【作者】 周盛；

【导师】 陈国权； 余逊达；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 行政管理， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 无论是在西方发达国家还是在发展中国家,自上世纪下半叶兴起的公民参与公共决策都曾陷入或正在陷于参与无效甚至激化社会矛盾的困境。多年来,公共管理学、政治学、经济学领域的学者们一直在反思如何衡量公民参与的有效性以及影响参与有效性的因素,无论是在理论突破还是实践指导方面都取得了很大成绩,但也存在着分析视角过于专注开放机制而忽略了政策过程中协调机制的问题。尤其在我国转型期的背景下,不断升级的非制度化公民参与给政策的制定与执行带来了严重的影响,政策僵局、执行阻滞以及政策过程中越来越高的社会成本让我们反思：为什么分歧的偏好没有在地方政府的政策过程中得以整合走向收敛?是什么导致了社会矛盾在政策过程中的激化而非消减?为此,“共识”理应成为公共政策领域重要的研究议题,急需对共识的概念与共识形成的机制进行深入研究,以共识为导向反思现有的参与制度和政策过程。已有的共识研究呈现两种趋势的分野：民主取向的共识研究在规范研究的基础上产生了丰富的理论成果；科学取向的共识研究提供了促进共识的技术方案,但两种研究取向因没有对话而无法取长补短,对现实政策过程中复杂偏好的整合都缺乏适用性,尤其是西方语境下的共识构建理论难以移植到中国的政治现实中。在这样的现实与理论需求之下,本项研究以参与式政策制定过程中多元主体的偏好分歧与共识形成机制为主题,在综合公民参与、共识构建理论相关研究成果的基础上,借鉴心理学的偏好理论与管理学的群体决策理论,界定“参与式政策制定”与“政策共识”的概念,并细化为可操作的分析维度与测量指标,构建了“参与式政策制定的共识模型”。通过自行开发设计的“四合一”博弈行为实验,验证公民参与结构的权力、利益、信息维度对共识度的影响作用；通过向三类主体发放雾霾治理调查问卷,统计分析上述三个维度对共识内容的影响作用；通过分析城市改造拆迁领域的两个实证案例,比较不同的共识构建路径在现实中的作用与问题,对我国基层政府在公民参与决策中促进共识形成提出建议。研究得出了以下主要结论：1、政策共识的形成是多元主体的偏好在变化中由分歧走向收敛的过程,对其测量包括共识度与共识内容两个维度。由于偏好的可变性,政策共识的达成不是多元主体的偏好依托市场机制或民主过程协调取舍的“零和博弈”,而是对话与合作基础上对群体偏好的共同构建。因此,相应的决策机制设计不仅要能够吸纳并表达不同个体对某一政策议题的偏好,而且应能够促进变化着的个体偏好逐渐趋同并形成群体偏好。对政策共识的测量包括“量”与“质”两个维度,其中对共识度的测量包括个体偏好的一致性和群体共识的可接受性两个指标；对共识内容的测量包括政策问题认知、治理主体选择和政策工具选择三个指标。2、公民参与结构的权力维度失衡是造成个体偏好分歧的主导因素,相应地对权力关系的改变是构建共识的基础性策略。博弈行为实验的分析结果证实,决策主体间的权力配置从一方独揽变为双方共享后,显著提升了个体偏好的一致性和决策方案的满意度。问卷调查的结果也进一步证明,在政策制定过程中掌握较多权力的政府官员与普通公众的偏好分歧是全面且深刻的。实际案例中,上海市旧区改造“二次征询制”的设计通过对弱势群体赋权改变了原有政府垄断决策权的局面,显著促进了共识度的提升。据此,我们认为权力的分散化配置有利于减少偏好的分歧,促使决策的多元主体达成较高满意度的共识方案。3、多元主体政策偏好的分歧虽表现为利益诉求的冲突,但仅仅通过利益协调的方式达成的共识流于形式,且有较大的合法性风险。对行为实验结果与问卷调查结果的分析共同证明,在权力维度不予改变的前提下,主体与政策议题利益相关性的变更对个体偏好的一致性和群体决策方案满意度没有显著影响,公民在参与政策制定的过程中并不会因其个人利益的损益影响其对政策工具的选择；且由于政府一方让渡利益的制度空间极其有限,一旦涉嫌非法利益的交易,将影响整个政策过程的合法性和政府的公信力,严重削弱共识构建的基础。4、公民参与结构的信息维度对政策共识的影响因政策议题的专业性而不同,信息不对称基础上形成的共识为“不成熟的共识”。信息公开与对称均衡是共识构建的重要策略,尤其对高专业性的政策议题,当政策制定者吸纳公众参与此类政策议题的制定时,若通过专家群体的合理介入提供相应的信息支持,会显著促进政策共识的达成；相反地,政策制定者通过人为垄断信息促进共识的策略只能是权宜之计,在信息化高度发展的背景下,一旦这种信息不对称的格局被打破,“不成熟的共识”会迅速变成双方更深刻的偏好分歧,再度构建共识的难度更大。更多还原

【Abstract】 No matter in western developed or developing countries, the participatory policymaking emerging since the latter part of last century have been or is in the dilemma of invalid or even activated social contradictions. Over the years, scholars in the fields of public management, politics and economics have always been considering that how to evaluate the effectiveness of civic participation and the factors influencing the effectiveness. Either in the aspect of theory, or in the aspect of practice, they have achieved great performances. However, due to excessive focusing on opening mechanism, they have neglected the coordination mechanism in the policy process. Especially under the background of China’s transformation period, increasingly upgraded non-institutionalized civic participation has brought serious influences on the policymaking and implementation. Policy deadlock, stagnated implementation and more and more social cost in policymaking process are enough for us to reflect:why divergent preferences have not been integrated to convergence in the policymaking process of local government? What has led to the intensification of social contradictions instead of being reduced in the policymaking process? Therefore," consensus " should become an important subject in the public policy area. It is urgently to make deep research on concept and mechanism of consensus, so as to take the consensus as the orientation to reflect existing participatory system and policymaking process. The existing consensus researches have performed two kinds of trends:on the basis of normative research, democracy-oriented consensus has achieved rich theoretical results; science-oriented consensus has provided technological solution to promote consensus. However, lack of communication between these two trends, they cannot learn from others’strong points to offset one’s weakness. As the complicated preference integration in realistic policymaking process, they are both lack of applicability. Especially, under the horizon of Western world, it is very difficult to transplant the consensus building theory to political reality in China.Under this reality and theoretical requirements, taking the divergence of multiple subjects’preferences and consensus building mechanism in the participatory policymaking process as research topics, on the basis of related research results of consensus building theories, referring to the preference theory of psychology and group decision-making theory of Management, this paper has defined concepts of "participatory policymaking" and "policy consensus", refined them into operable analysis dimensions and measurement index and constructed " Consensus model of participatory policymaking ". Through the self-developed and designed " Four to One " game behavior experiment, it