个体泄愤型公共危机的政策生成机理与防控思路转变——多重制度逻辑下的政策目标置换
|
摘要
个体泄愤型公共危机事件是近年来威胁社会稳定的重要因素。结合多重制度逻辑框架和政策目标置换理论,以杨改兰事件为例,从政策视角分析了个体泄愤型公共危机生成的制度性源头。研究发现:公共政策制定和执行中多主体所遵循的不同制度逻辑会导致事实上的政策目标置换和政策客体虚置问题,这是泄愤型公共危机生成的潜在风险。而一旦出现其他突发事件,在解决无策、求助无望的情况下,处于政策末端的个体向社会泄愤并引发公共危机就成为大概率事件。研究认为:个体泄愤型公共危机防控需要"一体两翼"的公共政策协同能力提升,也即既要提升公共政策协同的一体能力,又要通过确权改革和政策网络建构这两翼建设来完善公共政策的纵横间协同网络。
Individual indignation public crisis is an important factor threatening social stability in recent years. Based on the multiple institutional logics framework and policy objective replacement theory and taking Yang Gailan Incident as a case,this paper analyzed the institutional reason of individual indignation public crisis formation from the perspective of policy. The research found that: that different subjects followed different institutional logic would lead to the problem of policy objective replacement and policy objects void in the process of public policy making and implementation,and this was the potential risk of public crises. Once there were other unexpected incidents,the individual, who had no solution or hope and was in the policy end at the same time, would attack the society and then became public crisis. This paper thought that: individual indignation public crisis prevention should enhance the collaborative ability of public policy by "one body and two wings",namely, improve the vertical and horizontal policy network both by integral collaborative ability and by powerconfirming reform and policy network construction.
Individual indignation public crisis is an important factor threatening social stability in recent years. Based on the multiple institutional logics framework and policy objective replacement theory and taking Yang Gailan Incident as a case,this paper analyzed the institutional reason of individual indignation public crisis formation from the perspective of policy. The research found that: that different subjects followed different institutional logic would lead to the problem of policy objective replacement and policy objects void in the process of public policy making and implementation,and this was the potential risk of public crises. Once there were other unexpected incidents,the individual, who had no solution or hope and was in the policy end at the same time, would attack the society and then became public crisis. This paper thought that: individual indignation public crisis prevention should enhance the collaborative ability of public policy by "one body and two wings",namely, improve the vertical and horizontal policy network both by integral collaborative ability and by powerconfirming reform and policy network construction.
引文
[1]Hunt,Brian.Risk and Crisis Management in the Public Sector.Public Management Review,2010(9).
[2]李伟南,陈玉梅.“向政府泄愤的群体性事件”中的社会心态分析[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010(3).
[3]郑旭涛.邻避事件的性质与演变机制--基于近十年典型案例的研究[J].天津行政学院学报,2018(3).
[4]史献芝,刘建明,李强彬.社会泄愤事件与公民政治参与[J].理论探索,2009(6).
[5]何显明,金进喜.泄愤型群体性事件的滋生及演化逻辑[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2011(6).
[6]白彦.依法治国视角下中国泄愤类群体性事件研究[J].首都师范大学学报(社会科学版),2015(6).
[7]于建嵘.“泄愤性暴力”现象令人堪忧[J].廉政瞭望(上半月),2010(6).
[8]魏淑艳,李富余.网络治理理论视角下我国社会泄愤类极端事件的治理对策--以公交车纵火案为例[J].北京行政学院学报,2016(4).
[9]Jha S,Lexa F.Wicked Problems.Journal of the American College of Radiology,2014(5).
[10]Grimmelikhuijsen S,Jilke S,Olsen A L,et al.Behavioral Public Administration:Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology.Public Administration Review,2017(1).
[11]黄丽华,王泽宽.政策执行中的目标置换行为及对策分析[J].软科学,1999(1).
[12]Jeffrey L Pressman and Aaron B Wildavsky.Implementation.Berkeley:University of California Press,1973.p72.
