摘要
无论是在西方发达国家还是在发展中国家,自上世纪下半叶兴起的公民参与公共决策都曾陷入或正在陷于参与无效甚至激化社会矛盾的困境。多年来,公共管理学、政治学、经济学领域的学者们一直在反思如何衡量公民参与的有效性以及影响参与有效性的因素,无论是在理论突破还是实践指导方面都取得了很大成绩,但也存在着分析视角过于专注开放机制而忽略了政策过程中协调机制的问题。尤其在我国转型期的背景下,不断升级的非制度化公民参与给政策的制定与执行带来了严重的影响,政策僵局、执行阻滞以及政策过程中越来越高的社会成本让我们反思：为什么分歧的偏好没有在地方政府的政策过程中得以整合走向收敛?是什么导致了社会矛盾在政策过程中的激化而非消减?为此,“共识”理应成为公共政策领域重要的研究议题,急需对共识的概念与共识形成的机制进行深入研究,以共识为导向反思现有的参与制度和政策过程。已有的共识研究呈现两种趋势的分野：民主取向的共识研究在规范研究的基础上产生了丰富的理论成果；科学取向的共识研究提供了促进共识的技术方案,但两种研究取向因没有对话而无法取长补短,对现实政策过程中复杂偏好的整合都缺乏适用性,尤其是西方语境下的共识构建理论难以移植到中国的政治现实中。
在这样的现实与理论需求之下,本项研究以参与式政策制定过程中多元主体的偏好分歧与共识形成机制为主题,在综合公民参与、共识构建理论相关研究成果的基础上,借鉴心理学的偏好理论与管理学的群体决策理论,界定“参与式政策制定”与“政策共识”的概念,并细化为可操作的分析维度与测量指标,构建了“参与式政策制定的共识模型”。通过自行开发设计的“四合一”博弈行为实验,验证公民参与结构的权力、利益、信息维度对共识度的影响作用；通过向三类主体发放雾霾治理调查问卷,统计分析上述三个维度对共识内容的影响作用；通过分析城市改造拆迁领域的两个实证案例,比较不同的共识构建路径在现实中的作用与问题,对我国基层政府在公民参与决策中促进共识形成提出建议。研究得出了以下主要结论：
1、政策共识的形成是多元主体的偏好在变化中由分歧走向收敛的过程,对其测量包括共识度与共识内容两个维度。由于偏好的可变性,政策共识的达成不是多元主体的偏好依托市场机制或民主过程协调取舍的“零和博弈”,而是对话与合作基础上对群体偏好的共同构建。因此,相应的决策机制设计不仅要能够吸纳并表达不同个体对某一政策议题的偏好,而且应能够促进变化着的个体偏好逐渐趋同并形成群体偏好。对政策共识的测量包括“量”与“质”两个维度,其中对共识度的测量包括个体偏好的一致性和群体共识的可接受性两个指标；对共识内容的测量包括政策问题认知、治理主体选择和政策工具选择三个指标。
2、公民参与结构的权力维度失衡是造成个体偏好分歧的主导因素,相应地对权力关系的改变是构建共识的基础性策略。博弈行为实验的分析结果证实,决策主体间的权力配置从一方独揽变为双方共享后,显著提升了个体偏好的一致性和决策方案的满意度。问卷调查的结果也进一步证明,在政策制定过程中掌握较多权力的政府官员与普通公众的偏好分歧是全面且深刻的。实际案例中,上海市旧区改造“二次征询制”的设计通过对弱势群体赋权改变了原有政府垄断决策权的局面,显著促进了共识度的提升。据此,我们认为权力的分散化配置有利于减少偏好的分歧,促使决策的多元主体达成较高满意度的共识方案。
3、多元主体政策偏好的分歧虽表现为利益诉求的冲突,但仅仅通过利益协调的方式达成的共识流于形式,且有较大的合法性风险。对行为实验结果与问卷调查结果的分析共同证明,在权力维度不予改变的前提下,主体与政策议题利益相关性的变更对个体偏好的一致性和群体决策方案满意度没有显著影响,公民在参与政策制定的过程中并不会因其个人利益的损益影响其对政策工具的选择；且由于政府一方让渡利益的制度空间极其有限,一旦涉嫌非法利益的交易,将影响整个政策过程的合法性和政府的公信力,严重削弱共识构建的基础。
4、公民参与结构的信息维度对政策共识的影响因政策议题的专业性而不同,信息不对称基础上形成的共识为“不成熟的共识”。信息公开与对称均衡是共识构建的重要策略,尤其对高专业性的政策议题,当政策制定者吸纳公众参与此类政策议题的制定时,若通过专家群体的合理介入提供相应的信息支持,会显著促进政策共识的达成；相反地,政策制定者通过人为垄断信息促进共识的策略只能是权宜之计,在信息化高度发展的背景下,一旦这种信息不对称的格局被打破,“不成熟的共识”会迅速变成双方更深刻的偏好分歧,再度构建共识的难度更大。
No matter in western developed or developing countries, the participatory policymaking emerging since the latter part of last century have been or is in the dilemma of invalid or even activated social contradictions. Over the years, scholars in the fields of public management, politics and economics have always been considering that how to evaluate the effectiveness of civic participation and the factors influencing the effectiveness. Either in the aspect of theory, or in the aspect of practice, they have achieved great performances. However, due to excessive focusing on opening mechanism, they have neglected the coordination mechanism in the policy process. Especially under the background of China's transformation period, increasingly upgraded non-institutionalized civic participation has brought serious influences on the policymaking and implementation. Policy deadlock, stagnated implementation and more and more social cost in policymaking process are enough for us to reflect:why divergent preferences have not been integrated to convergence in the policymaking process of local government? What has led to the intensification of social contradictions instead of being reduced in the policymaking process? Therefore," consensus " should become an important subject in the public policy area. It is urgently to make deep research on concept and mechanism of consensus, so as to take the consensus as the orientation to reflect existing participatory system and policymaking process. The existing consensus researches have performed two kinds of trends:on the basis of normative research, democracy-oriented consensus has achieved rich theoretical results; science-oriented consensus has provided technological solution to promote consensus. However, lack of communication between these two trends, they cannot learn from others'strong points to offset one's weakness. As the complicated preference integration in realistic policymaking process, they are both lack of applicability. Especially, under the horizon of Western world, it is very difficult to transplant the consensus building theory to political reality in China.
Under this reality and theoretical requirements, taking the divergence of multiple subjects'preferences and consensus building mechanism in the participatory policymaking process as research topics, on the basis of related research results of consensus building theories, referring to the preference theory of psychology and group decision-making theory of Management, this paper has defined concepts of "participatory policymaking" and "policy consensus", refined them into operable analysis dimensions and measurement index and constructed " Consensus model of participatory policymaking ". Through the self-developed and designed " Four to One " game behavior experiment, it has verified the influence of right, benefit and information dimension of civic participation in the structure on consensus; targeted at three groups, it has issued questionnaires of smog governance and statistically analyzed the influence of above three dimensions on consensus contents; through analyzing two empirical cases in urban updating and house demolition field, this paper has compared effects and problems of different consensus construction routes in reality and put forward suggestions for promoting consensus formation by China local government in civic participatory policymaking. The study has the following conclusions:
1. The consensus building is a process that preferences of multiple subject moves from differences to convergence in changes. For the measurement, there are two dimensions of consensus degree and content. Due to the variability of preference, the formation of policy consensus is not the "zero-sum game" of multiple subjects'preferences relying on market mechanism or democratic process, but the common construction of group preference on the basis of dialogue and cooperation. Therefore, corresponding policy mechanism design should not only absorb and express the preferences of different individuals on some policy subject, but also promote changing individual preferences can gradually convert to group preference. As the measurement of policy consensus, it includes two dimensions of "quantity" and "quality", among which, the measurement of consensus degree includes two indicators of individual preference consistency and group consensus acceptability; the measurement of consensus content includes three indicators of cognition of policy issue, choice of governance subjects and choice of policy tools.
