【作者】 王逸帅；

【导师】 胡伟；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 管理科学与工程， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 公共预算具有经济和政治双重属性,它不仅是政府重要的经济政策工具,而且还承载着纳税公民优先性需求表达的民主功能。同时现代税收国家的兴起不但带来了国家收入结构的重大改变,在一定程度上也催生了纳税人预算收支民主化的政治意识。因此,加强以公共预算为切入口的民主改革存在着理论和实践上的双重诉求。纵使预算民主改革需要千头万绪的制度建设予以落实,而提纲挈领的是代议机关预算审查监督制度以及依此为中心的制度构建。鉴于相关研究过多偏向于对国外发达国家实践的静态分析或纯经验性的描述介绍等现状,本研究认为理清预算民主的丰富内涵以及探求动态变迁意义上发达国家如何促使预算民主取得较好绩效的制度化路径尤为关键。基于对这些问题的思考,本文尝试着引用历史制度主义及其变迁理论对预算民主概念进行了操作化的构建,并选取了被现代社会视为预算民主典范的美国实践进行单案例分析。本研究的基本结论和贡献如下:首先,对“预算民主”这一新兴概念进行了归纳和梳理。针对现有研究缺乏整合性分析和清晰内涵界定等问题,本文主要从纵向制度演进和横向制度构建双重纬度出发,指出预算民主是一种关联性的宪政制度安排,具体可以表述为:在公共预算责任基础上以代议机构预算审查监督为一个中心,以税收和支出为两个主要关注范围,以行政内部控制-代议机构外部控制-公众为三重制度关联场域,以宪政理念、权力利益结构安排、程序规则及资源能力为四个纬度的复合型制度。其次,在分析了预算民主所具有的制度化关联后,通过对美国预算民主进行横向结构和纵向制度变迁及历史节点的构建,从制度变迁的环境(动因)、结构模式、内容(理念-利益权力-程序-资源能力)及绩效节点四个方面分别对美国三个关键历史变迁阶段进行深入探讨。本研究发现在不同的制度环境中因变量序列结构的差异也会呈现不同的变迁模式和绩效:虽然外部环境的变化或内部机制的失灵容易造成关键节点的产生,但公意的影响扮演着不可忽视的作用,可以看作是产生制度变迁节点的重要推动力量;在具体的变迁模式上,新观念的输入和制度学习引起的变迁与中间辐射和诱致性变迁相比,更具有制度创新性;就变迁的内容来说,立宪性的制度安排和效力分布显得比较重要,高层次的宪政观念、权力关系的变迁对操作层面的预算程序、预算能力策略的发挥有很大的推动或制约作用。最后,历史制度变迁理论及其对环境变量的关注提醒我们我国预算环境已经发生了很大变化,税收收入占国家总收入95%和纳税人日渐觉醒的权力意识以及国际公开透明民主预算的改革大潮流都表明进行预算民主变革的环境已经形成,遵循历史制度变迁规律和美国经验折射出的制度逻辑对于推动中国人大预算民主制度变迁具有很重要的实践价值:就变迁模式而言,最主要的任务就是回应内外需求,通过对地方层面预算民主实践创新的扩展和国际层面有效制度学习等模式提升我国的预算民主水平;从具体的预算民主制度变革视角分析,美国经验中的绩效型民主理念、立宪型权力制度安排、多元权力否决点的制度化设置(尤其是代议机关预算修正权和听证公开机制)以及预算利益表达——利益诉讼制度具有一定的普适性,可以在对我国政治中党委-人大-政府预算职责和流程重塑基础上进行针对性的制度借鉴;就变革的优先性顺序来说,由于公共利益的表达和维护需要借助新型宪政理念和结构化通道及机制才能实现,培育现代预算理念和实现关联性预算宪权结构变革是当务之急,在此基础上,操作层面的预算程序和资源能力的改变将有助于预算民主绩效的进一步实现。同时任何变革都应放置到综合性的制度矩阵下进行开展。更多还原

【Abstract】 Public budgeting has dual attributes—economic and political attributes. It is not only the most important economic policy tool possessed by government, but also bears important democratic function to express taxpayers’public priority needs. With the rise of the modern tax state, there have been great changes in the national revenues structure as well as in the enhancement of taxpayers’political awareness in democratic budget making. Therefore, it is very important to regard democratic budget making as the main entrance of democratic reforms, to some extent, which exist double urgent aspirations of theory and practice.Although democratic budget-making reform depends on the implementation of related institutions, paying more attention to the representative organs and their budget examination as well as supervision responsibilities is the main route of system construction. In view of the deficiency of more static and descriptive research on developed countries experiences, this study maintains it is crucial to explore the rich contents of democratic budget making and dynamic evolutions of developed countries experiences as well as the key paths to ensure better responsibility performance. Based on the consideration of these issues, this paper tries to apply the historic institutionalism and change theory to the research on democratic budget making: constructing operational framework of democratic budget making concept and selecting American as a single case analysis are the first task.The basic conclusions and main contributions of this paper are followed:Firstly, this paper carried out induction and pectination for the new“democratic budget making”concept. Considering the lacking of systematic analysis and clear definition of this concept, this paper regard it as one kind of associated constitutional institution arrangement after making institutional analyze from both longitude history involvement and horizontal latitudes, which can be expressed and operated concretely: one center( budgetary inspection and supervision power of representative organs), two domain( tax and expenditure), three main institutional domains( administrative control, representatives’outside control and public) and four latitudes (ideas—power—procedure—resource capability). Secondly, after the institutional conjuncture analysis implied by democratic budget making concept, this paper began to focus on structural variables selection and historical stage with institution nodes of the U.S. democratic budget making. Then this paper came to explore three-crucial evolution of American democratic budget making by combining institution change framework, structural variables and historic periods together and constructing environment—modes—contents(ideas, power and interest relationship—procedure—resource capability) framework as well as performance change points. This study found different arrangements of crucial factors and different environments as well as structural variables may bring different change models and performance: although the changes in the external environment or internal mechanisms are likely to create key institutional nodes, we should not ignore the strong influence exerted by public and public interests during institution Evolutions. For the evolution modes, new ideas input and institution learning play more innovative role than that of local experience radiation and induced changes; When it comes to contents change, constitutional system arrangements and effectiveness are more important, that is to say, high-level constitutional idea and power relations produce strong constraints on the role of operational level variables, for example, the role of budgetary procedures and capabilities as well as strategies.Finally, with the increase of tax revenue (accounting for about 95 percent of total national income) and the awakening of taxpayers’consciousness, currently China’s new budgetary environments have been formed gradually. China’s democratic budgeting reform will benefit a lot through abiding by historic- institutional logic and assimilating Americans’experience. When it comes to change models, the spread of local budgeting innovation and international institution learning can enhance China’s democratic budget level; From the perspective of American specific budget changes in the democratic system, the U.S experience demonstrates performance-oriented ideas, the constitutional arrangements of the power system, multiple veto points institutionalized settings (especially the budget amending power of representative organs and the hearing-public mechanism), and budget interest expression and litigation system has a universal application. Based on China’s political reality, we can carry out relevant institution learning after the responsibilities among political party committees - the National People’s Congress - the government budget responsibilities had been allocated appropriately. At the same time, as for the changing priority of different variables, it is very crucial to cultivate new style budget ideas and related institutional power structures because the expression and protection of public interests require the cooperation of new ideas and structured mechanism,. Based on previous change, the change of operational procedure and resource capability will also promote democratic budgeting performance, while any changes must be integrated into the whole institutional matrix.更多还原