【作者】 宋洁；

【导师】 金东日；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 行政管理， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 系统是由相互联系、相互依赖的子部分组成的,在与环境进行互动时,通过输入、转换和输出与环境进行信息、能量和材料等的交换。政府作为一种公共组织,也是一个投入产出的转换器。因此,政府能力就可以理解为政府为达到某项职能,在输入一一转换一一输出的过程中有效地采取并促进集体行动的能力,是政府的结构、人力、制度等各个要素的综合反映,其主要划分为资源汲取能力、资源管理能力和资源运用能力。当前,理论界主要是从结果导向的绩效角度来衡量政府职能履行的效果,绩效可能是一个反映能力情况的好指标,但并不能反映能力的哪个方面特别强或特别弱,也没有揭示能力的哪个方面应该对一个更好的或失败的表现负责。因此,如果没有充分分解政府能力,没有找到不同分析层次的指标和基准点来进行评估,就难以评估哪些过程是失败的,哪里需要额外的支持。了解这些不同层面的分析、设计衡量方法来评估每个层面的过程对于提出更好、更有效率的提高政府能力的措施至关重要。制度是嵌入政治经济组织结构中的规制性、规范性和文化认知性要素。它形塑行为主体的价值偏好,是隐藏在其行为背后的运行机理和内在逻辑,构建了对行为主体特定的激励结构。政府能力的土壤是制度,其产生于并受制于一定的制度环境。对县级政府能力具有直接影响的制度环境主要涉及权力运行规则、财税制度、干部管理制度、绩效考核制度、行政文化、意识形态等。县级政府能力评价是根据能力分析框架,通过纵横交织的指标,将政府能力之现状通过数字的形式展现出来,而制度研究关注的是这些数字背后更为深层次的原因以及能力是如何建构或塑造的。因此,二者结合可以避免县级政府能力研究的静态化和封闭化,也增加了定量研究的解释力度。根据政府能力的“汲取一一管理一一运用”模型,以县级政府发展经济和提供公共服务为例,设计出一套兼具效度和指导度的县级政府能力评价体系。指标体系由南开大学、华中科技大学、郑州大学、华中师范大学等相关领域的专家学者和县级政府工作人员进行效度打分,结果表明其内容恰当,效度较高,再经过专家赋权,构建出完整的政府能力评价体系,并以河南省四个县为例进行实证研究。实证研究主要包括县级政府能力评价体系的运用及制约县级政府发展经济和提供公共服务能力制度性缺陷的分析。当前,地方经济仍处于政府主导型发展模式,政府主要是以招商引资和大项目建设为核心推动经济发展。因此,县级政府发展经济的能力与其汲取资源的能力高度相关。而在以“GDP”为核心的绩效考核和高度集权的干部人事管理制度下,县级政府提供公共服务的能力不但受制于汲取资源和管理资源的能力,更受制于政府执政理念和其行为偏好。县级政府能力的变异其原因在于其背后制度的支撑作用依然存在。在“绩效——晋升”的激励机制之下,县级政府的效用目标已经围绕其特殊的利益需求展开,即财政收入最大化,领导晋升机会最大化。市场、竞争、利益、效率等观念伴随着市场经济的建立逐步获得认同,分税制改革、行政审批权的下放直接地激发了地方政府参与经济建设,获取财政收入的积极性。但是,政治上位的政治与行政一体化下,政治权威始终笼罩着行政。高度集权的干部管理与层层下压的绩效考核形成了契合。县级政府在上级政府刚性约束的压力强势之下,在社会公众满足其自身需求的压力弱势之下,在社会公众监督无力之下,其能力的实然逻辑已经有为其特殊利益服务的明显趋势。县级政府责任的泛经济化,重经济建设,促经济发展,轻公共服务,缓民生改善,陷入了狂热追求原始资本积累的怪圈。与强烈汲取资源的欲望形成鲜明对比的是,其内部各种管理、制度和程序不完善。同时,县级政府在财政收入最大化的偏好下和企业已经有了共同的效用目标,二者形成利益共享同盟,造成了公共政策偏袒强势利益集团而忽视弱势群体的利益。在理想状况之下,县级政府能力一是要认真领会上级政策,科学规划本地发展,合理汲取资源；二是要注重政府内部建设,完善各种规章制度和工作流程,形成有效的协调机制；三是要明确自身职责,努力在其职责范围之内取得良好的绩效。事实上,在压力与激励的双重作用下,在法治和公众监督的双重缺失下,县级政府既会对中央(上级)政策进行选择性执行,也会对公共利益选择性接纳。而其在能力建设上所遵循的原则是控制资源,主导经济发展。因此,要纠正县级政府能力变异,就要在构建限制政府权力的法治、遵循官僚理性原则加强其内部功能建设的前提下,健全科学有效的绩效管理、扩大公众参与、强有力地追究责任以及严格地依法行政,这也是确保县级政府能力回归公众理性的必然途径。更多还原

【Abstract】 System is composed of interconnected, interdependent parts and it exchanges information, energy and materials with environment through inputting, transforming and outputting. As a public organization, the government is also an input-output converter. So government capacity can be understood as the abilities to effectively promote collective action through "input-conversion-output" in order to achieve some function, which is a synthesis of structure, human, institution and other elements of the government. Government capacity includes resource acquisition capability, resource management capability and resource utilization capability. Currently, theorists measure the effect of government’s functions from the result-oriented performance perspective. Performance may be a good indicator of capability, but it can’t reflect the advantages and disadvantages of the capability or reveal which aspects should be responsible for a better or failure performance. So it’s important to decompose government capacity, find different levels of indicators and benchmark. Different levels of analysis and designing measure methods are essential to proposing better and more efficient steps to improve the capacity of government.Institution is regulative, normative and cultural cognition factors, which is embedded in the political and economic organization structure. Institution is operation mechanism and internal logic of the behavior, which shapes the value preference and builds specific incentive structure. So the soil of government capacity is institution. Government capacity is subject to certain institution conditions. Institution conditions, including operation rules of power, fiscal and taxation institution, cadre management institution, performance appraisal institution, ideology and administrative culture, have a direct impact on the capacity of county-level government. According to the capacity analysis framework, county government capacity evaluation uses digital to show the present government capability by cross-cutting indicators. But institutional research focuses on the deeper reasons behind these numbers and how the capacity status constructed or shaped. So the combination of the two ways can avoid the static and closed study, and it can increase the explanatory power of quantitative research.Taking county government capacity on economic development capacity and public service supply as an example, the author designs an set of effective and guiding evaluation