中国碳达峰碳中和的政策路径——基于扎根理论和制度语法学的双重分析

Pathways of China’s carbon peak and carbon neutrality policies:a dual analysis using grounded theory and the institutional grammar tool

全球气候变暖正逐渐演变为影响人类未来发展的严重危机。作为世界第二大经济体,中国积极参与全球气候治理,提出将在2030年前碳达峰,2060年前实现碳中和,并陆续出台“1+N”“双碳”政策体系。该研究通过两种典型的质性研究方法——扎根理论和制度语法学,对23份共计16万余字,来自中共中央、国务院及相关部委和省份颁布的“双碳”政策文本进行解码与分析,廓析中国“双碳”政策路径的要素结构和功能轮廓,厘定不同政策路径下的组态结构和规制强度。通过扎根理论研究发现中国“双碳”政策路径已然十分全面完整,其中:行政机制下的政策路径包括高能耗高排放产业管控、法规与标准体系、重点行业降碳治理、能耗总量与强度控制(双控)、生态碳汇;市场机制下的政策路径包括循环经济发展、能源转型发展、碳排放权交易市场、绿色金融发展、绿色转型发展。制度语法学分析结果表明:“双碳”政策路径以ADIC规范性陈述为主(177个,占比52%),其次是AIC策略性陈述(130个,占比38%),而ADICO规则性陈述最少,仅33个,占比10%。实现“双碳”目标面临时间紧、任务重的双重压力,ADICO的制度语法结构是最理想的政策陈述范式,因为该结构的政策规制强度更大,也更容易实现其治理效能。毫无疑问,政策规制是有效缓解“双碳”治理压力的重要抓手,更是确保实现“双碳”治理效能的确证性手段。政策规制主要面向高耗能高排放为代表的工业领域,依托自上而下的科层制组织,以政治动员和行政法令为手段,推进高碳领域的“双碳”治理。通过进一步构建“双碳”政策规制机制的理论框架,按照规制强度将“双碳”治理分为“强制性治理”和“柔性治理”,提出两种“双碳”治理范式背后的底层逻辑正是行政机制下的科层动员和市场机制下的资源配置。同时,随着未来“双碳”目标的逐步实现及碳排放与经济发展的逐渐脱钩,治理逻辑需要从“强制性治理”逐步转向“柔性治理”,从“行政科层制动员”转为“市场资源均衡配置”。

Global warming is evolving into a crisis affecting the future of humanity.As the world’s second largest economy,China is actively involved in global climate governance,proposing to achieve the goals of reaching peak carbon emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060,and has successively introduced the corresponding‘1+N’policy system.This paper attempts to interpret and analyze 23 policy texts relevant to the achievement of the goals with over 160000 characters from the CPC Central Committee,the State Council,and relevant ministries and provinces through two typical qualitative research methods-ground theory and institutional grammar tool,to outline the elemental structure and functional profile of the pathways of China’s carbon peak and carbon neutrality policies,and to clarify the group structure and regulation intensity of different policy pathways.Based on grounded theory,it is found that these pathways are already very comprehensive and complete.Among them,the policy pathways under the administrative mechanism include:high energy consumption and high emission industrial control;regulations and standards systems;carbon reduction governance in key industries;control over the amount and intensity of energy consumption;and carbon absorption capacity of ecosystems.The policy pathways under the market mechanism include circular economy development;energy transformation development;cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions;green finance development;and green transformation development.The results of institutional grammar tool research show that relevant policy pathways are dominated by ADIC normative condition statements(177,accounting for 52%),followed by AIC strategy statements(130,accounting for 38%),while ADICO rule-based statements are the least,with only 33,accounting for 10%.Given the pressure of time constraints and heavy tasks to achieve the goals,ADICO’s institutional grammar structure is the most desirable policy statement paradigm because it is more intense in its policy regulation,and it is easier to achieve its governance effectiveness.Undoubtedly,policy regulation is an important tool to effectively alleviate the pressure of the governance of the goals and to ensure the effectiveness of such governance.Policy regulation mainly focuses on the industrial sector with high energy consumption and high emissions,relying on top-down hierarchical organization and using political mobilization and administrative decrees as means to promote governance in the high carbon emission sector.By further constructing a theoretical framework of regulation mechanisms,relevant governance paradigms are classified as‘mandatory governance’and‘flexible governance’according to the intensity of regulation.It is found that the underlying logic behind these two paradigms is precisely the mobilization of the administrative mechanism and the allocation of resources under the market mechanism.Simultaneously,with the gradual achievement of the goals and the gradual decoupling of carbon emissions from economic development,the governance logic should gradually shift from‘mandatory governance’to‘flexible governance,’and from‘administrative hierarchical mobilization’to‘balanced allocation of market resources’.