Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban development

Recent contributions in the domains of governance and regulation elucidate the importance of rule‐intermediation (RI), the role that organizations adopt to bridge actors with regulatory or “rulemaking” roles and those with target or “rule‐taking” roles. Intermediation not only enables the diffusion and translation of regulatory norms, but also allows for the representation of different actors in policymaking arenas. While prior studies have explored the roles that such RIs adopt to facilitate their intermediation functions, we have yet to consider how field‐level structuring processes influence (and are influenced by) the various and changing roles adopted by RI. In this study we focus on the mutually constitutive relations between field‐level change processes and the evolving roles of RIs by studying the rise of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)/Local Governments for Sustainability, an RI serving as a bridge for sustainable urban development policies between the United Nations and local authorities. Using ICLEI as an illustrative case, we theorize four different processes of regulatory field structuration: problematization, role specialization, marketization, and orchestrated decentralization. We discuss their implications for RI roles in the field and further theorize the changing dynamics of trickle‐up intermediation processes as an RI gains power and influence.     

Unravelling the ‘devolution paradox’: Citizen preferences for self-rule and for shared rule

Recent survey research has revealed a ‘devolution paradox’: some citizens who favour stronger regional governments inconsistently desire policy uniformity across regions and state-wide intervention in policy provision. It is argued and empirically shown that preferences for regional authority can be broken down into preferences for self-rule – that is, for autonomy for the region – and for shared rule – that is, for collaboration between regional and national governments. Drawing upon the International Constitutional Values Survey, which includes 4,930 respondents from 142 regions in eight countries, it is also shown that preferences for self-rule and shared rule have different impacts. Preferences for self-rule translate into a preference for regional reform that strengthens regional autonomy, whereas preferences for shared rule drive preferences for fiscal transfers from richer to poorer regions. These results are important because they can explain why citizens who are in favour of more regional authority may support an apparently ‘paradoxical’ set of policy outcomes.     

日常生活理论视阈下幸福建设研究

日常生活理论视阈下探讨幸福建设有助于针对不同领域,理清不同主体的建设责任,采取针对性举措,并随着建设进程而逐步改变建设重点和内容。在日常生活领域,主要是满足群众日常消费、日常交往、日常休闲和日常观念等需要,而在非日常生活领域重点在于推进社会主义民主法治,以公共政策等引领和提升日常生活。     

论法治视角下的权力制约机制

权力,是指一定的组织和个人在一定的范围内依靠国家强制力所拥有的支配和指挥的能力和力量。人类政治发展史表明,作为一种社会客观现象,权力在给人类带来巨大利益的同时,也给社会造成过深重的灾难。究其原因在于权力的运行是否受到了合理有效的制约。因此,完善权力制约机制是进一步走向现代政治文明和建设法治国家的必由之路。     

国际法治视野中的反腐败

国际社会在反腐败方面进行了大量的努力,通过了《联合国反腐败公约》。这一公约是国际法的一个重要的进步,体现着国际法内容的拓展、印证着国际法界定方式的转变、昭示着国家主权观念的更新。但在国际法治的视角下,也存在着条文弱化、操作性不强的问题,有待于通过进一步的努力予以强化。     

重温形式理性法律的特质——韦伯视野及当代价值

韦伯认为直至现代资本主义阶段,形式合理性法律开始形成并成为最具合理性的法律形态。韦伯视野中的形式理性法律具有权威性、确定性、平等性、自治性、专业性、合法性等特质。总结、重温和厉行这些形式理性法律特质,对于我国当下经济建设和法治建设都具有重要的启发价值。     

论侦查程序的法治原则

侦查工作的基本原则包括侦查活动的技术原则和侦查程序与行为的法治原则,由于我国长期以来将侦查活动视为目的理性的活动,理论上和实践中只重视侦查活动的技术性原则的研究与使用,以最大限度地达到侦查的目的。然而,在现代法治社会,经过长期的论争与选择,侦查程序不仅要符合目的理性,更要符合价值理性,侦查程序与行为的法治化是其价值理性的必然要求,确立侦查程序的法治原则,目的在于从法治的角度确保侦查行为的有效性、正当性、合法性,它应当是惩罚犯罪与保障人权、实体真实与程序公正、正义与效率等各种价值高度协调的结果。     

论法治与法制的区别

法治与法制是两个不同的法律概念,在当代,建设社会主义法制国家早已成为我们国家的基本方针与政策。本文将通过对法治与法制概念的介绍,深入浅出的对其进行比较与分析,从而使得读者对其有进一步的认识。     

官场“潜规则”的表现、成因及对策

近年来,官场"潜规则"在中国日益盛行、泛滥猖獗,激发了群众不满和社会担忧。作为政治瘟疫,官场"潜规则"与我党性质和宗旨格格不入。它败坏党风、毒害民风,使政治民主进程受损、政策法律贯彻不力,严重危害社会秩序和党的执政安全,需全党高度警惕并采取强力措施进行抵制。     

法家思想与法治建设

法家思想作为我国传统文化的一部分,在我国法制史上占有重要的地位。法家思想的主张也是想要建设一种法治社会,当然这种法治是一种最低层次的法治。法家思想对处于社会转型时期、建设法治中国的当下是有着重大的意义与启发的,如对功利主义思想的警惕、对法秩序的追求等等。