农村流动人口与城市社会安全：理论命题和政策建议

中国的乡村居民向都市地区的大规模跨区迁移,已经成为 20世纪 80年代以来中国社会中最引人瞩目的结构性社会变迁力量。在这一力量所引发的诸多社会后果之中,一个普遍的担忧,就是农村流动人口大规模迁入城市,极有可能导致城市社会治安状况的恶化。本文针对这一人口学动态对城市社会安全的可能影响程度和影响机制,提炼出一些有研究潜力的自变量组,进行理论命题的阐述,并解释这些命题背后潜在的政策含义。     

转型期我国城市居民社会资本的建构

改革开放使得传统城市居民社会资本不可避免地丧失，因此有必要建构适应社会转型的具有现代意义的城市居民社会资本。城市居民社会资本可分为个人关系资本和社区网络资本。对现阶段我国城市居民社会资本缺失的现状进行分析，透视转型时期我国城市居民社会资本的特征，社区建设可作为我国城市居民社会资本建构行之有效的路径选择。为此，要分别从政府、社区自治组织以及居民个体的角度探讨城市居民社会资本的动态形成机制，揭示我国城市居民社会资本建构所要达到的目标，从而建构具有中国特色的现代性城市居民社会资本。     

论暴力拆迁的法律责任

从法律上讲,房屋暴力拆迁行为已经构成犯罪或违法,应当依法予以严惩。我国《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》确认了暴力拆迁行为的法律责任。本文认为,对于暴力拆迁行为,应当按照宪法与法律的相关规定追究其刑事责任、行政责任和民事责任等。要保障暴力拆迁行为法律责任的实现,有必要转变执法观念、强化国家机关的不作为责任,明确司法机关适用法律优先的权力。     

统筹城乡发展与地方政府——基于浙江省长兴县的研究

统筹城乡发展、建设新农村是全面贯彻落实科学发展观、构建和谐社会的重要内容和途径。其中,政府必须扮演关键性的角色,而在各级政府中,县级政府又负有最直接的责任。浙江省长兴县统筹城乡发展、建设新农村的基本经验是:政府必须承担统筹城乡发展、建设新农村的主要责任,通过建立领导机制、政府体制创新等有效地整合资源、制订规划、组织实施;政府必须在建设农村基础设施、治理和保护农村自然环境、建立健全医疗、养老等农民社会保障体系、支持农业生产、发展教育事业等方面发挥关键性作用;政府必须尊重市场规律,重视社会力量,尊重农民的主体地位、首创精神和权利,形成政府、企业、社会三者之间互补、合作的良好格局,合力解决实际进程中的困难;政府必须因地制宜,因时制宜,制订并实施基于当地现实、适应当地现实、全面、渐进解决当地现实问题的公共政策。     

城市建设协调发展问题浅析

在全球化和城市化深入推进的趋势下,城市建设协调发展问题越来越需要引起人们的注意。用哲学的观点去认识和把握城市建设发展,对城市建设发展问题进行认真分析,梳理总结城市建设发展的基本规律,并就如何在科学发展观的指导下加快城市建设协调发展进行探讨具有十分重要的意义。     

电子政务、市民特征与用户信息行为——基于天津市市民调查的实证研究

电子政务如何更好地满足不同用户的需求,业已成为当前中国电子政务研究的重点方向。在理论上,本研究首先将中国电子政务的所有服务分为三大类:"电子学习""电子行政"和"电子参与",然后对用户的性别、年龄、教育背景、职业等个人特征与其信息行为偏好之间的相关关系提出了一系列理论假设;在实证上,于2006年进行了针对天津市城市居民政府网站使用情况的问卷调查,对中国电子政务的用户特征及其信息行为偏好之间一系列理论假设进行了检验。实证研究表明,用户对政府网站服务功能的选择性使用所呈现的差异,是由用户身份特征的差异性和政府网站建设的局限性两个方面决定的。根据研究结论,提出了一系列提高政府网站的使用率、减少网络用户为获得政府信息和服务所需的时间和精力的投入、提高登录政府网站用户的满意度等方面的政策建议。     

New urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods

Abstract

New Urbanism has been described as the most influential movement in architecture and planning in the United States since the Modernist movement. In recent years, New Urbanist design principles have been adopted for many housing and neighborhood planning efforts. This article considers the applications and implications of New Urbanism for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods. Claims and criticisms of New Urbanism are examined and the long‐standing debates over the extent to which physical planning and design can affect human behavior are revisited.

The article concludes that New Urbanism is not a panacea, but that its design principles are consistent with broader policies aimed at revitalizing and improving living conditions and opportunities for inner‐city residents. New Urbanism needs to be viewed as one strategy to be integrated within the larger array of economic, social, and community development programs attempting to revitalize and improve the quality of life in inner‐city neighborhoods.     

Comment on Charles C. Bohl's “new urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods”

Abstract

This article argues that distressed neighborhoods greatly benefit from New Urbanist design. New Urbanists have been rebuilding distressed neighborhoods for years, and New Urbanism's mix of architecture, planning, and public policy offers inner‐city neighborhoods the best set of tools available to improve the quality of life for their residents. Principles based on flexibility and absolute rejection of formula allow New Urbanism to offer solutions for a broad range of situations.     

Comment on Dowell Myers and Elizabeth Gearin's “current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments”

Abstract

New construction reflects demand for housing that cannot be met by existing stock. Although a change in the overall preference for denser residential environments could have a disproportionate impact on the characteristics of new homes, it is not clear that changing demographics or changing tastes will call for such a change.     

The myth of social capital in community development

Abstract

This article argues that contemporary interest in social capital by community development theorists, funders, and practitioners is misguided and needs to be thoroughly rethought. It argues that social capital, as understood by Robert Putnam and people influenced by his work, is a fundamentally flawed concept because it fails to understand issues of power in the production of communities and because it is divorced from economic capital. Therefore, community development practice based on this understanding of social capital is, and will continue to be, similarly flawed.

The article further argues that instead of Putnam's understanding of social capital, community development practice would be better served by returning to the way the concept was used by Glenn Loury and Pierre Bourdieu and concludes with a discussion of how these alternative theories of social capital can be realized in community development practice.