治理结构,权力机制与高校腐败——基于117个高校腐败案例的分析

基于新制度主义中的制度性同形理论,通过对117个高校腐败案例进行分析,发现高校腐败最大的特征就是与政府腐败特点的一致性,无论是在腐败主体特征还是腐败行为特征方面都极为相似。研究表明:在高等教育场域中,在强制性同形和模仿性同形机制作用下,高等教育场域中的高校与政府呈现组织性趋同现象,两者的组织结构、治理机制、监督漏洞、官场文化等方面都具有同形性,两者都采取相对集权的治理结构,而监督制衡机制效果不彰,无法有效地约束和限制权力,从而使高校腐败特征与政府腐败特征表现一致。从这个特点上来说,高校现有的治理结构和权力机制并没有体现出高校应有的独特性,其权力的运行机制也不足以控制腐败的发生。     

Knowledge for Governance,Governance of Knowledge: Inclusive Knowledge Management in Collaborative Governance Processes

ABSTRACT

Different ways of knowing (WOKs) present in governance processes easily give rise to controversies and conflicts and forestall collective action. To resolve these conflicts it is necessary to understand what constitutes a WOK and how we can organize inclusion through collaborative governance. This paper argues that WOKs contain different knowledge elements: they contain different bodies of factual knowledge, formulate specific knowledge questions, and prefer different methods and knowledge institutes. WOKs also encompass different frames, interpretations, or normative perceptions of reality. And finally, different WOKs make use of different sources and types of organizing capacity.

Realizing successful collaborative governance processes means organizing inclusion of these different components of knowledge. This paper investigates the implications of this knowledge diversity for realizing collaborative governance processes and the challenges for inclusive knowledge management—through an in-depth case study of a collaborative governance process between the Netherlands and Flanders.

We conclude that realizing inclusion between various WOKs and their knowledge components contributes to the overall success of a collaborative governance process. However, managing inclusive knowledge is as much a matter of conscious strategies as it is the result of an emergent interaction process between stakeholders, experts, and officials within various WOKs. Furthermore, although knowledge inclusion facilitates successful negotiation between stakeholders, it doesn't guarantee a successful outcome of these negotiations.     

Collaborative Governance: Integrating Management,Politics, and Law

Scholars have engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the relationships among management, politics, and law in public administration. Collaborative governance presents new challenges to this dynamic. While scholars have made substantial contributions to our understanding of the design and practice of collaborative governance, others suggest that we lack theory for this emerging body of research. Law is often omitted as a variable. Scholarship generally does not explicitly include collaboration as a public value. This article addresses the dialogue on management, politics, and law with regard to collaborative governance. It provides an overview of the current legal framework for collaborative governance in the United States at the federal, state, and local levels of government and identifies gaps. The institutional analysis and development framework provides a body of theory that incorporates rules and law into research design. The article concludes that future research on collaborative governance should incorporate the legal framework as an important variable and collaboration as a public value.     

How Policy Rules Shape the Structure and Performance of Collaborative Governance Arrangements

Local food system governance increasingly occurs in collaborative venues at the local, state, and regional levels. Prominent examples of such are food policy councils (FPCs). FPCs take a systemic approach to improve local food systems by including diverse stakeholders to advise on policy development. The authors study public FPCs to understand how policies structure the stakeholder composition and goals of FPCs and how FPCs’ stakeholder composition facilitates and/or impedes performance. Data come from a content analysis of policies that mandate the structure and functions of public FPCs and interviews with FPC representatives. Findings indicate that FPCs connected to a broader array of food policy actors in their communities produce more diverse policy outputs, but this outcome is tempered by whether council members represent personal or organizational interests.     

Diversity,Trust, and Social Learning in Collaborative Governance

Scholarship on collaborative governance identifies several structural and procedural factors that consistently influence governance outcomes. A promising next step for collaborative governance research is to explore how these factors interact. Focusing on two dimensions of social learning—relational and cognitive—as outcomes of collaboration, this article examines potential interacting effects of participant diversity and trust. The empirical setting entails 10 collaborative partnerships in the United States that provide advice on marine aquaculture policy. The findings indicate that diversity in beliefs among participants is positively related to relational learning, whereas diversity in participants' affiliations is negatively related to relational learning, and high trust bolsters the positive effects of belief diversity on both relational and cognitive learning. In addition, high trust dampens the negative effects of affiliation diversity on relational learning. A more nuanced understanding of diversity in collaborative governance has practical implications for the design and facilitation of diverse stakeholder groups.     

我国“复杂化社会“的形成及其治理

"复杂化社会"是新世纪我国社会发展不能逾越的重要阶段.复杂化社会的形成是对社会发展的理论认识不足、经济利益的边界模糊与失衡、政治权益的分化与重组、文化观念的碰撞与融合等多种因素综合作用的结果.现阶段复杂化社会呈现出阶段性、多因性、多变性和可控性的特点.复杂化社会的治理是一个长期而庞大的系统工程,需要从思想观念、治理工具、政府能力、社会整合等方面进行相互协作与密切配合.     

