预算、权力与民主：美国预算史中的权力结构变迁

【作者】 章伟；

【导师】 竺乾威；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 行政管理， 2005， 博士

【摘要】 本文的研究范域是美国预算史，但并非纯历史的研究，因为文章研究的真正对象不是历史本身，而是历史背后所蕴藏的政治逻辑。这个逻辑包括三个变量，即预算、权力与民主，看似风马牛不相及的三个概念，若将其置于美国预算史的整体框架中，其内在逻辑便一目了然：美国的公共预算制度始终处于动态演进中，演进的主要推动力是美国预算史中的一系列预算改革；预算改革在推动预算制度演进的同时，又产生了重大的政治效应，即导致预算权力结构的变迁，因为特定的预算制度会形成特定的权力结构安排，一旦预算制度发生变革，其背后的预算权力结构必然随之变迁；预算权力结构变迁必然会影响到民主的存继与发展，因为，从“美国式”民主的基本理念看，民主是对权力的一种有益于多数人的结构化安排；这种变迁到底会令“美国式”民主何去何从是本文的终极关怀所在。美国预算史中的这一政治逻辑，可以提升为一个理论性的命题，即“民主预算理论”，在这个理论命题中，权力是一个中间变量，而预算与民主则通过这一中间变量紧密结合在一起。其实，“预算改革——权力变迁——民主发展”的演进逻辑并不复杂，但却在很长一段时期内被国内外学者所忽视，通过对美国预算史作政治视角的透视，这一逻辑得以还原，这是本文的理论价值之所在。本文共分为七个部分，一个导言，五章正文，一个结论。其中，五章正文反映了美国预算史的五个发展阶段(其中一个阶段是过渡性阶段)，每一个阶段分别对应着一种特定的权力结构模式，即“前预算时代”——立法独白型权力结构、“进步时代”——过渡时期(立法独白的消解与行政的崛起)、行政主导预算时代——政治型权力结构、均势预算时代——对弈型权力结构以及基于多元预算时代——网络型权力结构。最初，笔者是按照美国预算史中的标志事件来进行阶段划分的，现在看来这种划分是基本成立的。第一阶段，“前预算时代”。尽管这一时期的美国不存在规范意义上的公共预算，但却存在着诸多预算行为与非制度化的预算惯例，这些预算行为与惯例对美国现代公共预算的形成产生了决定性的影响。但如果据此认为，这便是美国公共预算之源头的话，则有失偏颇。因为笔者通过研究发现，美国公共预算的真正源头在英国，因为英国的预算烙印深深地打在了殖民地时期美国的预算行为和惯例中。一些史学家分析，殖民地时期的美国并没有从英国统治下独立出去的任何主观动机，但历史却发生了，文章基于预算视角，对美国独立革命的爆发作出了财政学的诠释，当然这未必是主流的诠释。随后的制宪会议和宪政建国以及美国内战，都能从中找到预算的印迹。任目前预算时代，总统及行政部门没有任何实质的预算权力，立法部门(议院、议会或国会)完全支配了美国的预算过程，立法部门在预算过程中不断地进行着预算权力的独白，所以我将这种权力结构称为立法独白型权力结构。这种结构与代议型民主相对应，但与1789美国“国父们”所构建的“美国式”民主却格格不入。第二阶段，“进步时代”。从全文结构看，本章似乎与其他章节风格迥异，之所以将其单列一章主要是因为它是美国现代公共预算的奠基时代，“进步时代”的一系列社会改革与预算改革成为现代美国政治、经济和社会生活的奠基石。尤其是预算改革，它引入了现代公共预算概念，从而为1921年美国现代公共预算制度的诞生埋下了伏笔。在进步时代的预算改革所产生的一系列政治效应中，总统及行政部门权力的提升是最值得一提的，因为它不仅奠基了美国现代总统制的形成，同时也消解了立法独白型的预算权力结构，更重要的是，总统及行政部门的权力提升使得“美国式”民主的核心原则——权力分立与制衡获得了相应的支撑，所以在这一阶段，“美国式”民主开始从天上降到了人间。第三阶段，行政主导预算时代：1921年～1974年。作为一个里程碑，《1921年预算与会计法案》真正开启了美国现代公共预算的历史，它不仅使“进步时代”引入的公共预算概念得以制度化确认并形成现代公共预算制度，而且还标志着预算权力开始从立法部门向行政部门转移，随着其后的一系列后续改革，行政主导型预算模式终得型塑。这一阶段的预算改革不仅使行政主导预算模式逐渐形成，更重要的是，它使行政部门在技术和权力上得到了双重提升，以至于行政部门在与立法部门的预算权力较量中占据了绝对优势。但此时并未出现行政权力的独白现象，主要原因在于立法部门的预算权力虽相对下降，其在技术和信息上也完全处于下风，但立法部门却可以通过各种政治策略、政治过程和政治原则来与行政部门周旋。鉴于“政治”在预算权力博弈中的重要性，笔者将这一阶段所形成的预算权力结构称为“政治型权力结构”。这一阶段预算改革对于行政部门权力的提升使“美国式”民主的制衡理念和原则得以落位，但遗憾的是，随着行政主导预算模式以及政治型权力结构的形成，刚刚落位的“美国式”民主又划向了一个极端——行政集权。当然，“美国式”民主的失衡并不意味着对美国民主的否定，从笔者对民主的界定来看，这也是一种民主，只不过并非规范意义上的“美国式”民主，而是一种行政集权型民主。第四阶段，均势预算时代：1974年～1993年。这一阶段的标志性事件是《1974年国会预算与扣留控制法案》的出台。该法案在扩大国会预算权力的同时，并未改变总统的预算权能，即总统每年都要向国会递交预算，并在预算中发挥着重要作用；随后的一系列预算改革使立法与行政部门在预算权力和技术上逐渐走向均衡，这便是笔者所谓的“均势预算模式”。在这种模式下，国会与总统的预算权力基本实现均衡，国会与总统之间预算权力处于互动与对弈状态，籍此，笔者将与均势预算模式对应的权力结构命名为“对弈型权力结构”，这是与“美国式”民主最为接近的一种预算权力结构。第五阶段，多元预算时代，1993年至今。20世纪90年代早期，美国爆发了一轰轰烈烈的新公共管理运动(政府再造运动)，运动中的绩效导向催生了新绩效预算改革。新绩效预算的分权与参与理念使更多的行动者实质性地参与到公共预算中来，从而诞生了一种新的预算模式——多元预算模式。在多元预算模式下，原本游离于预算的实质性过程之外的一些行动者，如基层单位与管理者、传媒、工种、社会群团等，开始通过各种途径程度不同地涉足于公共预算之中，进而使一种新的预算权力格局——网络型权力结构初显雏形。从美国预算的现实情境看，这还算不上规范意义上的网络型权力结构，虽然它在一定程度上促进了美国民主的发展，但对于“美国式”民主仍构不成实质性支撑，因此，“美国式”民主在当代仍然是一种政治“乌托邦”基于全文分析，笔者提出了“民主预算理论”来还原美国预算史中被长期忽视的政治逻辑，那么“民主预算理论”对于中国预算的改革与演进有多大解释力呢?这是后话。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper focuses on the budget history of U.S., while it is not a history study. The subject that I pay attention to is not history itself but political logic that is behind the history we can easily attach. In a word, there are three parameters: budget, power and democracy. These seem to be totally unrelated, but if put into the background and structure of the budget history of America, the inherent logic is clear at a glance: the American budget system has been developing, and the major impetus is a series