2. The power dimension imbalance of the civic participation is the dominant factor of causing individual preference different. The corresponding change of power relations is building consensus basic strategy. The analysis result of the game behavior experiment shows that, after the disposition of power of decision-makers changes from one monopolizing power into two sides sharing power, it has significantly increased the consistency of individual preference and satisfaction with group decision. The survey results also further prove that the divergence of preferences between the government officials which have more power in the policy process and the general public is comprehensive and profound. In a practical case, the design of "the secondary consultation system" in Shanghai urban transformation through empowering the disadvantaged has changed the original monopoly condition of government, and significantly increased the consensus promotion. On this basis, we think that decentralization of authority will help reduce the divergence of preferences, and promote the multiple subjects of decision-making to reach a consensus of higher satisfaction rate.
3. Although the multiple subjects'divergence of policy preferences appears as the conflict of interests, reaching a consensus only through the way of interest coordination is still formulaic and has a legality risk. The analysis of the results of behavioral experiment and questionnaire survey are prove that the change of interest relations of subject and policy issue had no distinct effect on the consistency of individual preference and satisfaction of group decision.It will not for the profit and loss of the personal interests affect the choice of policy tools in the process of policy making involving the citizens. And the space of the government transfer interest is extremely limited, once people suspect the legality of interests tradeoff, it will affect the legitimacy of the entire policy process and credibility of the government, which will seriously weaken the foundation of consensus building.
4. The effects of the information dimension of the civic participation construction on policy consensus may differ according to the professionalism of the policy issues. The consensus which built on the basis of the information asymmetry is "premature consensus". The information publication and symmetric equilibrium is an important strategic of the consensus building, especially to the policy issues of high professional. When policy makers attract public to formulate such policy issues, the reasonable intervention of expert group and providing the corresponding information support will significantly promote the policy consensus. On the contrary, building the consensus through artificially monopolizing information is makeshift at best. Under the background of a high development of information, once this kind of information asymmetry pattern is broken,"premature consensus" can rapidly become a profound preference divergence between the two sides, it will more difficult to build the consensus again.
引文
1 详见《上海市人民政府关于加快中心城区危棚简屋改造的试行办法》(1998年5月29日发布),资料来源：http://www.chinalawedu.com/news/21602/2800/31/2003/10/sh008341220130020_107349.htm。
1 详见《上海市城市房屋拆迁管理实施细则》(2001年10月29日发布),资料来源：http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node2314/node3124/node3177/node3180/userobiect6ai1072.html。
2 详见《上海市人民政府印发关于进一步推进本市旧区改造工作若干意见的通知》(2009年2月17日发布),资料来源：http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node2314/node2319/node10800/node11407/node22592/userobject26ai17516.html.
1 详见《上海市国民经济和社会发展第十一个五年规划纲要》(2006年1月20日发布),资料来源：http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node2314/node15822/node15823/node15851/userobject21ai144562.html.
1 详见杭州市西湖区玉泉村联合整治工作总指挥部、杭州市西湖区灵隐街道党工委办事处联合编写的《西湖区灵隐街道青芝坞“三改一拆”成果纪实》(内部资料)。
[1]Abel,T. D.& Stephan, M. The limits of civic environmentalism[J]. American Behavioral Scientist,2000,44(4):614-628
[2]Abers, R. Learning democratic practices:Distributing government resources through popular participation in Porto Alegre, Brazil[A]. in M. Douglass and J. Friedmann (eds) Cities for Citizens[C]. Chichester:Wiley,1998:39-65
[3]Ansell, C.& Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice [J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2007,18:543-571
[4]Argyris, C. Organizational Learning[M]. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell,1993
[5]Argyris, C.& Schon,D. A., Theory in Practice:Increasing Professional Effectiveness[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1974
[6]Arnstein, S. R. A ladder of citizen participation[J]. American Institute of Planner Journal,1969,35(4):216-224
[7]Arrow, K. J. Social Choice and Individual Walues[M]. New York:Wiley,1951
[8]Balducci, A. Assessing the effectiveness of participatory planning:Lesspns from the experience [J]. Sociedade e Territorio,1999,29 (July):82-88
[9]Balducci, A.& Fareri, P. Consensus building and urban policies and the problem of scale:Examples from Italy[A]. in F. Coenen, D. Huitema and L.0'Toole (eds) Participation and the Quality of Environmental Decision Making[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic,1999:163-178
[10]Baiocchi, G. Participation, Activism, and Politics:The Porto Alegre experiment and deliberative democratic theory[J]. Politics and Society,2001,29(1):43-72
[11]Baisky, A. et al. Mediator Service Page[EB/OL].
