期刊文献+

政策过程概念框架重构下的政策评价维度识别与应用 被引量:8

Recognition and Application of Policy Evaluation Dimensions based on the Reconstruction of the Conceptual Framework of the Policy Process
下载PDF
导出
摘要 阶段式政策过程概念框架下的政策制定预评价、政策执行评价和绩效评估构成了当前我国政策评价的主要内容。这种政策过程视角侧重于在时间进程上描述和解释政策运行的状态,但无法进一步揭示政策的本质和运行机理,故而建立在阶段式政策概念框架下的政策评价理论体系指导实践的能力不强。融入价值、行为属性的控制性政策过程概念框架是在借鉴联盟博弈、民主协商等国外最新政策过程理念基础上、立足于我国政治体制现状提出的本土化政策过程理论。它分解为三个子过程,每个子过程可以识别出政策评价的一个维度。研究各个维度上的关键评价内容及不同维度之间的联系对于我国科学政策评价体系的构建具有重要意义。 Policy formulation pre-evaluation, policy implementation evaluation and performance evaluation are the main contents of the current policy evaluation framework in our country. This evaluation framework which is based on the stage heuristic conceptual framework of the policy process lacks sufficient capacity to guide practice because the traditional ways of understanding the policy process focus on the description and explanation of the policy running state but can' t further show the essence and operation mechanism of the policy. Regulatory policy process conceptual framework integrated into value and behavior attributes can be divided into three sub-process. Each sub-process can identify a dimension of policy evaluation. The research of each dimension' s key evaluation content and the relationship between different dimensions is great significant to the construction of science policy evaluation system in our country.
出处 《理论学刊》 CSSCI 北大核心 2015年第10期90-97,共8页 Theory Journal
关键词 政策过程 政策评价 政策科学 治理现代化 policy process policy evaluation policy science management modernization
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献65

  • 1US Federal Government. FY2004 Budget. p47,p51, p51.
  • 2This Argument Came from the Author' s Interviews with Former OMB Experts Robert Shea and John Kamenskey.
  • 3Statement of Jeffrey D. Zients, Before the Budget Committee United States Senate, Oct. 29, 2009. http://www. whitehouse, gov/omb/legislative _ testimony _ default/.
  • 4Statement of Jeffrey D. Zients, Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, September 24, 2009. The Author Presented in this Hearing. http://www, whitehouse, gov/omb/legis- lative testimony default/.
  • 5Vassia Gueorguieva, Jean Accius et al.. The Program Assessment Rating Tool and the Government Performance and Result Act: Evaluating Conflicts and Disconnections. The American Review of Public Administration, Volume 39, Number 3, May 2009.
  • 6Patton M Q. The evaluator's responsibility for utiliza-tion[J]. Evaluation Practice, 1988,9:5 - 24.
  • 7David W, Chapman, Roger A. Boothroyd. Evaluation dilemmas: Conducting evaluation studies in developing countries[J]. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1988, 11(1):37 - 42.
  • 8Levine R A. Program evaluation and policy analysis in western nations: An overview[AJ. Levine R A, Solo-mon M A, Hellstern G - M, W ollmann H. Evaluation Research and Practice[C]. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1981 : 27 - 60.
  • 9Weiss C H. Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness[EB/OL]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice - Hall, 1972. http://www.cridlac. org/digitali-zacion/pdf/engldoc345/doc345 - contenido. pdf. 2010 - 11 - 22/2012 - 09 - 30.
  • 10Riecken H W, Boruch R F. Social experiments[J] . An-nual Review of Sociology, 1978, 4 :511 - 532.

共引文献35

同被引文献129

引证文献8

二级引证文献38

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部