has verified the influence of right, benefit and information dimension of civic participation in the structure on consensus; targeted at three groups, it has issued questionnaires of smog governance and statistically analyzed the influence of above three dimensions on consensus contents; through analyzing two empirical cases in urban updating and house demolition field, this paper has compared effects and problems of different consensus construction routes in reality and put forward suggestions for promoting consensus formation by China local government in civic participatory policymaking. The study has the following conclusions:1. The consensus building is a process that preferences of multiple subject moves from differences to convergence in changes. For the measurement, there are two dimensions of consensus degree and content. Due to the variability of preference, the formation of policy consensus is not the "zero-sum game" of multiple subjects’preferences relying on market mechanism or democratic process, but the common construction of group preference on the basis of dialogue and cooperation. Therefore, corresponding policy mechanism design should not only absorb and express the preferences of different individuals on some policy subject, but also promote changing individual preferences can gradually convert to group preference. As the measurement of policy consensus, it includes two dimensions of "quantity" and "quality", among which, the measurement of consensus degree includes two indicators of individual preference consistency and group consensus acceptability; the measurement of consensus content includes three indicators of cognition of policy issue, choice of governance subjects and choice of policy tools. 2. The power dimension imbalance of the civic participation is the dominant factor of causing individual preference different. The corresponding change of power relations is building consensus basic strategy. The analysis result of the game behavior experiment shows that, after the disposition of power of decision-makers changes from one monopolizing power into two sides sharing power, it has significantly increased the consistency of individual preference and satisfaction with group decision. The survey results also further prove that the divergence of preferences between the government officials which have more power in the policy process and the general public is comprehensive and profound. In a practical case, the design of "the secondary consultation system" in Shanghai urban transformation through empowering the disadvantaged has changed the original monopoly condition of government, and significantly increased the consensus promotion. On this basis, we think that decentralization of authority will help reduce the divergence of preferences, and promote the multiple subjects of decision-making to reach a consensus of higher satisfaction rate.3. Although the multiple subjects’divergence of policy preferences appears as the conflict of interests, reaching a consensus only through the way of interest coordination is still formulaic and has a legality risk. The analysis of the results of behavioral experiment and questionnaire survey are prove that the change of interest relations of subject and policy issue had no distinct effect on the consistency of individual preference and satisfaction of group decision.It will not for the profit and loss of the personal interests affect the choice of policy tools in the process of policy making involving the citizens. And the space of the government transfer interest is extremely limited, once people suspect the legality of interests tradeoff, it will affect the legitimacy of the entire policy process and credibility of the government, which will seriously weaken the foundation of consensus building.4. The effects of the information dimension of the civic participation construction on policy consensus may differ according to the professionalism of the policy issues. The consensus which built on the basis of the information asymmetry is "premature consensus". The information publication and symmetric equilibrium is an important strategic of the consensus building, especially to the policy issues of high professional. When policy makers attract public to formulate such policy issues, the reasonable intervention of expert group and providing the corresponding information support will significantly promote the policy consensus. On the contrary, building the consensus through artificially monopolizing information is makeshift at best. Under the background of a high development of information, once this kind of information asymmetry pattern is broken,"premature consensus" can rapidly become a profound preference divergence between the two sides, it will more difficult to build the consensus again.更多还原