[12]Barber, B. Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1984 http:///pc58.ibspan.waw.pl/mediator,2001-5-10
[13]Barnes, M. Researching public participation[J]. Local Government Studies, 1999,25(4):60-75
[14]Barnett, A. D. Cadres, Bureaucracy, and Political Power in China[M]. New York: Columbia University Press,1967
[15]Bateman C R, Fraedrich J P, Iyer R. Framing effects within ethical decision making process of consumers[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002,36 (1/2): 119-140
[16]Benjamin, P..Robert, Y.& Shapiro, R. The Rational Public:Fifty Years of Trends in American's Policy Preferences[M]. Chicago:University of Cicage Press,1992
[17]Benson K. J..A Framework for Policy Analysis[A]//D. L. Rogers & D. Whetten (eds.). Interorganizational Coordination:Theory Research and Implementation[C]. Ames, IA:Iowa State University Press,1982:137-176
[18]Besley, Timothy & Anne Case. Political institutions and policy choices: evidence from the United States[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2003,41(1):7-73
[19]Bezdek, J., Spillman, B.& Spillman R., A fuzzy relation space for group decision theory [J]. Fuzzy Sets and System,1978,1:255-268
[20]Blatner, Keith, Carroll, M., Daniels, S.& Walker, G. Evaluating the application of collaborative learning to the Wenatchee fire recovery planning effort [J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2001,21:241-270
[21]Blinder, A.& Krueger, A. What does the public know about economic policy, and how does it know it?[J]. Brooking Paper on Economic Activity,2004,1:327-387
[22]Booher, D. E. Collaborative government practices and democracy[J]. National Civic Review,2004,93 (4):32-46
[23]Booher, D. E. and Innes, J. E. Network power in collaborative planning [J]. Journal of Planning Education and Research,2002,21 (3):221-236
[24]Bourgeois, L. J. Performance and consensus [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1980, (1):227-248
[25]Box, R. C. Citizen Governance:Leading American Communities into the 21st Century[M]. Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage Publications,1998
[26]Bradford,N. Prospects for associative governance:Lessons from Ontario, Canada[J]. Politics & Society,1998,26:539-573
[27]Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R.,& Burby, R. J. Mandating citizen participation in plan making:six strategic planning choices[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association,2003,69:245-264
[28]Bruce, C.& Clark, J. The efficiency of direct public involvement in environmental policymaking:An experimental test[J]. Environ Resource Econ,2010, 45:157-182
[29]Bryan, F. Real Democracy:The New England Town Meeting and How it Works[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2004
[30]Buono, A. F. and Bowditch, J. L. The Human Side Of Mergers And Acquisitions:Managing Collisions Between People, Cultures, And Organizations[M]. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass,1989
[31]Busenberg, G. J. Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy[J]. Policy Sciences,1999,32:1-11
[32]Callahan, K. The utilization and effectiveness of citizen advisory committees in the budget process of local governments [J]. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,2002,14:295-319
[33]Castells, M. The Information Age:Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I:The Rise of The Network Society[M]. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell,1996
[34]Castells, M. The Information Age:Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. II:The Power of Identity[M]. Malden, MA:Blackwell,1997
[35]Charles, M. J.& Michael, A. M. The structure of attitude systems in the general public [J]. American Sociological Review,1980,45:627-643
[36]Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Worldviews:American and European Public Opinion & Foreign Policy[EB/OL].2002, http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/compreport.pdf
[37]Chiclana, F., Mata, F., Martinez, L.,et al. Integration of a consistency control module within a consensus decision making model [J]. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-based System,2008,16:35-53
[38]Christopher, H. A. Mass political attitudes and the survey response[J]. American Political Science Review,1975,69:1218-1231
[39]Coglianese, C. The limits of consensus. The environmental protection system in transition:Toward a more desirable future[J]. Environment,1999,41:1-6
[40]Cohen, J.& Sabel, C. Directly-Deliberative polyarchy[J]. European Law Journal.1997,3 (4):313-342
[41]Connick, S. The use of collaborative processes in the making of California water policy[D]. PhD thesis, Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California Berkeley,2003
[42]Connick, S.& Innes, J. Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: Applying complexity thinking to evaluation[J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,2003,46 (2):177-197
[43]Conover, P.& Feldman, S. Emotional reactions to the economy:I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore [J]. American Journal of Political Science, 1986,30(1):50-78
[44]Converse, P. The natureof belief systems in mass publics [A], edited by Apter, D. Ideology and Disconent[C]. New York:Free Press,1964:206-261
[45]Converse, P. E. Attitudes and nonattitudes:Continuation of a dialogue[A]. Tefte, E. R. (eds.) The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems[C]. Mass: Addison-Wesley,1970
[46]Cooke, M. Five arguments for deliberative democracy[J]. Political Studies, 2000,48:947-969
[47]Crawford, P.密苏里州立公园ADA指导委员会对公众参与有效性的评价[J].刘健译.国外城市规划,2002,(2)：15-19
[48]Creighton,J. L. The Public Participation Handbook:Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement[M]. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass,2005
[49]Critcher, C.,& Gladstone, B. Utilizing the Delphi technique in policy discussion:A case study of a privatized utility in Britain[J]. Public Administration,1998,76(3):431-449
[50]Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M.& Schaefer, P. Citizen panels:A new approach to citizen participation[J]. Public Administration Review,1986,46:170-178
[51]Cupp, D. S.. Emerging problems of citizen participation[J]. Public Administra tion Reviw,1977,37; 478-487.
[52]Curry, N. Community participation and rural policy:Representativeness in the development of Millennium Green [J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,2001,44(4):561-576
[53]Dahl, R. A.& Lindblom, C. E. Politics, Economics and Welfare [M]. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,1992
[54]Dalkey, N.,& Helmer,0. An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of experts[J]. Management Science,1963,9(3):458-467
[55]Daniels, Steven,& Gregg B. W. Working Through Environmental Conflict:The Collaborative Learning Approach[M]. Westport, CT:Praeger,2001.
[56]DeLeon, P. The democratization of the policy sciences[J]. Public Administration Review,1992,52:125-129
[57]Dess, G. G. Consensus formulation and organizational performance:Competitors in a fragmented industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1987, (8):259-277
[58]Dess, G. G.& Oringer, N. K. Environment, Structure, and Consensus in strategy formulation:A conceptual integration [J]. The Academy of Management Review, 1987,12 (2):313-330
[59]DeWoot, P., Heyvaert, H. and Martou, F. Strategic management:An empirical study of 168 Belgian firms [J]. International Studies of Management and Organization,1977-78, (7):60-75
[60]Dryzek, J.& List, C. Social choice theory and deliberative democracy:a reconciliation[J]. British Journal of Political Studies,2003,33(1):1-28
[61]Dunn, W. N. Public Policy Analysis:An Introduction[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1994
[62]Ebdon, C.,& Franklin, A. L. Searching for a Role for Citizens in the Budget Process [J]. Public Budgeting and Finance,2004,24(1):32-49
[63]Edelenbos, J. Proces in vorm. Procesbegeleiding Van Interactieve Beleidsvorming Over Lokale Ruimtelijke Projecten [M]. Utrecht:Lemma,2000
[64]Eisenhardt K M. Building theories from case study research[J]. Academy of management review,1989,14(4):532-550
[65]Elster, J. (Ed.) Deliberative Democracy[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998
[66]Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choice:Your money or your life? [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1997, 3:355-373
[67]Fearon, J. D. Deliberation as discussion[A]. in Joh Elster(ed.), Deliberative Democracy[C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1998:44-68
[68]Fischer, F. Citizen participation and the democratization of dolicy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases[J]. Policy Sciences,1993,26(3): 165-187
[69]Fisher, R.,& Ury, W. Getting to yes:Negotiating agreement without giving in[M]. Boston:Houghton Mifflin,1981
[70]Fishkin, J. S. The voice of the people:Public opinion and democracy[M]. New Haven, Conn:Yale University Press,1997
[71]Fishkin, J. S. When the people speak:Deliberative democracy and public consultation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009
[72]Fishkin, J. S.& Laslett, P. Philosophy, politics & society[J]. Political Philosophy,2002,10(2), Special issue, debating deliberative democracy
[73]Fishkin, J. S.& Luskin, R. C. The deliberative poll:A reply to our critics [J]. Public Persoective,1996,7:45-49
[74]Floyd, S. W.& Wooldridge, B. Managing strategic consensus:The foundation of effective implementation [J]. The Academy of Management Executive,1992,6(4):27-39
[75]Franklin, A. L.,&Ebdon, C. Are We All Touching The Same Camel? Exploring a Model of Participation in Budgeting[J]. American Review of Public Administration,2005,35 (2):168-185