[13]袁飙.政策执行中的目标置换行为及其对策探析[J].地方治理研究,2002(3).
[14]杨丽丽,龚会莲.公共政策执行中的目标置换行为及其治理[J].广西社会科学,2014(6).
[15]陈振明.公共政策分析[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.126.
[16]刘伟伟.政策终结的多源流分析--基于收容遣送制度的经验研究[J].公共管理学报,2015(4).
[17]张春满.理解危机与变革的三种视角及其超越[J].社会主义研究,2014(6).
[18]崔晓明,姚凯,胡君辰.基于利益相关者的危机管理理论研究--来自2008-2012年危机管理成败案例的证据[J].中国工业经济,2013(4).
[19]王军洋.权变抗争:农民维权行动的一个解释框架--以生态危机为主要分析语境[J].社会科学,2013(11).
[20]Montgomery Van Wart,NaimKapucu.Crisis Management Competencies.Public Management Review,2011(4).
[21]Tilly C.To Explain Political Processes.American Journal of Sociology,1995(6).
[22]王雨磊.精准扶贫何以“瞄不准”?--扶贫政策落地的三重对焦[J].国家行政学院学报,2017(1).
[23]贺雪峰.中国农村反贫困战略中的扶贫政策与社会保障政策[J].武汉大学学报(社会科学版),2018(3).
[24]人民网.甘肃母亲砍杀4子女事件:被发现时在笑,亲属称这两年没领低保[EB/OL].http://society.people.com.cn/n1/2016/0911/c1008-28707188-4.html.
[25]中国网.康乐通报母亲杀4子女事件:其收入高于低保标准[EB/OL].http://www.china.com.cn/legal/2016-09/10/content_39273794.htm.
[26]中华网.中国农村自杀率曾3倍于城市女性是男性2.74倍[EB/OL].http://news.china.com/domesticgd/10000159/20160922/23619250.html.
[27]凤凰网.“杨改兰事件”到底是谁的错?[EB/OL].http://news.ifeng.com/a/20160912/49960338_0.shtml.
[28]薛泽林.以奥尔森共容利益思想审视中国中等收入陷阱挑战[J].经济问题探索,2014(2).
[29]刘鹏,王中一.政策能力:理论综述及其对中国公共政策研究的启示[J].公共管理与政策评论,2018(2).
[30]Eben A Weitzman,Patricia Flynn Weitzman.The PSDM Model:Integrating Problem Solving and Decision Making in Conflict Resolution,M Deutsch,PT Coleman,EC Marcus(Eds.).The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice.2nd Edition.CA:Jossey-Bass,2006.pp197-222.
[31]倪星,王锐.从邀功到避责:基层政府官员行为变化研究[J].政治学研究,2017(2).
[32]薛泽林,孙荣.新时代我国公共冲突协同处置实现与优化机制研究--基于河南信阳的拓展个案分析[J].中国行政管理,2018(5).
(1)本文认为,上访行为、抗争行为等非制度化的参与都是一种解决问题的途径和尝试,因为上访和抗争都说明这些政策客体还对解决问题抱有希望。而当政策客体连上访和抗争都放弃之时,这即是本文界定中的“缺少解决路径”或“解决无望”。
[2]李伟南,陈玉梅.“向政府泄愤的群体性事件”中的社会心态分析[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010(3).
[3]郑旭涛.邻避事件的性质与演变机制--基于近十年典型案例的研究[J].天津行政学院学报,2018(3).
[4]史献芝,刘建明,李强彬.社会泄愤事件与公民政治参与[J].理论探索,2009(6).
[5]何显明,金进喜.泄愤型群体性事件的滋生及演化逻辑[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2011(6).
[6]白彦.依法治国视角下中国泄愤类群体性事件研究[J].首都师范大学学报(社会科学版),2015(6).
[7]于建嵘.“泄愤性暴力”现象令人堪忧[J].廉政瞭望(上半月),2010(6).
