【作者】 包艳；

【导师】 杨俊一；

【作者基本信息】 上海大学 ， 社会学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 纵观中国社会发展现实,虽然三十年的社会转型和制度变迁成果斐然,但其中出现了正式制度表达与制度实践之间相背离的现象,小煤矿事故频发就是一例。尽管国家围绕小煤矿安全生产出台了很多正式制度,但是收效甚微。这使寻找个中原因的研究成为一种必需。在这方面的研究中,经济学强调个人“成本—效益”的利益计算,法学关注正式制度的缺陷,社会学则重视非正式制度的影响。显然,单独考虑这些因素并不能系统地解释“表达”与“实践”相背离的原因,而必须将正式制度、非正式制度以及行动者的利益动机整合在一起,通过揭示制度实践中的行动逻辑才能探寻背离的原因。因此,本文的研究以解释正式制度表达与制度实践相背离的原因为研究目的,以国家“整顿关闭小煤矿”制度在F市小煤矿领域的执行过程为切入点,使用布迪厄社会实践理论为分析视角,运用场域、惯习和资本等概念为研究工具,将制度实践置于“小煤矿场域”内研究,用定性与定量相结合的方法,动态地分析小煤矿场域行动者在制度实践过程中的资本运作和策略选择的过程,从而探讨制度实践的行动逻辑,回答“表达”与“实践”相背离的原因。首先本文阐述了国家以往整顿治理小煤矿的正式制度以及“2005—2008新一轮整顿关闭小煤矿”的制度目标,叙述了F市小煤矿领域实际发挥作用的非正式制度;其次勾勒出制度实践的社会空间即F市小煤矿场域,分析了场域内行动者的关系结构、行动者的惯习及其资本;然后详细地分析了制度实践过程中行动者资本运作和策略选择的过程,叙述了行动者策略互动而形成的局部秩序,动态地分析了局部秩序如何反过来促进正式制度和非正式制度再生产。研究结果表明:第一,正式制度并不是某社会场域真实的规则,它是国家元场域促使社会场域进行制度变迁并实现对其控制的外在压力;非正式制度体现了某个社会场域真实的内部规则,它通过决定行动者关系构型和型塑行动者惯习作用于制度实践。第二,制度不是权力机构制定的文本,也不是仅依靠科层体系自上而下执行的,而是在行动者复杂的关系结构和策略互动中实践的结果。制度实践是行动者在某一特定场域的关系结构中,在元场域和权力场域的外在压力下,受到惯习的推动,为了实现各自利益而进行的资本运作与策略选择的过程。第三,行动者之间策略互动的结果形成了暂时性的局部秩序,国家元场域根据局部秩序进行正式制度的再生产,以调整社会场域行动者的策略选择,直至社会场域形成了令元场域基本认可的“游戏规则”。新的“游戏规则”被行动者接受、学习、内化,由此非正式制度和惯习得以再生产。行动者以新的惯习为依据,参与未来的制度实践。这一行动逻辑说明行动者并非完全按照正式制度安排行动,正式制度也不是自上而下机械执行的,而是要经过行动者实践的,因此正式制度表达与其执行结果之间发生的背离是制度实践的日常形式。制度是通过行动者实践形成的一种游戏规则,它既是约束行动者行为的规则,也是行动者之间争斗、妥协的结果,因此制度与行动之间是约束与建构的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 China has achieved a lot in 30 years’ social tranforms and institutional changes, however, the phenomenon that practical results deviate from formal express of institutuons is existing. Incident regularly happens in small coal mines is one of the cases. Chinese governments have made many formal insitutions concerning security production in small coal mines, but produced little effect. Therefore, research trying to disclose deep roots behind the phenomenon has become badly needed. Economicsts emphasize calculation of intersests based on the costs and benefits, law researchers pay more attention to deficiency of institution, while sociologists focus on effects of informal institutions. Obviously, reasons of the deviation between regulaitons and results can not be found if only one of those views is considered. Therefore, in order to explore reasons, behavior logic in the insitutional practice must be found by taking formal and informal institutions and interest incentives into consideration.Thus, in order to explore deep roots of deviation, this disseration starts the research with observing the process of institutions of reorganizing and closing small coal mines being carried out in a city of F in the North-east China, takes Bourdieu’s theory of practical sociology as the analytical framework, uses some concepts of fields, habits and capitals as research tools, studies institutional practice in small coal mine field and thus to dynamically analyze agents’ strategic choices and capital uses in small coal mine fields to find the logic of action in institutional practice to answer why does express of insitituions deviate from practical results exist.Firstly, the disseratation summarizes national institutions on regulating small coal mines and institutional targets of 2005-2008 new round of reorganizing and closing small coal mines. Some informal institutions taking effects in small coal mines in city F are also exporated. And then the disseration portraits social spaces of insitiutional practice, i.e. small coal mines in city F, and analyzes agents’ relation structures, habitus and capitals. Based on that, dissertation makes analysis on agnets’ capital uses and strategies choices in institutional practice, explains the formation of regional orders from interactions of agents’ strategies and shows the effects of regional orders on reproduction of formal and informal institutios reversly.As research shows, first, formal institutions are not the actural rules in the social sub-field, but the external forces from state meta-field to promote institutional changes and exert national control powers; informal institutions are actural rules in sub-field, having effects on institutional practice through regulating agents’ relation structure and constructing their habitus.Second, institutions are not carried out practically not bureaucratcially from the top to the bottom. Institutional practice, promoted by different agents’ habitus, is a process of redeploying capitals and choosing strategies motivated to realize respective interests in a structure of a certain field under external pressure from power field.Third, interactions between agent’s strategies become into an impermanent order in the field, state meta-field also reproduce formal institutions according to regional orders in in the field of small coal mines to adjust strategic choices of agents in the social fields till the games rules could satisfy meta-field are finally forms. The new rules are accepted, studied and taken in, informal insitutions and habitus could be reproduced. Agents take in the future institutuional practice using the new habitus.T his logic of action indicates that agents do not behave completely according to formal institutions. Formal institutions are not automatically carried out from the top to the bottom but through agents’ practice. Therefore it is in regularity to have deviation of actual results from formal institutional express. Institutuion is both a rule of controling agents and the result of contention and compromise between them. Therefore, relations between institutions and actions is that of being controled and constructed.更多还原