治理研究的多重价值和多维实践——知识发展脉络中的冲突与平衡

Multiple Values and Multi-dimensional Practices of Governance——Conflict and Balance in the Context of Knowledge Development

治理作为20世纪末期以来社会科学研究的重要主题,已经获得研究者和实践者的广泛关注,但治理研究内在的价值维度和实践维度之间的冲突并未得到充分审视。首先,在概念层面,治理到底是"空洞符号"还是无所不包的"伞状术语"导致的概念解读危机和"概念驱动型"研究,弱化了治理理论的实践意义;其次,治理多样性的价值取向和实践目标路径的最佳模式导向之间的分歧,使得一刀切的典范方案和简单以发达国家为镜,难以达到治理改善的目标;最后,对治理内部要素的优先层次及治理实践中的政府角色缺乏共识,特别是实践中如何基于治理成本和难易程度的先后顺序对治理实践客体进行干预缺乏指导性方案。本文尝试超越上述研究中的价值之争和实践之争,将有限的政府资源和研究聚焦到政府的底线责任和治理实践的兜底方案设计中,避免"治理研究的功能主义谬论",进而从全球视野和中国情景来理解中国治理的实践特征,为未来中国国家治理研究和实践经验总结提供更全面的学理支撑。

Governance,as an important topic of social science since the end of the 20 th century,has received extensive attention from researchers and policy makers,but the conflict between the intrinsic value and practice dimensions of governance has not been fully examined.Firstly,at the conceptual perspective,whether governance is a"empty symbol"or an all-encompassing"umbrella term"causes a crisis of conceptual interpretation and the"concept-driven"research,which weakens the significance of governance theory.What’s more,the divergence between the value-orientation of governance diversity and the best-model-orientation of the path goals makes it difficult to achieve the expectations of governance improvement with a one-size-fits-all plan and simply taking developed countries as a mirror.Finally,there is a lack of consensus on the priority level of governance elements and the government’s role in practices,especially how to intervene in governance objects based on the order of cost and the difficulty.This paper attempts to go beyond the disputes of value and practice in the abovementioned research,focusing limited government resources and research on the government’s responsibilities and programs,avoiding the"functionalist fallacy of governance research",and then understanding the characteristics of Chinese governance with a global vision and China scenarios,so that it can provide a more comprehensive academic support for China’s governance experience.