[8]魏淑艳,李富余.网络治理理论视角下我国社会泄愤类极端事件的治理对策--以公交车纵火案为例[J].北京行政学院学报,2016(4).
[9]Jha S,Lexa F.Wicked Problems.Journal of the American College of Radiology,2014(5).
[10]Grimmelikhuijsen S,Jilke S,Olsen A L,et al.Behavioral Public Administration:Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology.Public Administration Review,2017(1).
[11]黄丽华,王泽宽.政策执行中的目标置换行为及对策分析[J].软科学,1999(1).
[12]Jeffrey L Pressman and Aaron B Wildavsky.Implementation.Berkeley:University of California Press,1973.p72.
[13]袁飙.政策执行中的目标置换行为及其对策探析[J].地方治理研究,2002(3).
[14]杨丽丽,龚会莲.公共政策执行中的目标置换行为及其治理[J].广西社会科学,2014(6).
[15]陈振明.公共政策分析[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.126.
[16]刘伟伟.政策终结的多源流分析--基于收容遣送制度的经验研究[J].公共管理学报,2015(4).
[17]张春满.理解危机与变革的三种视角及其超越[J].社会主义研究,2014(6).
[18]崔晓明,姚凯,胡君辰.基于利益相关者的危机管理理论研究--来自2008-2012年危机管理成败案例的证据[J].中国工业经济,2013(4).
[19]王军洋.权变抗争:农民维权行动的一个解释框架--以生态危机为主要分析语境[J].社会科学,2013(11).
[20]Montgomery Van Wart,NaimKapucu.Crisis Management Competencies.Public Management Review,2011(4).
[21]Tilly C.To Explain Political Processes.American Journal of Sociology,1995(6).
[22]王雨磊.精准扶贫何以“瞄不准”?--扶贫政策落地的三重对焦[J].国家行政学院学报,2017(1).
[23]贺雪峰.中国农村反贫困战略中的扶贫政策与社会保障政策[J].武汉大学学报(社会科学版),2018(3).
[24]人民网.甘肃母亲砍杀4子女事件:被发现时在笑,亲属称这两年没领低保[EB/OL].http://society.people.com.cn/n1/2016/0911/c1008-28707188-4.html.
[25]中国网.康乐通报母亲杀4子女事件:其收入高于低保标准[EB/OL].http://www.china.com.cn/legal/2016-09/10/content_39273794.htm.
[26]中华网.中国农村自杀率曾3倍于城市女性是男性2.74倍[EB/OL].http://news.china.com/domesticgd/10000159/20160922/23619250.html.
[27]凤凰网.“杨改兰事件”到底是谁的错?[EB/OL].http://news.ifeng.com/a/20160912/49960338_0.shtml.
[28]薛泽林.以奥尔森共容利益思想审视中国中等收入陷阱挑战[J].经济问题探索,2014(2).
[29]刘鹏,王中一.政策能力:理论综述及其对中国公共政策研究的启示[J].公共管理与政策评论,2018(2).
[30]Eben A Weitzman,Patricia Flynn Weitzman.The PSDM Model:Integrating Problem Solving and Decision Making in Conflict Resolution,M Deutsch,PT Coleman,EC Marcus(Eds.).The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice.2nd Edition.CA:Jossey-Bass,2006.pp197-222.
[31]倪星,王锐.从邀功到避责:基层政府官员行为变化研究[J].政治学研究,2017(2).
[32]薛泽林,孙荣.新时代我国公共冲突协同处置实现与优化机制研究--基于河南信阳的拓展个案分析[J].中国行政管理,2018(5).
(1)本文认为,上访行为、抗争行为等非制度化的参与都是一种解决问题的途径和尝试,因为上访和抗争都说明这些政策客体还对解决问题抱有希望。而当政策客体连上访和抗争都放弃之时,这即是本文界定中的“缺少解决路径”或“解决无望”。