[76]Franklin, A. L., Ho, A. T.,& Ebdon, C. Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States:Democratic Connection or Citizen Disconnection[J]. Public Budgeting and Finance,2009,29 (3):52-73
[77]Fukuyama, F. US democracy has little to teach China[N]. Financial Times, January 17,2011
[78]Fung, A. Varieties of participation in complex governance[J]. Public Administration Review,2006, Special Issue:66-75
[79]Fung, A. Democratizing the policy process [A]. Mogan, M. et al. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008:669-684
[80]Futrell, R. Technical adversarial ism and participatory collaboration in the U.S. chemical weapons disposal program[J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,2003,28:451-482
[81]Gallup, G. Public opinion in a democracy[A]. The Stafford Little Lectures[C]. Princeton:Princeton University Extension Servive,1939
[82]Garrod, L. Investigating motives behind punishment and sccrifice:A within-subject analysis[EB/OL], ESRC Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Working Paper,2009
[83]George, A. L. and McKeown, T. J. Case studies and theories of organizational decision making[J]. Advances in Information Processing in Organizations,1985,2:21-58
[84]Glasbergen, P.& Driessen, P. J. Interactive planning of infrastructure:The changing role of dutch project management [J]. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,2005,23:263-277
[85]Glaser, M. A., Parker, L.E.,& Payton S. The paradox between community and self-interest:local government, neighborhoods, and media[J]. Journal of Urban Affairs,2001,23:87-102
[86]Graaf, L. de. Gedragen beleid. Een Bestuurskundig Onderzoek Naar Interactief Beleid Endraagvlak In De Stad Utrecht[M]. Delft:Eburon,2007
[87]Gregory, R., et al. Decision aiding, Not dispute resolution:Creating insights through structured environmental decisions[J]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,2001,20:415-432
[88]Grinyer, P. H. and Norburn, D. Planning for existing markets:An empirical study [J]. International Studies of Management and Organization,1977-78, (7):99-122
[89]Gruber, J. Coordinating growth management through consensus building: Incentives and the generation of social, intellectual, and political capital [J]. Working Paper, Berkeley:University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development,1994,No.617
[90]Gunton, Thomas, I.& Day, J. C. The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resourceand environmental management [J]. Environments,2003,31 (2):5-19
[91]Gutmann, A.& Thompson, D. Why Deliberative Democracy[M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,2004
[92]Harbaugh W T, Krause K, Vesterlund L. Risk attitudes of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability gains and losses [J]. Experimental Economics,2002,5:53-84
[93]Harter, P. J. Negotiating regulations:A cure for malaise[J]. Georgetown Law Journal,1982,71(1):42-112
[94]Heikkila, T.& Gerlak, A. K. The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions:Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science and institutions [J]. Policy Studies Journal,2005,33:583-612
[95]Hiscox,M. Through a glass and darkly:Attitudes toward international trade and the Curious effects if issue framing[J]. International Organization, 2006,60 (3):755-780
[96]Howard, C., Lipsky, M.& Marshall, D. R. Citizen participation in urban politics:Rise and Routinization[A]. in Big-City Politics, Governance, and Fiscal Constraints [C]. Peterson, G.E. (eds.)Washington, DC:Urban Institute Press,1994:153-199
[97]Hrebiniak, L. G. and Snow, C. C. Top-management agreement and organizational performance[J]. Human Relations,1982,35(12):1139-1158
[98]Hsee C K, Zhang J, Chen J S. Internal and substantive inconsistencies in deci si on-making [A]. KoelherD, Harvey N (Eds), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision-making[C]. Oxford, England:Blackwell,2004
[99]Hughes, M., Forester, J.& Weiser, I. Facilitating statewide HIV/AIDS policies and priorities in colorado[A]. in L. Susskind, S. McKearnan and J. Thomas-Larmer (eds) The Consensus Building Handbook:A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement[C], Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage,1999:1011-1029
[100]Huntington, S. P. American ideals versus American institutions [J]. Political Science Quarterly,1982,97 (1):1-37
[101]Imperial, M. Using collaboration as a governance strategy:Lessons from six watershed management programs [J]. Administration & Society,2005,37:281-320
[102]Innes, J.& D. E. Booher. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems:A framework for evaluating collaborative planning[J]. Journal of American Planning Association,1999a,65 (4):412-423
[103]Innes, J.& D. E. Booher. Collaborative Policymaking:Governance through Dialogue [A]. Hajer, M.& H. Wagenaar. Deliberative Policy Analysis:Understanding Governance in the Network Society[C]. Cambridge.-Cambridge University Press, 2003:33-59
[104]Innes, J. E. Gruber, M. Neuman, M.& Thompson, R. Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building[J]. California Policy Seminar,1994, University of California
[105]Innes, J. E. Information in communicative planning [J]. Journal of the American Planning Association,1998,64:52-63
[106]Innes, J. E. Consensus building:clarifications for the Critics [J]. Planning Theory,2004,3(1):5-20
[107]Innes, J. E.,& Booher, D. E. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association,1999b,65:9-26
[108]Irvin, R. A.& Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making:Is it worth the effort?[J]. Public Administration Review,2004,64(1):55-65
[109]John, P. Promoting participation inside government. Can citizen governance redress the representative bias of political participation?[J]. Public Administration Review,2009,69 (3):494-503
[110]John Rawls. A Theory of Justice[M]. Cambridge, Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1971
[111]John Rawls. The domain of the political and overlapping consensus [A], in John Rawls. Collected Papers[C]. edited by Samuel Freeman. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press,1999
[112]Kacprzyk, J., On some fuzzy cores and soft consensus measures in group decision making[A]. edited by Bezdek, J. The Analysis of Fuzzy Information[C]. Boca Raton:CRC Press,1987,119-130
[113]Kahneman,D.& Tversky, A. Prospect theory:An analysis of decisions under risk[J]. Econometrica,1979,47:313-327
[114]Kaiser, Andre. Types of democracy:From classical to new institutionalism [J]. Journal of Theoretical Politics,1997,9(4):419-444
[115]Kearl, J. R., Pope, C., Whiting, G.&Wimmer, L. A confusion of economists?[J]. American Economic Review,1979,69(2):28-37
[116]Kenis P.& Schneider V..Policy Network and Policy Analysis:Scrutinizing a New Analytic Toolbox [A]//B. Martin & R. Mayntz (eds.). Policy networks, Empirical evidence, and theoretical considerations[C]. Frankfurt am Main:Campus Verlag, 1991:25-29
[117]Kenney, D. Arguing about consensus:Examining the case against West Watershed Initiatives and other collaborative group active in natural resources management [J]. Working Paper, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law,2000
[118]Kettering Foundation. The Public's Role in the Policy Process:A View from State and Local Policy Makers[R]. Dayton, OH:Kettering Foundation,1989
[119]Kettering Foundation. Citizens and Politics:A Viewfrom Main Street America[R]. Report prepared for the Kettering Foundation by the Hanvood Group. Dayton, OH:Kettering Foundation,1991
[120]Kickert, W.M. J., Klijn, E.H.& Koppenjan, J. F. M. (eds.) Managing Complex Networks:Strategies for the Public Sector[M]. London:Sage,1997
[121]King, C. S., Feltey, K. M.&Susel, B.0. The quension of participation:Toward authentic public participation in public administration[J]. Public Administration Review,1998,58(4):317-326
[122]King, C. S.,& Stivers, C. Government Is Us:Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications,1998
[123]Kleinman, D. L., Grice, J., Adrian, J.& Lobes, C. A toolkit for democratizing science and technology policy:The practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference[J].Bulletin of Science, Technology & Societ,2007,27 (2):154-169
[124]Lampton, D.M. Chinese politics:The Bargaining treadmill[J]. Issues and Studies,1987,23 (3):11-41
[125]Lauriola M, Russob P M, Lucidib F, et al. The role of personality in positively and negatively framed risky health decisions [J]. Personality Individual Difference,2005,38:45-59
[126]Lemaa, A.& Ruby K. Between fragmented authoritarianism and policy coordination:Creating a Chinese market for wind energy[J]. Energy Policy,2007, (35):3879-3890
[127]Lieberthal K.& Oksenberg, M. Policy Making in China:Leaders, Structures, and Process[M]. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University,1988
[128]Linstone, H. A.& Turoff, M. (eds.) The Delphi method:Techniques and application[M]. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,1975
[129]Lowndes, V.& Sullivan, H. Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: how well do local partnerships and public participation go together?[J]. Local Government Studies,2004,30 (1),:51-73
[130]Lukensmeyer, C.,& Boyd, A. Putting the "public" back in management:seven principles for planning meaningful citizen engagement [J]. Public Management, 2004,86:10-15
[131]Luskin, R., Fishkin, J.S.& Jowell, R. Considered opinions:Deliberative polling in Britain[J]. British Journal of Political Science,2002,32:455-487
[132]Luskin, R. C. Measuring political sophistication[J]. American Journal of Political Science,1987,31:856-899
[133]Lyles, M. A. Formulating Strategic Problems:Empirical Analysis and Model Development [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1981, (2):61-75
[134]Marsh, D. (eds.). Comparing Policy Network [M]. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press,1998.
