21世纪美国新兴领导理论缘起与主张

步入21世纪后,顺应知识经济发展的要求,美国各类组织呈现出网络型、有机型特征.美国学术界对什么是有效领导的认识随之变化,提出了分担式领导、有机型领导、复杂领导、关系性领导、团队领导、学习型组织领导、真实领导等新兴领导理论.     

The New Enclosures: London,New York City,Philadelphia, and the Transformation of Public Space

ABSTRACT

In recent years, social movements have taken to the streets to protest various forms of economic and racial injustice. However, these attempts to exploit the political opportunities public spaces afford have been compromised by the increasingly private nature of “public” spaces. What has changed is the rise of privately owned public spaces (POPS), areas that appear to be public, but in fact are owned by corporations that prohibit a range of activities, including political protest. This article argues such restrictions of public space are not limited to POPS. Rather, they are just one expression of a far more pervasive phenomenon, novel variations on centuries-old practices by which common or public land has been enclosed. I suggest that four forms of enclosure -for profit, of behavior, of community, and of the public realm- degrade the status of public institutions and insulate private interests from counter-mobilization by groups pursuing egalitarian ends.     

TEA-21: Transportation Policy, Pork Barrel Politics, and American Federalism

This article examines ISTEA's impact on intergovernmental relationsin transportation policy over the past six years and providesan overview of the political maneuvering that took place duringits reauthorization. ISTEA had a significant, decentralizingimpact on transportation policy, but its 1997–1998 reauthorizationwas driven by electoral concerns that transcended congressionalviews on American federalism. These electoral concerns helpto explain why ISTEA's reauthorization process took so long,why the decentralization in transportation policy that tookplace in 1991 was not broadened by TEA-21, and why it is unlikelythat transportation policy will ever be fully devolved to thestates and localities.     

State Government Targeting in Economic Development: The New York Experience

New York State has made extensive use of social, geographic,and sectoral targeting in economic development. It has targetedboth distressed industries, particularly manufacturing, andgrowth industries. When the initial assistance provided to manufacturingin the 1960s did not stem the decline of this sector, the stateresponded by providing larger subsidies. Even though manufacturingcontinued to decline, both absolutely and relatively, supportfor its preferred status has, nevertheless, remained strong,and few of the programs initially aimed at this sector haveseen any sign cant changes in their manufacturing focus. Effortsto target distressed areas and individuals, however, were notsustained over time. The state's two most significant effortsat geographic targeting were expanded statewide over relativelyshort periods of time.     

The State of American Federalism, 1996-1997

Federalism enjoyed political and popular salience during theperiod 1996–1997 as the so-called "Devolution Revolution"began to be implemented and analyzed in the United States. Whilethere were a few examples of important Revolutionary efforts,the federal government continued to hold much of the power andsignificance it has achieved over the past sixty years. Evenin the area of welfare policy, where in 1996 there were historicreforms enacted to end the federal entitlement, the federalgovernment maintained a significant presence that made the ideaof devolution of welfare policy responsibility some what questionable.Nevertheless, states continued to lead in policy innovationin areas ranging from education to health, and the U.S. SupremeCourt continued to question the limits of federal power. Thepast year illustrated, once again, the complexity of our federalsystem and how difficult it is to reform federalism—particularlywhen it involves a shift in power and creates the perceptionof winners and losers.     

The State of American Federalism, 1997 - 1998

Although it was a relatively quiet year for the courts and congressionalaction, 1997–1998 saw several developments that may significantlydefine federalism in the coming years. The 1998 federal budgetis projected to show a surplus, ending decades of deficit financinginWashington, D.C., but also raising questions about the budget'sfiscal impact on federalism and intergovernmental relations.Devolution took a back seat in Washington, D.C., as concernsabout managed care, education, and internet access led to proposalsfor increased federal involvement in state and local affairs.The states continued their implementation of welfare reformand launched other programs in health, environment.     

The State of American Federalism, 1993-1994

National political energies in 1993–1994 were focusedon major initiatives promised by the Clinton administrationduring the 1992 presidential campaign, especially health-carereform and crime. From the perspective of the states, federalgovernment action in these (and other) policy areas raised seriousquestions about preemption and mandates. The administration'sofficial pronouncements on federalism have suggested a strategyof decongestion and decentralization. Thus far, its actionshave fallen short of empowerment, taking instead the path ofregulatory waivers. Frustrated with the federal government,states and localities continued to engage in policy experimentation.     

