The Practice and Theory of US Statebuilding

Abstract

The United States has employed three models of statebuilding over the last century, each animated by a different political theory. Statebuilding 1.0, developed and used from the late 1890s through the end of the Cold War, emphasized building loyal and politically stable subordinate states. Privileging American geopolitical and economic interests over those of local populations, the model was premised on the theory of realpolitik. Statebuilding 2.0 arose under and, in many ways, came to characterize attempts by the United States to construct a New World Order after 1990. The key shift was from seeking loyalty to building legitimate states. Under this model, the United States attempted to build broad-based popular support for nascent states by creating democratic institutions and spearheading economic reforms. In this ‘end of history’ moment, liberalism reigned triumphant in statebuilding practice and theory. Statebuilding 3.0 is now being ‘field-tested’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. This new model seeks to build legitimacy for new states by providing security and essential public services to their populations. It rests on social contract theory, and its core tenet that legitimacy follows from providing effectively for the basic needs of citizens. Successive sections summarize the practice of statebuilding under each model and discuss its implicit political theory. A critique of each model then flows naturally into the practice and logic of the next. The conclusion outlines why a statebuilding 3.1 is necessary, and what such a strategy might entail.     

人权的逻辑规定与现实规定——基于马克思人的生存方式理论的视角

马克思把人的存在理解为生存活动.人的生存活动是人依靠自然生产自己的一种生活.作为自然性与社会性相统一的人的生存活动,就是人的生活方式或生存方式,它构成了马克思人权认知的前提.从人的“生活决定意识”这一唯物史观的基本原则出发,首先,马克思指认人权是一种逻辑规定,是人的生存活动发展到资本主义商品经济阶段的产物,表现为自由、平等、财产与安全等;其次,马克思指认人权又是一种现实规定,人权在资本主义雇佣劳动这一特定的生存方式中体现为资本自由、平等地剥夺劳动的特权.     

The Politics–Administration Dichotomy: An Empirical Search for Correspondence between Theory and Practice

The politics–administration dichotomy has been one of the most disputed theories of public administration. Despite serious critiques, neither the theoretical utility nor the normative power of the dichotomy has totally disappeared over the past decades. The dichotomy has been advocated on the grounds that the dichotomous division of labor and authority between elected and administrative officials increases the democratic accountability and planning ability of public administrators. This article first builds a theoretical model of the politics–administration dichotomy and then evaluates the model using empirical data collected from a nationwide sample of city managers serving in council-manager local governments. Results of structural equation modeling illustrate that the politics–administration dichotomy fails to obtain its predicted tendencies in actuality. The authors interpret the findings in light of the contemporary public administration literature. The article aims to make a theoretical-empirical contribution to one of the most challenging questions in public administration.     

跨越公共管理理论与实践的鸿沟

理性思维和线性思维的教育传统成为公共管理理论与实践之间存在鸿沟的重要因素,填平这条沟壑只是理想,能做的只是减小这条沟壑,以及在这条沟壑上架起一座座桥梁。公共管理理论研究与其他许多社会科学研究的一个重要区别就是它与世俗权力意志有着密切的联系,在这种情况下研究者个人的兴趣、爱好和自由的思绪更显必要,它要求公共管理理论研究者必须有强烈的求真意志,应采取理性怀疑、开放视野、多元思考的态度,在探索中求知,在批判中学习。政策科学及公共政策分析得以迅速发展便是应上述这些理论和实践的诉求,体现着理论与实践的统一,要跨越公共管理理论与实践的鸿沟,还有许多工作亟待开拓和创造。     

The Study of Intelligence in Theory and Practice

The use of probability propositions is widespread in Intelligence estimation and strategic forecasts, as in everyday life. This paper attempts to give clear meaning to the use of probability statements for future strategic assessment. The first half presents possible interpretations in the philosophy of probability, while the second part applies the understandings of the first half to the Intelligence estimation process. A recommendation for a combination of ‘a priori’ interpretation of probability with a higher level of ‘relative frequency’ interpretation is the result of this paper.     

公共管理的理论基础与实践发展--由传统公共行政到公共管理研究之二

在公共管理模式形成的过程中,跨学科的综合研究为其提供了多视角的思考和复合性的理论基础;而现实中政府因面临种种治理危机所驱动的持续性政府改革浪潮,为公共管理模式发展提供了源源不断的广阔空间.尽管西方国家政府改革的浪潮仍在持续,公共管理理论研究的理论基础也在不断扩展,但公共管理对传统公共行政的取代,既是必然也是现实.     

政府解辩性责任的理论逻辑和实践途径

政府及其官员不仅必须为其行使权力的过错行为承担惩戒性责任,而且也必须积极回应民意,就其角色、地位、职权和行动及管辖范围内的事务等进行公开的解释、说明和辩护,履行＂解辩性＂责任。解辩性责任是民主责任的有机组成部分,是公民权利的必然要求,也是由政府及其官员特殊的身份、地位、职权及行动方式等决定的。解辩性责任缺失的原因复杂而又晦涩,既有历史的和现实的原因,也与解辩性责任的特殊要求密切相关。践行解辩性责任,需要树立解辩性责任的观念,尊重和回应民意,推进信息公开和透明,多做解释和说明,表明立场和态度,加强互动与沟通。     

城市群理论与都市圈理论比较

城市群理论和都市圈理论是关于中国城镇体系规划和区域经济组织形式的两个主要理论,但二者容易让人产生混淆。其实,这两种理论是关于区域经济发展的不同组织模式,其发展动力、发展定位和组织形态上存在很大的差异。对这两种理论的比较研究有益于我国城镇化进程和区域经济的发展。     

《德意志意识形态》:理论与实践的双重意蕴

《德意志意识形态》是体现马克思哲学变革的重要文本。在这本著作中,马克思确立了以生产逻辑为基础的历史唯物主义构架,这一构架特别体现在三个方面:一是社会存在决定社会意识,这为我们反思意识形态、实现社会历史批判提供了重要的理论基础;二是生产力的发展推动着社会历史的发展,特别是历史向世界历史转变,这为我们认识当代社会的走向,特别是全球化时代的社会走向提供了方法论指导;三是在生产力发展与世界历史格局的基础上,实现共产主义,这为社会发展确立了方向。重读《德意志意识形态》,不仅需要展现马克思哲学变革的内在逻辑,还要展现这一文本的历史意义。