[135]McKearnan, S.& Field, P. The northern Oxford county coalition:Four maine towns tackle a public heath mystery[A], in L. Susskind, S. McKearnan and J. Thomas-Larmer (eds) The Consensus Building Handbook:A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement[C]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage,1999:711-741
[136]Michels, A. Theories and core principles of Dutch democracy [EB/OL]. European Governance papers (EUROGOV) No. C-07-01,2007, http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egpconnex-C-07-01.pdf.
[137]Michels, A.& Graaf, L. D. Examining citizen participation:Local participatory policy making and democracy[J]. Local Government Studies,2010, 36(4):477-491
[138]Mitroff, I. I., Pearson, C. and Pauchant, T. C. Crises management and strategic management:Similarities, differences and challenges[A]. In Shrivastava, P., Huff, A. and Dutton, J. (Eds), Advances in Strategic Management[C]. Vol.8. Greenwich, CT:Jai Press.1992, pp.235-260.
[139]Murdock, Barbara, Wiessner, C.& Sexton, K. Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental agreements:Analysis of 10 project XL case studies[J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,2005,30:223-250
[140]Narayanan, V. K. and Fahey, L. The micropolitics of strategy formulation [J]. Academy of Management Review,1982,7:25-34
[141]Nathan, A. A factionalism model for CCP politics[J]. The China Quarterly,1973, (53):33-66
[142]Naughton, B. Hierarchy and the bargaining economy:Government and enterprise in the reform process [A], Lieberthal, K.& Lampton, D. (eds.) Bureaucracy, Politics and Decision Making in Post-Mao China[C]. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1992:245-279
[143]Nielson, R. P. Toward a method of building consensus during strategic planning[J]. Sloan Management Review,1981,22(4):29-40
[144]01dfield, A. Citizenship and Community:Civic Republicanism and the Modern World[M]. London:Routledge,1990
[145]Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Citizens as Partners:Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy Making[M]. Paris:OECD Publications on Governance,2001
[146]0strogorski, M. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties[M]. Garden City:Doubleday and Co.,1964
[147]Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1990
[148]Ozawa, C. Recasting Science:Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making[M]. Boulder, CO:Westview Press,1991
[149]Parsons,W. Ethics and Accountability in a Context of Government and New Public Management[M]. Amsterdam:ISO Press,1998
[150]Plott, C. R. Market architectures, institutional landscapes and tested experiments[J]. Economic Theory,1994,4(1):3-10
[151]Pressman, J.& A. Wildavsky. Implementation[M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1973
[152]Priem, R. L., Harrison, D. A. and Muir, N. K. Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in group decision making [J]. Journal of Management,1995,21 (4):691-710
[153]Putnam, R. D. Bowling alone:America's declining social capital [J]. Journal of Democracy,1995,6(1):65-78
[154]Rae, D.W.& Daudt, H. The Ostrogorski paradox:a peculiarity of compound majority decision[J]. European Journal of Political Research,1976,4(4):391-398
[155]Rainhorn, J. D., Brudon-Jakobowicz, P.& Reich, M. R. Priorities for Pharmaceutical policies in developing countries:Results of a Delphi survey[J]. Bulletin of the World Health Organization,1994,72:257-264
[156]Raskin, M. S. The Delphi study in field instruction revisited:Expert consensus on issues and research priorities [J]. Journal of Social Work Education, 1994,30:75-89
[157]Rayens, M. K.& Hahn, E. J. Building consensus using the policy Delphi method [J]. Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice,2000,1 (4):308-315
[158]Riker, W. Liberalism Against Populism. A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice [M].San Francisco:W. H. Freeman & Company,1982
[159]Russell, S.& Vidler, E. The rise and fall of government-community partnerships for urban development:Grassroots Testimony from Colombo [J]. Environment and Urbanization,2000,12(1):73-86
[160]Ryan, C.M. Leadership in collaborative policy making:An analysis of agency roles in regulatory negotiation[J], Policy Sciences,2001,34(3):221-245
[161]Rydell, R. J.. Solving political problems of nuclear technology:The role of public participation [A]. Petersen,. J. C. (Ed.). Citizen Participation in Science Policy[C].Amherst, MA:University of Massachusetts Press,1984:182-195
[162]Sabatier, P. A. An advocacy coalition framework of policy changes and the role of policy-oriented learning therein[J]. Policy Sciences,1988,21(2-3):129-168
[163]Sabatier, P. A.& Hunter, S. The incorporation of causal perceptions into models of elite belief systems[J]. Western Political Quarterly,1989, 42(September):229-261
[164]Sales, A. and Mirvis, P. H. When cultures collide:Issues in acquisitions [A]. In Kimberly, J. R. and Quinn, R. E. (Eds), New Futures:The Challenge of Managing Corporate Transitions[C]. Homewood, IL:Dow Jones-Irwin.1985, pp.107-133
[165]Saunders, H. H. A Public Peace Process:Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts[M]. New York:Palgrave,1999
[166]Schneider, Mark, Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D.& Edwardsen, M. Building consensual institutions:Networks and the national estuary program[J]. American Journal of Political Science,2003,47:143-158
[167]Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R. and Ragan, J. W. Group approaches for improving strategy decision making:A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus[J]. The Academy of Management Journal,1986, 29(1):51-71
[168]Shirk, S. L. The Political Logic of Economic Reform in China[M]. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1993
[169]Slovie, P. The construction of preference[J]. American Psychologist, 1995,50:364-371
[170]Smith, P. D.& McDonough, M. H. Beyond public participation:Fairness in natural resource decision making[J]. Society and Natural Resources,2001,14(3):239-249
[171]Spillman, B., Bezdek, J.& Spillman, R., Coalition analysis with fuzzy sets[J]. Kybemetes,1979,8:203-211