The State of American Federalism, 1994-1995

Federalism, as a concept and as a reality, received assistancefrom a variety of sources during 1994–1995. Opinion pollsrevealed a public strongly supportive of shifts in the balanceof power between federal and state governments. The new Republican-controlledCongress, bent on devolving authority to the states, busieditself with an ambitious legislative agenda. The DemocraticPresident pursued his principles of federalism and intergovernmentalrelations by supporting the unfunded mandates bill and by increasingthe use of the administrative waiver. The U.S. Supreme Courtbolstered federalism with its rulings in cases such as Lopez,a state challenge to the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.The new mood in Washington, D.C. was complemented by state leadersanxious to take on the challenges of a rebalanced federal system     

The State of American Federalism, 1995-1996

Federalism was a major political issue in 1995 and 1996 withpresidential candidates, congressional leaders, governors, andthe courts weighing in with proposals to shift responsibilityfrom Washington to states and localities. There was more talkthan action, but as the second session of the 104th Congresswound down in the late summer, a major proposal to block grantthe 61-year old Aid to Families with Dependent Children programwas enacted. This enactment allowed both Democrats and Republicansto take political credit, and gave major responsibilities tothe states to implement the new approach to a former entitlementprogram. Five themes characterized the year: (1) federalismwas once again a salient issue; (2) deficit reduction and devolutionwere bound together; (3) the U.S. Supreme Court continued toreexamine and possibly redefine the legal parameters of federalism;(4) state officials became more visible political actors inWashington, D. C.; and (5) states provided key policy and managementleadership.     

The State of American Federalism, 1992-1993

In terms of federalism, the year 1992-1993 was interesting inits ambivalence. The new president and a somewhat reconstitutedCongress took actions that reverberated through the intergovernmentalsystem; yet there was no hint of a coherent theory of federalismunderlying those actions. Two trends held steady: the federaldeficit continued to constrain new domestic initiatives andstates and localities continued to be subjected to un(der)fundedmandates. A review of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in cases withintergovernmental implications, does not reveal a discerniblefederalism philosophy in that branch of the government. If anything,1992–1993 further underscored the pulling and tuggingbetween the nation and the states that has characterized Americanfederalism for the past several years.     

The State of American Federalism, 2002-2003: Division Replaces Unity

The national unity formed last year in response to terrorismsoon vanished as more typical political infighting returned.Although overshadowed by the buildup to and the conduct of asecond war against Iraq, political issues grounded in the nation'sfederal character contributed to a rise in divisiveness. Themid-term elections of 2002 and redistricting battles in severalstates drove partisanship to new heights. The continued sluggishnessof the nation's economy also exacerbated interparty bickering.Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress,yet some of the president's policy initiatives encountered moreserious resistance in his own party than from the opposition.Many of the feuds within the majority party rested on stateand regional interests typical of federalism politics. Stateand local governments remained trapped in the third year ofa fiscal crisis, and even large reductions in expenditures didnot extricate these governments from the financial fix. Despitetheir pleas, state and local officials were unable to obtainany significant relief from the federal government. Federal-staterelations, as a consequence, exhibited more contentiousnessthan cooperation.     

The State of American Federalism, 2001-2002: Resilience in Response to Crisis

The past year has been one of repeated shocks to governmentand the larger society. Terrorist attacks in New York City andWashington, D. C., the burst of the dot.com bubble in the stockmarket, a wave of corporate scandals, and a slowdown in theeconomy posed severe problems for officials of all governmentsin the federal system. The combined effects of the war on terrorismand the economic turmoil forced federal policymakers to createnew agencies and to enact new policies. State and local governmentsalso responded to the multiple shocks with a variety of initiatives,often independent of Washington. Instead of a move toward centralizationthat might have been predicted as a consequence of the seriousshocks, all elements of the American federal system demonstrateda capacity and energy to marshal resources in a time of urgency.     

New Federalism Modified: Jobs and Highways in New York

The Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (JTPA) and the SurfaceTransportation Assistance Act of 1983 (STAA) were intended inpart to stimulate the American economy out of recession. Eachlaw embodied a different approach to that goal and, hence, poseddifferent implementation challenges to the states. JTPA wasintended to decentralize decisionmakingand administration tothe states, and to in volve the private sector in state andlocal decisionmaking processes. Moreover,the level of federalaid was reduced below that available under its predecessor,the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). STAA wasintended to inject increased federal funds for rebuilding roadsand highways. Its stipulation that states bring their standardsfor truck dimensions and routes into line with new nationalstandards was a centralizing feature of the legislation. Inexamining responses of the states in 1983 to these laws, particularlyNew York, decentralization appeared to be on track in the earlyimplementation of JTPA. The level of involvement of governorsand, to a lesser extent, legislatures was higher than underCETA. The implementation of STAA revealed both decentralizingand centralizing features at work. Participation of the NewYork legislature in deciding how the increased highway fundswere to be spent was much higher than before STAA, but conflictsbetween the national and state governments over the new nationalstandards were resolved in favor of the national government.