of budget reforms; these reforms have caused great political effect that is the transformation of budget power structure, because there is a natural relationship between the budget system and power structure; the transformation of budget power structure will affect the existing and developing of democracy, because in American ideology, democracy is a kind of power arrangement which benefits majorities. I care ultimately for the future of American democracy. We can conclude a theoretic proposition from the historical logic of American budget, which is "democratic budget theory", in which power is the middle parameters that hangs budget and democracy together. In fact, the logic of "budget reform—transformation of power structure— development of democracy" is not complex, though is neglected by scholars inside and outside. The value of this paper is to deoxidize the truth though the perspective to American budget history in political view.This paper consists of seven parts; they are an introduction, five texts and a conclusion. The texts outline four stages in American budget history (one of them is transition stage), each stage reflects a model of power. They are "the pre-budgeting era"— the structure of legislative monolog; "the progressive era" —transition era(the destruction of legitimacy monolog and the rise of administration); "the era in which the executive branch leads the budget"—the power structure of political style; "the era of equipollence budgeting"—the power structure of game style; "the era of polycentric budgeting"— networking power structure. At first, I set off these stages according to some symbol incidents in American budget history, which seem to prove true.The first stage: the pre-budgeting era. Despite of lack of strict public budget in American, there were some budgeting behavior and non-institutional custom, which have great importance to the shape of modern budget. But it is partial to think these asthe headstream of American public budgeting. I take it granted that the headstream is in England, since there was deep brand of England budgeting in American colonies. Some historians thought that, American colonies of England came to be independent from England, though they had no motivate to do that. This paper tries to explain the history in approach of budget theory, while it may not be accepted by majorities. We can also find budget print in Constitution Congress, founding of the united states of American and the Civil War. In this era, American president and administration had no budget power at all. On the other hand, congress had monopolized the process of budget, which I call it legitimacy monolog era. This structure reflects representative democracy, but not suitable to "the America-style democracy" constructed by American founding fathers.The second stage: the progressive era. It has laid a foundation to the American modern budget, and a series of social reforms and budget reforms turned out to be the cornerstone of modern American. So the style of this part may be different from others. In this era, the idea of modern budget was introduced into American society, which was the foreshadowing of the form of American modern public budget institution. Among all the effects of the reforms, the rise of the power of the president and administration was outstanding; it not only laid a foundation to the modern