system of the county-level government capacity, according to "drawing-managing-utilizing" model. Experts and scholars in relevant fields from Nankai University, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Zhengzhou University, Huazhong Normal University etc. and county governments grade the validity of the index system, which result shows that it has appropriate content and high validity. Then the experts set the weight of indicators. Based on the complete government capacity evaluation system, the author carries out empirical study taking four county governments in Henan Province as an example. The empirical study includes the use of the county government capacity evaluation system and institutional defects analysis of restricting the ability of developing the economy and supplying the public service. At present, the local economy development still follows the government-leading model, and the governments mainly promote economic development through investment and large projects. Therefore, the ability of county government economic development is highly related to resource acquisition. In the control of the performance appraisal with "GDP" as its core and the cadre management institution with highly centralization, county government public service providing ability is not only subject to resource acquisition, but also more constrained by governing idea and behavior preferences.Variation of county government capacity is because of supporting role of the institution that still exists. At the mercy of the "performance-promotion" incentive mechanism, the utility target of county government has been around its special interests—that is fiscal revenue maximization and leaderships promotion opportunities maximization. The concepts of market, competition, efficiency and benefit have been accepted with the establishment of the market economy. At the same time, reform of the tax institution and devolution of administrative approval directly stimulate the local government to participate in economic construction and obtain fiscal revenue. In the case of political and administrative integration under the political strength, the political authority has always enveloped administration. The highly centralized cadre management and the pressure of performance appraisal form an entity. County government capacity has obviously serviced to its special interests trend, under the strong pressure of rigid constraints form the government at a higher level, the little pressure of the public to meet their own needs, and the weakness of public supervision. County government responsibility is economic—that is emphasizing economic construction, promoting economic development, contempting public service, slowing.down the people’s livelihood and falling in a fanatically pursuing primitive accumulation of capital. The internal management and institution of county government are imperfect, in contrast with the strong desire of drawing resources. Under the revenue maximization of preference, county government and the enterprise have the common goal of utility and form the benefit sharing alliance, which causes public policy favoring strong group and ignoring vulnerable groups.In the ideal situation, county government capacity must achieve three goals:the first is to grasp the superior policy earnestly, scientifically plan local development, and rationally draw resources; the second is to focus on the internal construction, and perfect various rules, regulations, work processes, and form effective coordination mechanism; the third is to clear its own responsibilities, and strive to achieve good performance within the scope of its duties. In fact, because of the dual function of pressure-motivation and dual absence of the rule of law and public supervision, the county government will not only selectively execute the central (superior) policy, but also will selectively accept public interests. The principle of local government capacity building is to control resources and lead the economic development. So improving scientific and effective performance management, expanding public participation, investigating into the responsibility effectly and administrating according to law strictly are the inevitable way to ensure the county government capacity to return to public reason on the premise of constructing the rule of law to limit government power and following bureaucratic rationality principle to strengthen its internal function.更多还原