[172]Steelman, T. A.& Maguire, L. A. Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-Methodology in National ForestManagement [J]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,1999,18(3):361-388
[173]Stivers, C. The public agency as polls:Active citizenship in the administrative state [J]. Administration and Society,1990,22(1):86-105
[174]Stone, C. Group politics reexamined:From pluralism to political economy [A]. Proceeding of the Dynamics of American Politics Conference [C]. Boulder, Colo.,1992
[175]Stone, D. Policy paradox:The art of political decision making[M]. New York, NY:Norton,2001
[176]Strauss, H. J.& Zeigler, L. H. The Delphi technique and its uses in social science research [J]. Journal of Creative Behavior,1975,9(4):253-259
[177]Susskind, L. A short guide to consensus building[A]. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan,& J. Thomas-Larmer(Eds.), The consensus building handbook:a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement[C]. London:Sage Publications,1999:pp. 3-57
[178]Susskind, L. E., Fuller, B. W., Ferenz, M.& Fairman, D. Multistakeholder Dialogue at the Global Scale [M]. Cambridge, MA:Consensus Building Institute,2002
[179]Susskind, L.,& Cruikshank, J. L. Breaking the Impasse:Consensual Approaches To Resolving Public Disputes[M]. New York:The Free Press,1987
[180]Susskind, L., & Field, P. Dealing With An Angry Public:The Mutual Gains Approach To Resolving Disputes[M]. New York:The Free Press,1996
[181]Susskind, L.& MacMahon, G. Theory and practice of negotiated rulemaking[J], Yale Journal on Regulation,1985,3(Fall):133-165
[182]Susskind, L.& Podziba, S. Affordable housing mediation:Building consensus for regional agreement in the Hartford Area', in L. Susskind,S. McKearnan and J. Thomas-Larmer (eds) The Consensus Building Handbook:A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement[C]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage,1999:773-799
[183]Thompson, R. Ever Since Eden:Cognitive Models can Teach us about Environmental Disputes[D]. PhD thesis, City and Regional Planning, University of California,1997
[184]Tsou, T. Prolegomenon to the study of the informal groups in CCP politics [J]. The China Quarterly,1976, (65):98-114
[185]Turoff, M. Delphi conferencing:Computer-based conferencing with anonymity [J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1972:3:159-204
[186]Tversky, A.& Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice[J]. Science,1981,211:453-458
[187]Van Meter, E. C.. Citizen participation in the policy management process[J]. Public Administration Review,1975,35:804-812
[188]Van Stokkom, B. Rituelen van beraadslaging. Reflecties over burgerberaad en Burgerbestuur [M]. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press,2006
[189]Wagenaar. Governance, complexity, and democratic participation[J]. The American Review of Public Administration,2007,37(1):17-50
[190]Walsh, J. P. and Fahey, L. The role of negotiated belief structures in strategy making [J]. Journal of Management,1986, (12):325-338
[191]Warnar,J. F. More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management[J]. Water Resources
Development,2006,22 (1):15-35 [192]Warner,G. Participatory management, popular knowledge, and community empowerment:The case of sea urchin harvesting in the Vieux-Fort area of St. Lucia[J]. Human Ecology,1997,25:29-46
[193]Weber, E. P. Bringing society back in:Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, nd sustainable communities[M]. Cambridge MA:MIT Press,2003
[194]Weber, E. P.& Khademian, A. M. From agitation to collaboration:Clearing the air through negotiation [J]. Public Administration Review,1997,57 (5):396-410
[195]Weeks, E. C. The practice of deliberative democracy:Results from four large-scale Trials [J]. Public Administration Review,2000,60(4):360-371
[196]White,0. F.& McSwain, C. J. The Semiotic Way of Knowing and Public Admini strati on [J]. Administrative Theory and Praxis,1993,15(1):18-35
[197]Whyte, G. Groupthink Reconsidered[J]. The Academy of Management Review,1989,14(1):40-56
[198]William, B. L., Suen, H., Brown, S., Bruhn, R., Blaquiere, R. D.& Rzasa, S. E. Hierarchical linear models of factors associated woth public participation among residents living near the U.S. Army's Chemical Weapons Stockpile Sites[J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,2001,44(1):41-65
[199]Wilson, D. Fisheries science collaborations:The critical role of the community [J], Research Publication 45. Hirtshals, Denmark:Institute for Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development, North Sea Center,1999
[200]Wilson, J. Q. The Politics of Regulation[M]. New York:Basic Books,1980
[201]Wong, K. F. E.& Kwong, J. Y. Y. Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number-size framing [J]. Organiza tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2005,98:54-65
[202]Wu, G. G. Documentary politics:Hypotheses, processes, and case studies [A]. (Hamrin, C. L.& Zhao S. S. Decision making in Deng's China[C]). Armonk:M. E. Sharpe.1995:26-27
[203]Xu Yichong. The Politics of Nuclear Energy in China[M]. NY:Palgrave Macmillan,2010
[204]Yaffee, S. L.& Wondollect, J. Collaborative ecosystem planning process in the United States:Evolution and challenges[J]. Environments,2003,31(2):59-72
[205]Yu Hongyuan. Global environment regime and climate policy coordination in China[J]. Journal of Chinese Political Science,2004,9(2):63-77
[206][美]阿伦·利普哈特.民主的模式.36个国家的政府形式和政府绩效[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006
[207][美]埃米·古特曼,丹尼斯·汤普生.审议民主意味着什么[A].谈火生编.审议民主[C].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：3-47
[208][美]保罗·A·萨巴蒂尔,汉克·C·詹金斯-史密斯.政策变迁与学习——一种倡议联盟途径[M].邓征译.北京：北京大学出版社,2011
[209][美]布赖恩·卡普兰.理性选民的神话：为何民主制度选择不良政策[M].刘艳红译.上海：上海人民出版社,2010
[210][美]布赖恩·琼斯.再思民主政治中的决策制定：注意力、选择和公共政策[M].李丹阳译.北京：北京大学出版社,2010
[211][美]查尔斯·J·福克斯,休·T·米勒.后现代公共行政——话语指向[M].楚艳红等译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002
[212][美]查特尔·墨菲.政治的回归[M].王恒,臧佩洪译.南京：江苏人民出版社,2001
[213][美]戴维·伊斯顿.政治体系——政治学状况研究[M].马清槐译,北京：商务印书馆,1993
[214][美]戴维·伊斯顿.政治生活的系统分析[M].王浦劬译.北京：华夏出版社,1999
[215][美]加布里埃尔·A·阿尔蒙德、小G·宾厄姆·鲍威尔.比较政治学：体系、过程与政策[M].曹沛霖译.上海：上海译文出版社,1987
[216][美]科恩.论民主[M].聂宗信,朱秀贤译.北京：商务印书馆,1988.
