实验主义治理：公共治理的一个新路径

实验主义治理秉持以现实问题为导向和以经验证据为支撑的实证理念和循证品格,在纵向放权的基础上通过目标设置、差异探索、治理评估、政策迭代和政策扩散等机制探寻政策改进和治理优化的可行路径。作为一种新的治理模式,它的兴起是为了应对治理复杂性的挑战、弥补科层式治理的不足和探寻治理现代化的路径等。实验主义治理模式注重纵向放权、公众参与和多元协作,改善了公共治理主体间的关系,提升了治理的参与性、科学性和有效性,是科层式治理模式的重要补充。但在实践中,实验主义治理也面临着法治困境、创新困境和合作困境等现实难题。在我国推进治理体系与治理能力现代化的背景下,应当协调好实验主义治理中创新与法治的内在张力,完善治理体制与机制,提升实验主义治理的实践效能,从而使其在全面深化改革进程中发挥更大的作用。     

京津冀区域治理的模式选择

京津冀区域治理需要建立综合主义的模式,在此观点之上,本文提出了京津冀现阶段需要建立政府主导的治理网络和需要整合的事务,并且从短期、中期和长期分阶段提出了京津冀区域治理的组织模式以及每一阶段需要建立的组织以及每个组织的职能.     

两岸城市社区治理的比较研究

20世纪90年代中期,两岸几乎同时开启城市社区治理的改革,但是却形成了不同的治理模式。社会组织参与是达成社区治理的重要因素,以社会组织参与为视角,系统比较两岸城市社区治理的特征、条件与逻辑,可以发现:中国大陆地区处于工业化、城市化进行时,中国台湾地区处于后工业化、城市化成熟时期,二者分别因应现代化和后现代化的治理任务,因而前者较易采取自上而下的治理模式,后者则要呼应多元社会的诉求,更多采取自下而上的治理模式。因为目标选择不同,加之受不同政治社会体制的规定,中国大陆的社区治理更多展现出"管理主义"的技术逻辑,中国台湾地区则展现出"社区主义"的政治逻辑。     

论参与治理、社会自治与合作治理

20世纪后期,人类的社会治理模式变革进入了一个迅猛发展的时期,从80年代到今天,已经形成了三种既有逻辑联系又有所不同的社会治理模式,它们分别是参与治理、社会自治和合作治理。参与治理是在民主行政的理想追求中出现的,社会自治是在非政府组织以及其他社会自治力量的成长中展现出来的,而合作治理则是社会自治力量成长的必然结果,也是对前两种社会治理模式的扬弃。合作治理是一种正在成为主流的社会治理模式。     

从制度主义转向行动主义的社会治理--读张康之教授《公共行政的行动主义》

近代以来的社会治理突出了制度主义的逻辑，社会治理的一切活动都是在制度的框架下开展的。制度主义逻辑中的社会治理依附于中心—边缘的社会结构，政府位于社会治理的中心，通过制度对社会进行普遍性的统一的治理，结果却在对技术理性的追求中把社会治理导向了精英治理的格局。自20世纪80年代起，人类社会进入了高度复杂性与高度不确定性的历史阶段，政府垄断社会治理的局面受到了挑战，依靠制度的社会治理出现了失灵，因而需要谋求新型社会治理模式的建构。就现实的社会治理过程来看，由于社会治理主体的多元化，行动与制度之间的逻辑关系被重置。民主的内涵从制度转向行动，专注于行动会把社会治理引向合作治理的方向。张康之教授的《公共行政的行动主义》为我们展示了社会治理从制度主义到行动主义的转向，并创造性地描述了走向合作治理的图景。     

区域合作中地方利益冲突的治理模式:比较与启示

利益冲突与协调,始终是区域合作与区域一体化的主题。地方利益冲突的治理模式,涵盖治理主体、治理客体与治理机制等内容。根据国内外区域治理的理论与实践,地方利益冲突的协调模式归纳为科层制、市场机制、社群治理以及网络治理等四种类型。每种模式均有其优缺点,都有独特的生长环境与制度空间,不同治理模式下的治理绩效各异。中国区域合作中的利益协调,属于以政府为主导的、市场与社会共同参与的科层制模式。针对当前区域利益治理模式的存在问题,需要在区域治理方面进行制度创新。     

