Network structure and collaborative innovation processes—A comparative analysis of two elderly service networks in Shanghai

How does the structure of government‐funded service networks affect the process of service innovation? We have conducted a comparative analysis of the structure and processes of collaborative innovation of 2 government‐funded community‐based elderly service networks in Shanghai. We have found that in consistent with the literature, a network that has a network administrative organization structure is better able to manage the process of service innovation in a way that balances the need to achieve government policy goals on the one hand and the imperative to facilitate bottom‐up citizen participation on the other. Surprisingly, contrary to what prior studies have suggested, we have found that a network in which a lead organization plays a dominant role, despite its more centralized process of service innovation, is often able to deliver a variety of high‐quality and low‐cost services addressing citizens' needs. With the leadership provided by the network lead organization and its close affiliation with the street‐office government, the network has been able to solicit government support. Such a hierarchical yet responsive state‐society relation has emerged as a result of the coalescence of a corporatist state legacy and an increasing pressure for local governments to seek citizens' support in service delivery.     

New Thinking in Financial Market Regulation: Dismantling the “Split Share Structure” of Chinese Listed Companies

China’s distinctive set of stock market institutions was introduced in 1990. Among the characteristics of China’s stock markets was a strict separation between different categories of investors. Listed companies issued different categories of shares to state shareholders, domestic corporate investors, domestic individual investors, and foreign investors. By 2005, the barriers segmenting China’s stock market had been significantly relaxed. Domestic investors were allowed to purchase shares previously reserved for foreign investors, and approved foreign investors were allowed to purchase shares previously earmarked for domestic individuals. Nevertheless, a crucial barrier remained. An ongoing debate among Chinese academics, investors, and policy makers focused on how to resolve the “split share structure” (guquan fen zhi) in which a minority of shares were tradable while the majority of shares (namely those reserved for domestic corporate and state shareholders) were excluded from the market. The split share structure was blamed for distorting prices and inhibiting development of the stock market. This paper analyzes the policy adopted to address the split share structure. To what extent does this policy change reflect new thinking on the part of China’s market regulators? This paper argues that analysis of policy making in China’s capital markets can help to distinguish between two competing assessments of China’s political economy. One account sees China pursuing a gradualist strategy, slowly but steadily expanding the role of markets. Another account sees China trapped in a semi-marketized and increasingly corrupt development pattern. The implementation of the split share structure reform program provides evidence to support the gradualist account of incremental, but persistent, reform. Mary Comerford Cooper is an assistant professor in political science at the Ohio State University. Her recent research focuses on the politics of financial markets in China and Taiwan. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Comparative Politics Research Workshop/ Globalization, Institutions and Economic Security Workshop at Ohio State University in May 2007, and at the annual meeting of the Association for Chinese Political Studies in July 2007. I benefited greatly from the constructive and insightful comments of Bj?rn Alpermann, Melanie Barr, Jean-Marc Blanchard, Sarah Brooks, Joseph Fewsmith, Sujian Guo, Dane Imerman, Ryan Kennedy, Marcus Kurtz, Xiaoyu Pu, James Reilly, Alex Thompson, Daniel Verdier, Jianwei Wang, Alan Wiseman, Bin Yu, and an anonymous reviewer. I am also grateful for Lan Hu’s exceptional research assistance. All remaining flaws are purely my own.     

刑事程序性上诉的若干问题研究

程序性上诉是一种重要的程序制裁与救济机制,主要包括程序性上诉的模式、程序性上诉的提起、程序性上诉的审理程序、程序性上诉的裁判方式等方面的内容。程序性上诉有三种模式,其中二审实行事实与法律审之事后审、三审实行法律审之事后审是较为普遍采用的模式;程序性上诉提起的基本要求是必须明确上诉理由,但该要求需与辩护制度衔接起来,否则会变相地剥夺当事人的上诉权;程序性上诉审以上诉理由为审判对象,以庭审笔录为调查基础,以开庭审理为原则;发回重审是主要的程序性裁判方式,但只有严重影响程序公正和实体公正的程序错误,才会导致发回重审。     