[217][美]劳伦斯·E·萨斯坎德,杰弗里·L·克鲁克香克.打破罗伯特规则：达成共识获得结 果的有效有效会议方法[M].李伟明,冯颖玉译.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2008
[218][美]理查德·斯图尔特.美国行政法的重构[M].沈岿译.北京：商务印书馆,2002
[219][美]李侃如.治理中国：从革命到改革[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2010
[220][美]罗斯金.政治科学[M].林震等译.北京：华夏出版社,2000
[221][美]马克·E·沃伦.民主与信任[M].吴辉译.北京：华夏出版社,2004
[222][美]迈克尔·豪利特,M·拉米什.公共政策研究——政策循环与政策子系统[M].庞诗等译.北京：三联书店,2006
[223][美]平狄克,鲁宾费尔德.微观经济学(第四版)[M].张军等译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000
[224][美]乔万尼·萨托利.民主新论[M].冯克利,阎克文译.上海：世纪出版集团,上海人民出版社,2009
[225][美]斯蒂芬·范埃弗拉.政治学研究方法指南[M].陈琪译.北京：北京大学出版社,2006：62
[226][美]西摩·马丁·李普塞特.政治人：政治的社会基础[M].张绍宗译.上海：上海人民出版社,2011
[227][美]约翰·克莱顿·托马斯.公共决策中的公民参与[M].孙柏瑛等译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010
[228][美]约瑟夫·熊彼特.资本主义、社会主义与民主[M].吴良健译.北京：商务印书馆,2004.
[229][美]詹姆斯·M·布坎南,戈登·塔洛克.同意的计算——立宪民主的逻辑基础[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000
[230][美]詹姆斯·R·汤森,布兰特利·沃马克.中国政治[M].顾速,董方译.南京：江苏人民出版社,2004
[231][美]詹姆斯·博曼.公共协商：多元主义、复杂性与民主[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2006
[232][美]詹姆斯·博曼,威廉·雷吉(主编).协商民主：论理性与政治[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2006
[233][美]詹姆斯·马奇.马奇论管理：真理、美、正义和学问[M].北京：东方出版社,2010
[234][德]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1956
[235][德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.交往行为理论(第一卷)：行为合理性与社会合理性[M].曹卫东译.上海：上海人民出版社,2004
[236]薄贵利.政府决策失误：代价、原因与对策[J].中国行政管理,2007,(10)：66-68
[237]陈叶烽.社会偏好的检验：一个超越经济人的实验研究[D].浙江大学,2010
[238]陈映芳.征地与郊区农村的城市化——上海市的调查[M].上海：文汇出版社,2003
[239]陈炳辉,王卫.民主共识的达成——协商民主解决多元偏好冲突的路径选择[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2012,(5)：35-42
[240]陈玲.制度、精英与共识：寻求中国政策过程的解释框架[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2011
[241]陈玲,赵静,薛澜.择优还是折衷——转型期中国政策过程的一个解释框架和共识决策模型[J].管理世界,2010,8：59-72
[242]常光伟,王青春,阴国恩.决策偏好研究述评[J].心理研究,2011,4(6):10-14
[243]邓道才,蒋智陶.知沟效应、政策认知与新农保最低档次缴费困境——基于安徽调查数据的实证分析[J].江西财经大学学报,2014,1：90-97
[244]丁煌.政策执行阻滞机制及其防治对策[M].北京：人民出版社,2002a
[245]丁煌.我国现阶段政策执行阻滞及其防治对策的制度分析[J].政治学研究,2002b,(1)：28-39
[246]丁煌,杨代福.政策网络、博弈与政策执行：以我国房价宏观调控政策为例[J].学海,2008,6：79-85
[247]丁建彪.论集体理性政策偏好的形成及价值[J].学习与探索,2013,9：46-51
[248]范柏乃,蓝志勇.公共管理研究与定量分析方法[M].北京：科学出版社,2008
[249]范伟达.现代社会研究方法[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2001：3
[250]冯玉军.权力、权利和利益的博弈——我国当前城市房屋拆迁问题的法律与经济分析[J].中国法学,2007,4：39-59
[251]高旭.房屋拆迁：分歧、协议与公平[D].北京大学,2002
[252]顾基发.意见综合——怎样达成共识[J].系统工程学报,2001,16(5)：340-348
[253]顾金喜.地方政府决策创新的实践和启示——杭州市开放式决策的调研分析[J].理论探索,2011,(1)：104-108
[254]顾肃.多元民主社会中的重叠共识与公共理性[J].史军译.马克思主义与现实,2008,(1)：23-27
[255]何俊志.政策过程的网络分析——概念框架的产生、深化与拓展[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2004：17-21
[256]胡必亮.关系共同体[J].中国社会科学评论,2005,(4)：1-18
[257]胡锦光,王锴.我国城市房屋拆迁中的若干法律问题——以北京酒仙桥拆迁案为例[J].法学,2007,8：35-41
[258]胡乔木.中国领导层怎样决策(1989年3-4月在美国访问时所作的学术演讲)[A].郭德宏等主编.党和国家重大决策的历程[C].北京：红旗出版社,1997
[259]胡伟.政府过程[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,1998
[260]景跃进.行政民主：意义与局限——温岭“民主恳谈会”的启示[J].浙江社会科学,2003,(1)：25-28
[261]景跃进.演化中的利益协调机制：挑战与前景[J].江苏行政学院学报,2011,(4)：74-88
[262]柯红波.地方党委、政府与公众的信任关系：现状与思考[J].中共杭州市委党校学报,2006,(4)：65-68
[263]柯青松.时间压力对偏好反转的影响[J].山东理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009,25(3)：94-97
[264]郎友兴.商议式民主与中国的地方经验：浙江省温岭市的“民主恳谈会”[J].浙江社会科学,2005,(1)：33-38
[265]李艾丽莎,张庆林.决策的选择偏好研究述评[J].北京：心理科学进展,2006,14(4)：618-624
[266]李风华.政治共识：一种新的政治观念研究路径[J].政治学研究,2012,(1)：65-72
[267]李怀.城市拆迁的利益冲突：一个社会学解析[J].西北民族研究,2005,3：50-58
[268]李景鹏.政府职能与人民利益表达[J].中共中央党校学报,2006,(3)：15-18
[269]李军杰,钟君.中国地方政府经济行为分析——基于公共选择视角[J].中国工业经济,2004,(4)：27-34
[270]李瑞昌.政策网络：经验事实还是理论创新[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2004：22-27
[271]李艳芳.公众参与环境影响评价制度的研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
[272]李远行.哈贝马斯程序主义民主观述评[J].政治学研究,2000.(3)：78-86
[273]梁漱溟.中国文化要义[M].上海：学林出版社,2000
[274]梁莹.公共政策参与中的“信任”因素研究——基于历史坐标中的信任理论之思考[J].社会科学研究,2008,(3)：64-71
[275]林广等.成功与代价——中外城市化比较新论[M].南京：东南大学出版社,2001
[276]林嘉永.论经济学实验的科学设计[J].财经科学,2003,(6):35-38
[277]林尚立.国内政府间关系[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,1998
[278]林玉华.政策网络理论之研究[M].台北：瑞兴图书公司,2002
[279]刘亚平,刘琳琳.地方政府在公共决策中的策略选择：一个权力网络的分析视角[J].东南学术,2010,5：33-39
[280]刘祖云.社会转型：一种特定的社会发展过程[J].武汉：华中师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1997,(6)：32-37
[281]陆学艺.当代中国社会阶层发展研究报告[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2002
[282]吕元礼.现代民主社会的政治共识[J].江苏社会科学,2005,(3)：86-91
