动力和专业性是社会组织参与公共冲突治理的自身条件；我国社会组织发展的宏观制度空间和微观监管模式是影响社会组织参与公共冲突治理的外部因素。社会组织自身和外部环境两方面的条件相互影响，外部环境是制约社会组织参与公共冲突治理的最主要方面。从我国当前的实际情况来看，社会组织的发展规模和影响在不断增大，社会组织参与治理的意义多次被党政文件所提及，社会组织参与公共冲突治理的宏观制度和政策空间被逐步打开。然而，在微观方面，“合法”的社会组织仍然面临着“双重负责、分级管理”等管理体制的牵绊，“草根”的社会组织面临着身份尴尬的艰难处境。社会组织模糊的法律地位、不确定的公共空间发言渠道、短缺的资金和人才、单一的功能领域、淡漠的角色意识、保守的作风、稀缺的参与治理经验以及政府的不信任和民众的不理解是影响其参与公共冲突治理的系列障碍。为了提高社会组织参与公共冲突治理的功效，需要社会组织自身以及政府共同努力。首先，社会组织要加强参与公共冲突治理的专业能力建设、参与动力建设、参与规范化建设以及联合自助能力建设；其次，政府应打消对社会组织参与公共冲突治理的疑虑，以更加积极的态度去理解社会组织参与冲突治理的冲动，建设性地构建社会组织参与公共冲突治理的空间，平等地开放各类社会组织参与治理的通道，并对社会组织辅之以必要的监督和管理。更多还原

【Abstract】 China has entered a key period of reform and development. In this period, thereare so many public conflicts happened. Some new characteristics of public conflictshave showed, such as diversification, bigger scale, deeper root etc. It is urgent tomanage, resolve and transform these public conflicts effectively. Government playsan important role in the governance of public conflicts and bears big governancepressure. Both the fractured social structure due to scarceness of middle social classand the top-down institutional pressure about keeping social stability intensify thegovernance pressure of the government. Accordingly, the effect of conflictmanagement has been largely limited. To meet the urgent requirements of managing,resolving and transforming public conflicts, to make up for government’s deficienciesin the governance of public conflicts, to relieve the pressure of the government, toenhance the governance effect of public conflicts, it is time to analyze thefelicitousness of the current governance model dominated by the government and thegovernance ideal and investigate the necessity, possibility, feasibility and possibleeffects of social bodies’ participating in the governance process of public conflicts.The participation of social organizations in the process of conflict governance isa meaningful research topic with both the theoretical significance and the practicalsignificance. Social organizations are public-interest oriented, non-profit, independent,and civil. These attributes are the basis of their participation in the public conflictgovernance. The most important mission of social organizations is supervising thegovernment and the market forces to inhibit power abuse and market violence as thethird sector wholely. Participating in public conflict governance is an importantchannel to achieve the above mission. For the moment, is it necessary and possiblefor social organizations in China to participate in public conflict management? Whatroles can social organizations play? These problems should be studied systematically.From a practical point of view, social organizations play two kinds of rolesmainly in the process of public conflict governance, the advocating third party (interest spokesman) and the neutral third party.First, social organizations involved in public conflicts as advocater for theinterests of specific groups take protecting the interests of these specific groups as theprimary task and take promoting the resolution of public conflict as the secondobjective. The loose groups in the public conflicts can set up their own organizationsor seek endorsement of other social organizations to safeguard their own interests inan organized way, which reflects the exercise of citizens’ association right.Consequently, the loose groups in public conflicts have clear group-interestrepresentatives, clear expressers of opinions in the process of public conflicts. Socialorganizations as representatives, expressers and communicators are helpful for thestable developing of public conflicts and the clearance and opening of dispute node.All conflict parties negotiate and consult with each other in an open and transparentatmosphere to seek the solution of the dispute rationally.Second, social organizations involved in public conflicts as neutral third partiesplay both the roles of assisters such as informer, fact-finder, healer, consultor, assessor,facilitator and the roles of managers and supervisors in the following managingprocess. All these diverse roles in public conflicts commit to public conflict resolutionthrough a variety of ways.There are two typical representatives of social organizations participating inpublic conflict process. One representative is the worker rights organization, which isset up from a bottom-up way. Safeguarding workers’ rights, building a harmoniouslabor-capital relation and promoting conflict resolution are the main objectives ofworker rights organizations. The other representative is the environmentalorganization. Promoting environmental justice, opposing environmental damage andprotecting public resources are their missions and goals. Therefore, these kinds ofsocial organizations participate in environmental conflicts actively and impact theconflict resolution process positively. Though China’s social organizations haverarely intervened into grand public clashes, they play a prevention and resolution rolein a microcosmic way. This phenomenon is relevant to the hard development situationof social organizations and their low-pitched acting style as well as the scarceparticipatory space. Overall, the micro-participation activities of social organizations still have great significance to the prevention and transformation of public conflict.There are two kinds of necessary conditions for social organizations’participation in public conflict governance. One kind of conditions is from the angleof social organization itself and the other kind of conditions is from the angle ofexternal environment. The former includes the following aspects: the awareness ofrole consciousness, the expansion of organizational function, enough enthusiasm andmotivation of participating in public affairs, better self-regulatory mechanism andcredibility, adhering to the public-welfare, civil and non-profit attributes, strongability of mobilization and specialization. Macro institutional space and microregulatory model about social organizations are the external conditions. The internalconditions and the external conditions influence each other, and the externalconditions are more important comparatively. As for the actual situation, both thescale and the impact of social organizations in China are increasing, the meaning ofsocial organizations’ participation in governance is repeatedly written in thedocuments of CCP and government, the macro institutional space affecting socialorganizations’ participation in public conflict management is gradually opened.However, in the micro level,“legitimate”social organizations are still restricted by thedual responsibility and management system. At the same time,“grass-rooted” socialorganizations still face the embarrassment of illegal identity. In a word, there are aseries of obstacles that affect social organizations’ participation in the governance ofpublic conflict, such as ambiguous legal status, uncertainty expression channels aboutpublic affairs, the shortage of capital and talents, the single functional area, indifferentrole awareness, conservative style, scarce experience of participation governance aswell as distrust from the government and uncomprehension from the public, etc.In order to improve the efficacy of social organizations in public conflictgovernance, both social organizations and governments need to work hard. Firstly,social organizations should strengthen the professional capacity and participationmotivity, promote the standardization of participating way and reinforce the capacityof building joint self-help system. Secondly, the government should dispel the doubtsto social organizations, understand the participation impulse of social organizationswith a more positive attitude, build the participating space of conflict governance for social organizations in a constructive manner, widen the participating channelsequally to all kinds of social organizations, and carry out the necessary supervisionand management about social organizations.更多还原