【作者】 王诗宗；

【导师】 郁建兴；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 行政管理， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 “治理”概念甫一提出,迅即成为国际社会科学的热门语汇,在公共行政学领域尤为如此。治理既不笃信独大的国家,也不膜拜单一的自由市场,从而超越了国家主义和新自由主义的抽象对立,具有巨大的理论解释力。随着适用范围、领域不断扩大,治理概念变得模糊,理论观点也日益繁多,这就影响了理论的具体性及其应用。因此,将治理理论置于其主要依托学科和批评对象——公共行政学的学科背景下,厘清其含义,指明其贡献与局限,并判断其未来的发展前景,就显得十分重要。而且,治理理论多基于西方历史经验基础上提出,它被应用于中国时,会遭遇到西方范式与中国经验之间的紧张关系,检视治理理论在中国的适用性,并基于中国经验拓展这一理论,不仅对于治理理论的发展具有重要意义,而且对于建构自主的中国社会科学亦具有重要的示范作用。相对于统治,治理是一种趋势,这一趋势意味着国家(政府)与社会关系的调整；调整的目的在于应对原先政治社会格局、公共事务中的不可治理性；在调整中,政府之外的力量被更多地强调,国家中心的地位可能在一定程度上被国家、社会和市场之间新的组合所替代。这也意味着,由于不同国家在既有制度结构、传统、不可治理性等方面存在差异,治理实践不存在一种统一模式。多中心、分权化、公民参等主张使得治理理论具有很强的“社会中心”色彩,但治理不是对等级结构的简单摧毁,它恰恰镶嵌于等级结构之中。元治理概念主张将国家请回“中心”的位置,国家不仅要在治理过程中承担不可或缺的角色,而且在治理失败时,国家是惟一能对结局负责并承担后果的行动者。“国家的回退”与“向国家的回退”似乎构成了一对矛盾,但这恰好说明已有的“社会中心”论与“国家中心”论都已不敷用。治理理论对民主模式及民主制行政的独特认识,实现了公共行政学的重大进展。治理理论否定了“适用于所有层次”的民主模式的可能性,力求具有可操作性的参与式民主,并试图找到代议制民主与参与式民主的较好结合方式。治理理论在政治-行政二分和行政国家形成后,实现了民主理论与公共行政的重新交融。它强调民主的决策功能,让决策不再是立法者和行政官僚的专利,这些论点不仅更新了民主理论的某些基本观念,也为民主制行政提供了理论基础,让民主的公共行政具有了现实的可能。治理理论与传统公共行政学说、新公共行政、新公共管理理论之间存在着批判和继承关系。治理理论体现了超越既有公共行政范式的努力,然而根据库恩的范式理论,它尚未成为新的公共行政范式。尽管如此,治理理论的一系列核心主张表明,它能在一定程度上弥合公共行政学中价值理性与工具理性的分野。治理理论和实践中致力于将效率考量和民主(价值)考量一体化,这是对当代公共行政学的一个重要推进。大量实证研究也证明,民主价值和效率可以用同一个过程中以类似的手段来实现,这印证了“社会性效率”概念并非虚无缥缈。不过,治理理论也有走向实用主义的迹象。当代中国与西方国家一样面对着大量不可治理性的挑战,而且它还担负着现代公共行政体系建设等未竞的国家建构任务。一些论者认为,中国“没有成熟的公民社会”和“未完成现代性国家建构”,因而治理理论不适用于中国。遵循着杰索普“策略性-关系性”研究路径,我们可以看到,中国的社会组织目前只有“镶嵌的自主性”,但已经构成了国家体系之外的另一种推动力量。中国政治和行政体制并非铁板一块,在市场化进程的作用下,公民的参与空间也得到了一定程度的拓展。特别是,地方政府由于拥有一定的自主性,而且面临着为公民直接提供公共服务的艰巨任务,因此在采用新的政策工具、与社会力量合作方面有一定的主动性。这些都为中国的治理发生提供了可能。来自地方层面的三个个案也为治理的中国适用性提供了佐证。当然,治理理论的中国适用性是有限度的一它可以在局部和地方的公共事务治理中扮演积极的角色,也能触动地方政府的公共行政方式演进,但在“政治进步”方面的作用可能较为有限,甚至目前也不能迅速改变中国公共行政的整体面貌。尽管如此,治理对于实现善治的作用仍然值得期许。中国经验对治理理论的拓展作用在于,它说明了非西方背景下的治理是否可能、如何可能、功能何在；同时,它还对非西方社会的治理研究提供了一些新的思维方法。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the emergence of governance theory, the term of governance became a popular word around the study of international social sciences, particularly in the domain of Public Administration. The concept of governance no longer believes in single strong state on one hand, and it abandons the idea of single liberal market on the other hand, therefore possessing greater explanatory ability while it goes byond the abstract opposition of statism and neo-liberalism. However, the applications and development of governance theory constrained by vagueness of key concept and jumble of its different streams. Clarifying the concept thus became essential for the further discussion of governance theory. Or, it is critically important to outline its logics, assess its theoretical contributions, limits and petential development by rethinking the governance theory in the context of Public Administration. In addition, governance theory was mostly based on western experiences; there may be tensions between western paradigm and Chinese practices when the theory is applied in China. Inspecting the applicability of governance theory in China and extending it in accordance with Chinese reality will be beneficial to the development of the theory, as well as the autonomy of Chinese social science.The elements of governance can be concluded as following:compared with government, governance indicates a new trend which means adjustment of the relationship between state(government) and society to deal with the ungovernability in the public administration. In this trend, actors and forces beyond state were highly emphasized; the central role of state was replaced, to some extent, by patterns of combination of state, market and society. There is no certain pattern of governance practice because of different institutions, traditions and features of ungovernability in different countries. Claims such as polycentricity, decentralization and citizen participation etc. all imply that governance theory has the significant society centric inclination while the concept of meta-governance contends the back of state to the center. In the concept of meta-governance, the state not only has an important role in the governance process but it is also the only actor which can take the responsibility of