虚假诉讼的模型化识别及防范治理——基于诉讼结构的视角

民事诉讼领域里虚假诉讼所涉及的诉讼结构主体,包括原被告、审判方以及关联方:监督方、律师、受害第三者。虚假诉讼原告的直接目的是取得法院生效的民事判决或调解书,最终目的是为自己谋取不正当的利益;虚假诉讼标的基本表现为财产权纠纷;虚假诉讼缺乏真实意义上的诉讼理由。虚假诉讼内涵的七大识别点,显露于构筑其模型的各要素及其相互关系中。防范与治理虚假诉讼,要通过立法与制度,规范诉讼主体、审判方和律师,加强检察机关对虚假诉讼的监督,健全对受害第三者的救济。     

中国经济发展态势和调整转型——2013年第1季度宏观经济分析

今年1季度中国GDP增长7.7%,工业增加值增长9.5%,CPI上涨2.4%,与希望回升的预期相反,均比上年同期和上季度要低,但增长回落正是经济调整转型之机。M2余额超过百万亿元,不能仅从货币政策操作考察是否存在货币超发,而要深入一步,看看政府投资创造货币的特殊机制。房地产调控中的博弈,一方面说明政策设计存在缺陷;另一方面也与特殊的货币创造机制有关。撤销铁道部,组建铁路总公司,实现了组织机构上的政企分离,但经济上仍合在一起。以债务处理为契机,明晰产权安排和经营责任,进一步推进铁路改革。     

经济发达地区福利结构差异的政治经济分析——以辽宁、浙江和广东三省为例

1994年中国分税制改革后不同区域的福利水平和福利模式逐渐趋异。例如,辽宁省在财政支出中社会保障类福利支出较高而教育类福利支出较低,浙江省的教育福利类支出较高而社会保障类支出较低,广东省对于这两类福利支出的比例都偏低。福利支出结构的差异源自于这三个省份不同的经济发展模式和政商关系。作为理性行为者的地方官员,为了推进地区GDP(晋升指标)增长和扩大税收,会在福利支出的结构上跟随当地主体类型企业的福利偏好。     

基于分形理论的东南亚旅华客流空间结构演变研究

本文以1999～2010年东南亚旅华游客人次统计为样本，运用分形理论研究了东南亚旅华客流空间结构的演变及其影响因素。结果表明：东南亚旅华客流空间结构分布具有分形特征，1999～2010年间各年无标度区范围呈逐步扩大趋势，分形结构产生由局部分形→单分形→局部分形→双分形的发展变化。危机事件、旅游资源禀赋差异和区位因素是东南亚旅华客流空间结构演变的主要影响因素。     

服务型政府——职能结构体系及其构建

20世纪70年代末以来,世界性行政改革浪潮引发了服务型政府理论的探讨,为我国行政改革提供了借鉴意义。服务型政府的讨论是我国学者借鉴西方行政话语体系,结合我国的实际情况,提出的一种改革模式,随后关于服务型政府的模式构建、服务型政府体系、服务型政府的实践总结等研究探索相继展开。服务型政府体系应当是一个政府各部分目标一致、相互协调、运转灵活、解决问题高效的体系,而职能结构是服务型政府体系的构成要素之一,是政府改革的起点,它涉及服务型政府职能结构的划分与配置等。     

全面提高党的建设科学化水平的逻辑路线

充分认识“全面提高党的建设科学化水平”的逻辑路线，是新时期把握党的建设重要任务的基本要求。全面提高党的建设科学化水平，是一个有着内在联系的有机整体，实现中华民族的伟大复兴是其终极目标，确保党始终成为中国特色社会主义事业的坚强核心是其根本要求，对党的建设进行整体布局和规划是其关键环节，对党的建设进行重点部署是其主要抓手和落脚点。这是一个逐渐深入、层层递进的关系。     

法律制度创新的三维度论——社会科学视角下的探寻

当今世界结构下的法律制度创新虽然无可避免地受到各国自身国情的影响,但法律制度本身的结构模式及制度创新范畴却是可以界定的。我国法律制度创新自晚清以来带有强烈的救世情怀,而法律制度的三重结构及制度创新的三维度论正是对这种附加情怀进行一种合理化协调,是对法律制度和制度创新的理论还原。基于此,我们提出了政治——政策体系创新、价值——道德观念创新和规范——技术模式创新等三维创新理论,以期全方位多角度地对法律制度创新进行新的认识。