presidency, but also destructed the monopoly of legitimacy. What is the most important is that, the rise of the power of the president and administration gave a powerful support to the "the America-style democracy"—"checks and balances" of powers, which made the American democracy to be realized.The third stage: the era in which the executive branch leads the budget, 1921～ 1974. As a landmark in budget history of America, "Budget and Accounting Act of 1921" opened the era of American modern public budget. In this period, the idea of public budget came into the institution. Moreover, the budget power has been transited from congress to administration. And finally, the executive branch led the public budget. Remarkably, the budget reforms in this era caused the promotion of power and technology in administration, which brought the administration absolute advantage over congress. But it does mean the monologue of administration, and the main reason lay in the congress committees’ wisdoms to use political strategies, political process and principles to deal with administration. Whereas the importance of "politics" in the budget game, I call the power structure in this theory as "the power structure of political style". This period contributed to the rise of administration andthe realization of "checks and balances" of powers. But it is a pity that the new leviathan—administrative centralization of power came up. Of course, it was not the negation to American democracy, which still existed in American but deviated from the norm style.The forth stage: the era of equipollence budgeting,1974～1993. The stage began as the "Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974" came on. The act enlarged the congress budget power, while it didn’t change the president budget power. The president should send to congress the budget that he still has a great effect to. And the following reforms gradually realized the balance between the congress and administration in power and technique, which is called "equipollence-style budgeting". In this model, there was a basic balance and game between the congress and president, which leads to the power structure of game style, which is related to the "the America-style democracy".The latest stage: the era of polycentric budgeting, 1993 to now. The new public management (the movement of reinventing government) came into American in 1990s and it led to the new performance budget reform. The idea of decentralization and participation in new performance budget brought more chance to actors to participate into public budget, which caused a new budget model—polycentric budgeting. In this era, many actors, which have stood outside of the budget process, such as grass-rooted unites and managers, the medias, citizens, social groups and so on, come into public budget by various ways. All these led to a kind of power networking power structure. Of course, the realism doesn’t mean the realization of network power structure in American, which makes the "the America-style democracy" still a political Utopia, though it promoted the democracy.Based on above analysis, the author concludes the "democratic budget theory " to deoxidize the political logic behind American budget history. Then, can the theory explain the reform and development of China’s public budget? It is expected to be answered in following studies.更多还原