【作者】 耿羽；

【导师】 贺雪峰；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 社会学， 2013， 博士

【副题名】基层治理视阈中的白沙区土地开发（1990-2013）

【摘要】 任何时期土地利益分配都是宏观(国家资源禀赋和战略目标)-中观(资源分配制度)-微观(治理形态)三层综合作用的结果。三个层面的关系如下：(1)、宏观层面决定中观层面和微观层面的变动方向,中观层面和微观层面决定宏观层面的实施效果；(2)、中观层面和微观层面相互制约、相互影响；(3)、虽然相互制约和影响,但任何一方的变革不可能彻底代替另一方变革。征地和拆迁的本质是国家对于非农土地利益的再分配。征迁引发种种矛盾,很大一部分原因在于其没有合理的微观治理为依托。收取农业税费曾是基层治理中的“天下第一难事”,税费免除后,此难事自动消失,但基层治理并未得到真正改善,近年随着城市化和工商业发展,征迁工作大量展开,基层治理困境又将征迁工作推向“天下第一难事”。也就是说,征迁乱象一个重要源头是“政”(微观治理),“制”(中观制度)的改进无法替代“政”的问题。“政”的问题主要在于只有政治技术的加强而缺乏政治伦理,即有“术”而无“道”。改革开放后,中国基层治理的四个元素较以往发生以下变化：(1)、群众参与式微；(2)、“半正式行政”异化；(3)、官僚机构内部的科层制加强；(4)、官僚机构内部的动员制加强。征迁政治中归根结底要解决两个问题：一是如何“合法”地定义“政府暴力”、“灰黑暴力”、“民众暴力”,二是如何“合理”地定义“特殊户”。第一个问题侧重于“国家政治”层面,第二个问题侧重于“村庄政治”层面。由于地方政府无原则的“策略主义”性质,以上两个方面都无法很好解决。中央政府和媒体两者作为第三方,预期角色为平衡者,其可以扭转征迁博弈中政府强村民弱的局面。但由于第三方强调事情的剧烈程度甚于事情的来龙去脉,过于绝对和静态地看待“出事”和“稳定”,第三方的加入不仅没有根除地方政府的“策略行为”,反而强化了民众的“策略行为”,基层治理更加没有政治伦理。每个主体都有自己的“小道理”和委屈,都能列举出自己处于博弈弱势时对方的种种不择手段、无理取闹,但当自己有机会使用种种不择手段、无理取闹的策略行为占据博弈上风时,他们也会毫不犹豫地使用。征迁中没有了政治原则,只有谈判技术,每个主体都以投机式的、策略主义式的、权宜式的逻辑参与政治,村民合理的诉求和政府合理的行政被淹没在“村民无原则要-政府无原则给-村民无原则比”之中。更多还原

【Abstract】 Distributing of land profits is the result of the combined action of three levels at any time:Macro(national resource endowments and strategic objectives)-Meso(resource distribution institution)-Micro(governance structure). The relation of three levels as follows:(1) Macro level decide the change direction of medium level and micro level, medium level and micro level decide the implementation effect of macro level.(2) Medium level and micro level mutual restrict and mutual influence.(3) Although mutual restriction and mutual influence, one level change can not completely replace the other level change.The nature of land-acquisition and house-demolishment is the national redistribution of the profits of land conversion. The disputes land-acquisition and house-demolishment, a large part of the reason is lack of reasonable governance structure. The collection of agricultural taxes and fees was "the most difficult thing" in grassroots governance. After the tax and fee reform, the difficult thing disappear automatically, but governance structure have not been real improvement, with the development of urbanization and industry and commerce in recent years, The work of land-acquisition and house-demolishmen is being carried out largely, grassroots governance dilemma push the work of land-acquisition and house-demolishmen to "the most difficult thing" again. That is to say, the main source of the chaos on the work of land-acquisition and house-demolishmen is "government"(microscopic governance), the improvement of "institution"(medium institution) cannot be replaced with "government".The "government" problem lies in the only strengthen of political technology and the insufficiency of political ethics. After the reform and opening up, the four elements of grassroots governance structure in China change:(1) Masses participation is weakening.(2) Semiformal governance is alienating.(3) Bureaucracy within the government is strengthening.(4) Mobilization within the government is strengthening. Political activity on land-acquisition and house-demolishment should solve the two problems ultimately: first, how to "legitimately" define "the government violence","gang violence" and " masses violence", secondly, how to define "reasonablely""Special villagers". The first issue is focused on "national politics" level, the second issue is focused on "village politics" level. Due to "strategy principle" on local government, the above two aspects can not be solved well.As a third party, the expected role of central government and the media is balancer. The both can reverse the game situation on land-acquisition and house-demolishment that the government is too strong and the villager is too weak. But as a result of the third party emphasize intensity of things instead of the ins and outs of things, treat "accident" and " stability" in the over-absolute and over-static view, the third party can not eradicate the "strategic behavior" of local government, instead, strengthen the "strategic behavior" of masses, no political ethics exist grassroots governance even more. Each body has its own" minor principle " and injustice, will enumerate other’s unreasonably troublesome when themselves in the weak.But when they have the chance to make trouble without a cause in order to have the upper hand, they will do it unhesitatingly. There is no political principle in the land-acquisition and house-demolishment, only the negotiation skills. Each body participate in politics with the speculative, tactical and expedient logic.更多还原