空气污染的跨域合作治理研究——以北京地区为例

当前空气污染与雾霾天气已严重危害公众健康,影响了社会与经济的正常秩序。北京由于特殊的气候条件与地理位置,已成为全国乃至世界空气污染重灾区之一。本文试图以北京地区的空气污染治理为例,旨在阐明空气污染跨域合作治理的基本规律。在规范研究上,总结了传统区域主义、公共选择理论和新区域主义是跨域治理理论发展与演变的三个方向;在经验研究上,通过分析北京地区空气污染跨域治理的历史与现状,归纳了利益协调不足、碎片化现象和单中心治理等问题症结。针对空气污染跨域治理的存在问题,必须建立国家层面的空气污染防治战略,健全空气污染跨域治理的利益协调和补偿机制,完善跨域治理机构的结构设计与组织功能,创新执行机制,构建政府主导、部门履职、市场协调与社会参与的跨域合作治理新模式。     

当代中国政府生态治理:一种新的结构治理模式探索

正生态学世界观和绿色政治是西方后现代主义思潮的重要内容,它们主张世界的相互关联和整体性,以反思西方社会的现代工业文明。当代中国社会的转型要求政府改变传统的管理主义模式,向新型的治理模式转变。生态治理作为一种新的政府治理模式,从整个社会生态系统出发,包含了政治生态链环、政治生态资本和政治生态平衡三大支持系统,为当代中国政府治理提供了一种新的理论视角。     

多层次治理视域下的中国实践与未来发展

各国相互联系、相互依存，为全球、地区、国家和社会等不同层次的治理带来新的机遇和挑战，彰显了国内治理与国际治理紧密联结、协调推进的重要价值。在全球化时代，应从“全球—地区—国家—社会”的整体视野理解和解决治理问题。全球治理、地区治理、国家治理和社会治理等多层次治理直面的对象与问题虽然有差异，但仍处于相互影响和作用中。多层次治理的中国实践体现在：在全球治理中贡献了中国智慧；在地区治理中着力“促进多边主义和自由贸易”发展；在国家治理方面，求实有效、成绩显著，铸就了中国自信；在社会治理方面，党建引领、多元互动，建构了中国模式。多层次治理的中国未来发展旨在：倡导人类命运共同体，推动全球治理体系变革；倡导“亲、诚、惠、容”理念，构筑友好交往和务实合作的地区环境；加强党的领导，夯实中国特色的国家治理基础；完善社会治理体系，实现社会治理优质高效。     

多元治理视角下政府规制模式建构

与治理理论的兴起相伴而生的是在政府改革领域流行着“放松规制”的思潮，这其中包含着深刻的理论与现实根源。通过对治理理论的反思，重估政府规制的价值，建构在合法性与有效性基础上的政府规制有别于政府干预主义，尤其在多元治理模式下，它的核心价值体现在能够为社会健康发展提供一种稳定的机制，有利于维护社会公平正义等，因此需要我们重新探讨政府规制的功能定位。     

Indigenous governance

The governmentality literature's focus on mentalities of rule, and its aversion to sociological analysis, tends to produce a programmatic vision of governance. From this perspective, politics appears primarily as a mentality of rule, and resistance appears primarily as a negative – as a source of programme failure. This paper explores aspects of Australian policies of self-determination for Aboriginal peoples, in order to examine ways in which resistance (in the form of indigenous governance) plays a constitutive role in the formation of rule. Government and resistance articulate, mingle and hybridize, so that resistance cannot readily be thought of as external to rule. In this way, liberalism's governmental relations with resisstance are characterized by incorporation of resistant, ‘indigenous’, governances. In turn, this is a source of its innovativeness and flexibility, becoming part of its strategy of government at a distance. However, this incorporation creates tensions and contradictions within the liberal project itself, instabilities which cannot be reduced to the status of external sources of programme failure.     

Clarifying multilevel governance

Despite its widespread use in European studies and beyond, the concept of multilevel governance (MLG) still suffers from a considerable degree of uncertainty as to its precise meaning, which in turn hinders the cumulative development of this research programme. In an attempt to stimulate a systematic methodological discussion of the idea of MLG, this article presents a critical reconstruction of the concept structured around three ‘axes of ambiguity’– the applicability of MLG beyond the European Union; the role of non‐state actors; the focus on policy‐making structures versus processes – followed by a conceptual assessment and clarification strategy based on John Gerring's criterial framework. Building particularly on Gerring's criterion of causal utility, the article argues that the MLG concept is best clarified along the (not necessarily exclusive) lines of two theoretical directions emerging from the literature: MLG as a theory of state transformation, and MLG as a theory of public policy. For each of the two models, the criterial framework also indicates a number of corresponding conceptual shortcomings which MLG scholars should try to reduce as much as possible in future refinements of this idea.     