再综合化：常态与应急态协同治理制度体系研究

基于社会形态特征的学理性分析以及常态和应急态下的治理行为特性比较研究发现,协同治理理论框架是实现跨阶段协同的重要基点,需要围绕多主体之间的信息共享、协同决策、协同规则、协同行动、监测评估等过程要素进行系统建设。要做好顶层设计,建立多要素多环节多情景的协同治理结构;深化结构性改革,完善政府组织制度体系;深化放管服改革,以健全机制为抓手加快制度性协同创新;强化制度保障体系建设,为协同治理赋能;建设"五位一体"的社会协同体系。     

Collaborative Governance in the Reform of Western Australia's Alcohol and Other Drug Sector

Collaborative governance involves processes and structures for policy development and decision making with particular relevance for health and social services. We examined collaborative governance in the reform of Western Australia's alcohol and other drug sector, applying Emerson et al.'s (2012) integrative framework. A documentary review and group interviews with government, sector, and consumer representatives were involved. Contextual factors included increased service funding, and the development of a partnership approach. Drivers for collaboration involved leadership and financial incentives for policy implementation. Key stakeholders across government and the sector reported a mutually supportive and constructive relationship and increased capacity, and they shared an agenda for change. The integrative framework was a useful structure for the explication of collaborative governance, although financial arrangements were not addressed.     

Heaven's Talent Scout: Prime Ministerial Power,Ecclesiastical Patronage and the Governance of Britain

In the last decade the role of the Prime Minister in the process for making senior Church appointments has changed significantly. The man who replaces Dr Rowan Williams—and it will be a man—will be appointed through a procedure in which the Prime Minister is expected to enjoy no choice but to simply confirm the Church of England's preferred candidate. The aim of this article is to draw upon fresh empirical research in order to explore why and how the politics and governance of ecclesiastical patronage has been recalibrated in this way. More importantly this article seeks to embed the study of ecclesiastical patronage within a much broader appreciation of how other forms of ministerial patronage have also become tightly constrained. This, in itself, forges a connection between the role of politicians in senior Church appointments, on the one hand, and a much richer and broader seam of research and writing that poses distinct questions about the nature of modern governance, the benefits of depoliticisation, the accountability of appointment commissions, the capacity of politicians and the future of democracy.     

Managing Incentive Dynamics for Collaborative Governance in Land and Ecological Conservation

Public governance often involves policy tools and stakeholders from multiple sectors. How different policy tools are used may affect the chances that the values and interests of diverse stakeholders can be aligned in mutually supportive ways. Drawing on insights from behavioral and cognitive economics, this article uses the case of land and ecological conservation in Twin Lake, Taiwan, to illustrate how various interactive dynamics—hierarchical exclusion and preemptive effects—may affect efforts in land and ecological conservation involving stakeholders from multiple sectors. Such illustrations may inform the choice and sequencing of policy tools for facilitating collaborative governance.     

Market Structure,Tariff Lobbying and the Free-Rider Problem

The effect of changes in industry structure on the ability tomaintain a cooperative level of tariff lobbying are analyzed in arepeated game setting in which a simple trigger strategy is theenforcement mechanism. The difficulty of maintaining cooperation isidentified with the minimum discount factor necessary for themaintenance of cooperation. Factors which increase this criticalvalue of the discount parameter are said to make cooperation moredifficult. Some changes in industry structure which reduce measuredconcentration have ambiguous effects, while others may makecooperation among a given group of firms more likely.     

Fighting COVID-19 through Government Initiatives and Collaborative Governance: The Taiwan Experience

Taiwan is situated less than 200 kilometers from the first COVID-19 outbreak state, China, and it has millions of international visitors yearly. Taiwan's collective efforts to block and eliminate the invisible enemy (COVID-19) from the island have resulted in relatively low infection and death numbers and have been hailed as a successful anomaly amid the global pandemic. This review provides some background on the systems and organizations that helped Taiwan streamline a task force (command center) in a timely manner to launch related initiatives, mobilize the public, and engage private resources to implement strategies and policies that were further enhanced by collaborative behaviors and volunteers. Even subject to threatening conditions such as cruise ship stopover and numerous foreign immigrant workers, there were no outbreaks of community infection in Taiwan similar to those in Singapore, Japan, and other countries. Taiwan's successful measures offer a good example for future comparative studies.     

政策性与公益性:中部农村的双层治理结构与逻辑

村组两级组织分别建立在熟人社会-半熟人社会的社会基础之上,承担着政策性和公益性两种不同的治理功能。村级组织遵循现代公共规则和生活逻辑,通过内化自己人和精英吸纳与角色规约机制实现治理;而村民小组主要遵循生活逻辑,通过内化自己人的机制实施治理。     

中国数字经济协同治理理论框架和实现路径

当今社会已步入信息社会发展阶段,数字经济随之成为经济发展新动能、新业态,既深刻影响着我们的生产生活,也给治理带来了一系列新问题、新挑战。加强数字经济治理,需认真分析数字经济发展特征,构建符合中国数字经济治理实际的理论框架;以中国数字经济协同治理理论框架为指导,构建数字经济协同治理体系,推动多元主体之间的关系协同、主体协同和机制协同,不断完善和发展中国数字经济协同治理的实施路径。     

How Structural Variations in Collaborative Governance Networks Influence Advocacy Involvement and Outcomes

Collaborative governance is intended to solve complex problems and promote democratic outcomes by connecting ground‐level stakeholders with government. In order for these goals to be met, however, participants must have meaningful influence and opportunities for voice. Using national survey data from Continuums of Care (CoCs) mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, this article investigates what structural characteristics of collaborative governance networks are related to promoting stakeholder inclusion and voice through policy advocacy involvement. Specifically, it investigates which network characteristics are associated with (1) the frequency of advocacy involvement by the network, (2) providers' engagement in and influence over that advocacy, and (3) the CoC having stronger relationships with policy makers. Findings show significant relationships between greater network capacity and network advocacy, and between network governance structure and provider engagement and influence in that advocacy. Networks have stronger relationships with policy makers when providers are more engaged, providers have more influence, network capacity is higher, and direct advocacy tactics are used.