governance failure. "Rolling back of the state" and "rolling back to the state" seems to constitute a contradiction; but this shows either a nonobjective society centric approach or an absolute state centric approach is impossible.Governance theory offers paarticular ideas on the patterns of democracy and the democratic administration. It declines the possibility of "one best" democratic model; instead, it pursues feasible participatory democracy and tries to find a better way to combine representative democracy model and participatory democracy model. Futher more, it is governance theory brings democracy theory and public administration together again since the establishment of the orthodox political-administrative dichotomy principal and the administrative state. Governance emphasizes the decision making function of democracy institutions; thus policy making is no longer the patent of legislators and bureaucrats, all of which refreshed the concept of democracy and provide a theoretical foundation for the democratic administration.Governance theory criticized the classical theory of public administration, the New Public Administration and the New Public Management and showed an ambitious to surpass the existing paradigm of public administration. Although, according to the paradigm theory of Kuhn, it does not conceivably constitute a new paradigm yet. Nevertheless, a series of key propositions of governance theory, did bridge the distinctions between the value rationality and the instrumental rationality in public administration. Indeed, governance theory and related initiatives in practice which emphasized the integrating of efficiency calculation and democracy (value) consideration greatly promote the development of modern Public Administration. And various empirical studies on governance demonstrate that democracy value and efficiency could be achieved simultaneously through similar method which testified the validity of the concept of "social efficiency". However, there are some clues implied that governance theory is going towards pragmatism. It is necessary for the governance theory to renovate itself so as to finally turn into a new paradigm of public administration in the future.Developing countries such as China also confronted challenges from ungovernability as its counterparts in West. In the academic arena, "absence of a mature civil society" and the "unfinished process of modern state-building" are two main criticisms when using governance theory in China. In terms of Jessop’s "strategic-relational" approach, we can find that although civil society organizations only enjoys "embedded autonomy" in current China, they are already constituting a dynamic force outside of the state system in the governance process. The fragmentization of China’s political and administrative regimes and the marketilization process in China offered substantial spaces for citizen participation. Particularly, local governments who own certain autonomy and heavy responsibilities in public service delivery are willing to adapt new instruments in public service area and to cooperate with new social actors. These environmental changes provide possibility of governance in China, and three cases at local level offered key evidence on the applicability of governance theory in China. However, it should be recognized that the applicability of governance theory in China is bounded. It is true that governance can play an active role in promoting local or sectoral level public affairs management and it can also improve the patterns of public administration in local government; but it can probably not bring forth the "political progress" significantly in China, nor overwhelmingly upgrade the general level of China’s public administration. Nevertheless, the positive effect of governance for the realization of good governance is still worth to be expected. The experience of China demonstrates whether it is possible and how for the governance framework existing in a non-western context and what function it could be. In additional, China’s experiences also shed lights on the new research approach of governance in non-Western context.更多还原