When private governance impedes multilateralism: The case of international pesticide governance

Private standards play an increasingly important governance role, yet their effects on state-led policymaking remain understudied. We examine how the operation of private agricultural standards influences multilateral pesticide governance with a particular focus on the listing of substances under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, a treaty-based information-sharing mechanism that allows countries to refuse hazardous chemical imports. We find that private agricultural standard-setting bodies use the Rotterdam Convention's pesticide list to develop their own lists of banned substances. This alters the Rotterdam Convention's intended role, impeding efforts to add substances to the treaty, as attempts by private actors to impose stricter governance than state actors can undermine the potential for international state-based governance to become more stringent. We characterize this as a “confounding interaction” whereby institutional linkages between actions by public and private actors with broadly aligned goals results in unexpected negative consequences for governance.     

Constitutionalism and experimentalist governance

This comment explores how experimentalist governance is connected to wider constitutional questions and makes two claims. First, there are good reasons to believe that experimentalist governance can only flourish in a world where the precepts of liberal democratic constitutionalism have been widely accepted and institutionalized. Experimentalist governance is part and parcel of the world of liberal democratic constitutionalism. Second, it is not only governance in Europe that can be described in experimentalist terms. The concept is also useful to describe the dynamics of European constitutionalism.     

Ethics and good governance

Public Choice - Public choice research has revealed a variety of political dilemmas associated with governance that tend to make good governance unlikely. This paper suggests that the good...     

Reflections on experimentalist governance

This article critically engages with Sabel and Zeitlin's important notion of experimentalist governance (EG). It is cast as a “recursive process of provisional goal‐setting and revision based on learning from the comparison of alternative approaches to advancing them in different contexts.” This is a useful heuristic device to capture policymaking and implementation in complex, dynamic, and highly diverse political entities. This article discusses the micro‐foundations underpinning EG, how it relates to hierarchical modes of governing, and how well it captures the distinctive traits of the EU. It also discusses EG from a democratic perspective. In democratic terms EG is understood as a form of direct deliberative polyarchy. This article notes that the question of EG's contribution to democratization cannot, however, be adequately addressed unless we pay more systematic attention to representation and representative democracy.     

Disaggregating public-private governance interactions: European Union interventions in transnational private sustainability governance

Transnational private sustainability governance, such as eco-certification, does not operate in a regulatory or jurisdictional vacuum. A public authority may intervene in private governance for various reasons, including to improve private governance's efficient functioning or to assert public regulatory primacy. This article argues that to properly understand the nature of public-private governance interactions—whether more competitive or complementary—we need to disaggregate a public authority's intervention. The article distinguishes between four features of private governance in which a public authority can intervene: standard setting, procedural aspects, supply chain signaling, and compliance incentives. Using the cases of the European Union's policies on organic agriculture and biofuels production, the article shows that public-private governance interaction dynamics vary across these private governance features as well as over time. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of active lobbying by private governance actors in influencing these dynamics and the resulting policy outputs.     

Achilles' heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures

This article assesses the usefulness of conceptions of policy capacity for understanding policy and governance outcomes. In order to shed light on this issue, it revisits the concept of governance, derives a model of basic governance types and discusses their capacity pre‐requisites. A model of capacity is developed combining competences over three levels of activities with analysis of resource capabilities at each level. This analysis is then applied to the common modes of governance. While each mode requires all types of capacity if it is to match its theoretically optimal potential, most on‐the‐ground modes do not attain their highest potential. Moreover, each mode has a critical type of capacity which serves as its principle vulnerability; its “Achilles' heel.” Without high levels of the requisite capacity, the governance mode is unlikely to perform as expected. While some hybrid modes can serve to supplement or reinforce each other and bridge capacity gaps, other mixed forms may aggravate single mode issues. Switching between modes or adopting hybrid modes is, therefore, a non‐trivial issue in which considerations of capacity issues in general and Achilles' heel capacities in particular should be a central concern.