[283]麻宝斌.中国社会转型时期的群体性政治参与[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2009
[284]麻宝斌,马振清.新时期中国社会的群体性政治参与[J].政治学研究,2005,(2)：49-55
[285]宁骚.中国公共政策为什么成功?——基于中国经验的政策过程模型构建与阐释[J].新视野,2012,(1)：17-23
[286]宁骚,孔祥利.城市拆迁决策过程中公民参与的困境及其突破——对S商店拆迁中公民参与的个案研究[J].湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,31(4)：9-14
[287]彭勃.“政策网络“理论与中国基层政治研究[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2004：28-30
[288]彭小兵,谭蓉,户邑.城市拆迁纠纷的博弈分析及对策建议[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2005,5：19-22
[289]彭宗超,薛澜.政策制定中的公众参与——以中国价格决策听证制度为例[J].国家行政学院学报,2000,(5)：30-36
[290]秋风.新民权运动元年[N].中国新闻周刊,2003-12-22
[291]上海市法制办旧区改造法律问题研究课题组.城市房屋拆迁中的法律问题研究——以上海旧区改造实践为例[EB/OL].2011,http://www.shanghailaw.gov.cn/fzbChinese/page/researchreport/govlegalresearch /govlegalresearch201117038.htm
[292]沈湘平.价值共识是否及如何可能[J].哲学研究,2007,(2)：107-111
[293]盛晓明.地方性知识的构造[J].哲学研究,2000,(5)：36-44
[294]史卫民,郑建君.中国公民的政策参与[A].房宁主编.政治参与蓝皮书：中国政治参与报告(2012)[C].2012：1-21
[295]宋林飞.中国社会转型的趋势、代价及其度量[J].江苏社会科学,2002,(6)：30-36
[296]孙柏瑛.公民参与形式的类型及其适用性分析[J].中国人民大学学报,2005,(5)：124-129
[297]孙立平.利益时代的冲突与和谐[N].广州：南方周末,2004-12-30
[298]孙立平.失衡：断裂社会的运作逻辑[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2004a[299]孙立平.改革以来中国国家与社会关系的演变[A].孙立平著.转型与断裂：改革以来中国社会结构的变迁[C].北京：清华大学出版社,2004b：137-165
[300]孙立平.博弈——断裂社会的利益冲突与和谐[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006
[301]孙永芬.扩展政策共识是当前构建和谐社会的重中之重[J].中国特色社会主义研究,2011,(6)：61-65
[302]谭羚雁,娄成武.保障性住房政策过程的中央与地方政府关系——政策网络理论的分析与应用[J].公共管理学报,2012,9(1):52-63
[303]唐代中.上海城市房屋拆迁研究[D].上海：同济大学,2010
[304]唐皇凤.政策网络与政策后果：中国的运用——对农村税费改革中利益分配变化的分析[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2004：31-36
[305]田华.公共决策束缚与决策行为的研究——天津市公共政策模式的初步调查[J].天津师范大学学报(社会科学版),2009,1：27-30
[306]童世骏.关于“重叠共识”的“重叠共识”[J].中国社会科学,2008,(6)：55-65
[307]王琳,吕永龙,王铁宇,贺桂珍.公众对二恶英排放的风险认知及影响因素分析[J].中国人口、资源与环境,2012,22(专刊)：297-301
[308]王绍光,樊鹏.中国式共识型决策：“开门”与“磨合”[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2013
[309]王锡锌.公共决策中的大众、专家与政府——以中国价格听证制度为个案的研究视角[J].中外法学,2006,(4)：462-483
[310]王锡锌.行政过程中公众参与的制度实践[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2008a
[311]王锡锌.公民参与和新公共运动的兴起[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2008b
[312]王锡锌,章永乐.专家、大众与知识的运用——行政规则制定过程的一个分析框架[J]. 中国社会科学,2003,(3)：113-127
[313]王新生.市场社会中的价值共识[J].南开学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,(3)：61-66
[314]王怡.2003：“新民权运动”的发轫和操练[N].中国新闻周刊,2003-12-22
[315]吴华根.基于合作型政府信任关系的深圳市政府转型[J].深圳大学学报,2008,(5)：20-25
[316]薛澜,陈玲.中国公共政策过程的研究：西方学者的视角及其启示[J].中国行政管理,2005,(7)：99-103
[317]薛澜,朱旭峰.中国思想库的社会职能——以政策过程为中心的改革之路[J].管理世界,2009,(4)：55-82
[318]颜学勇,周美多.基于共识的治理：后现代情境下政策共识的可能性及其限度[J].电子科技大学学报(社科版),2011,4：19-25
[319]杨斌.我国科技政策制定主体的政策认知及其政策分析[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,12(3)：23-27
[320]杨广斌.评利普哈特的“共识民主模式”[J].江苏行政学院学报,2007,(5)：75-78
[321]杨红伟.中央与地方政策共识形成过程的一个分析框架——以分税制决策过程为例[J].2011,(8)：24-28
[322]杨冉冉,龙如银.国外绿色出行政策对我国的启示和借鉴[J].环境保护,2013,41(19)：68-69
[323]姚大志.重叠共识观念能证明什么?——评罗尔斯的政治自由主义[J].天津社会科学,2009,(6)：41-46
[324]于建嵘.抗争性政治：中国政治社会学基本问题[M].北京：人民出版社,2010.
[325]原宗丽.参与式民主理论研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011.
[326]张凤华.不同模糊程度下模糊决策的决策偏好[J].心理学探新,2009,29(6)：51-55
[327]张谷.实验经济学研究思路及成果应用[J].安徽农业大学学报(社科版),1994,1：34
[328]张桂清.群体决策的共识模型研究[D].西安交通大学,2011
[329]张康之.在历史的坐标中看信任——论信任的三种历史类型[J].社会科学研究,2005,(1)：11-17
[330]张康之,张乾友.论共同行动的基础[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2011, 11(2)：79-87
[331]张世贤.中国与地方政策网络之研究[Z].台北：第一届公共行政与政策学术研讨会,1994
[332]张晓杰.中国公众参与政府环境决策的政治机会结构研究[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2011
[333]张宇.公共政策制定视域中民意有效聚合探究[J].贵州社会科学,2013,9：14-17
[334]赵德余.公共政策：共同体、工具与过程[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2011
[335]赵燕菁.从城市管理走向城市经营[J].城市规划,2002,26(11)：7-15
[336]郑杭生.转型中的中国社会和中国社会的转型[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社,1996
[337]郑永年.中国社会信任的解体及其结果[N].联合早报,2009-06-09
[338]周超,易洪涛.政策论证中的共识构建：实践逻辑与方法论工具[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,(6)：913-920
[339]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究,2007,(7)：36-50
[340]周小亮,笪贤流.效用、偏好与制度关系的理论探讨——反思消费者选择理论偏好稳定之假设[J].学术月刊,2009,41(1)：75-85
[341]周轩伟.群体决策和多目标决策的若干理论和方法[D].上海：上海大学,2004
[342]周雪光.逆向软预算约束：一个政府行为的组织分析[J].中国社会科学,2005,2：132-143
[343]朱春奎.政策网络与政策工具：理论基础与中国实践[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2011
[344]牛文元.中国新型城市化报告2013[M].北京：科学出版社,2013
[345]朱旭峰.政策决策转型与精英优势[J].社会学研究,2008,(2)：69-93