价值冲突的演化逻辑与路径——一个地方政府绩效评价语境的诠释
|
摘要
自政府绩效评价兴起之日起,其价值冲突问题就如达摩克利斯之剑悬在学者和实践者心间。价值冲突并非一经形成就亘古不变,而是随着时间和情境的变化呈现出动态性,从而愈发难以治理。为了更好地理解价值冲突的升级与转化,文章运用扎根理论,以四川省资中县政府为调研对象,探究地方政府绩效评价的价值冲突演化逻辑与路径。研究发现:价值冲突演化的内生逻辑缘于公共资源稀缺、组织自利性和指标设计的技术与能力障碍,在引发价值目标置换和价值供给能力缺失的基础上,导致的价值供求冲突;价值冲突演化的外生逻辑则是因为信息不对称导致的群体刻板印象使得价值认知分歧越发严重,再加之互动机制缺失,其结果致价值共识缺乏,从而引发价值取向冲突。正是在价值冲突演化内外生逻辑的合力作用下,地方政府绩效评价的价值冲突演化路径呈现出在价值供求冲突与价值取向冲突间的反复循环特征。
Since the birth of government performance evaluation,the value conflicts just like the sword of Damocles,has been suspended in the scholars and practitioners' heart.Value conflicts are not constant as they are formed,but are dynamic as time and context change,which makes them more difficult to manage.To better understand the upgrading and transformation of value conflicts,this article uses the rooted theory to investigate the value conflict evolution logic and path of local government performance evaluation with the Zizhong County Government of Sichuan Province as the research object.It is found that the endogenous logic of the evolution of value conflicts is due to the scarcity of public resources,the self-interest of organizational and the design of technology and capacity barriers,which leads to the conflict of value supply and demand based on the replacement of value objectives and lacks of value supply capacity.The exogenous logic of the evolution of value conflict is because the group stereotype caused by information asymmetry makes the value cognition divergence more serious,and the lack of interaction mechanism,the lack of consensus on the value of the result,which leads to the conflict of value orientation.It is precisely under the combined effect of exogenous logic in the evolution of value conflicts that the evolution path of value conflicts in local government performance evaluation presents repeated cycles of conflicts between value supply and demand conflicts and value orientation conflicts.
Since the birth of government performance evaluation,the value conflicts just like the sword of Damocles,has been suspended in the scholars and practitioners' heart.Value conflicts are not constant as they are formed,but are dynamic as time and context change,which makes them more difficult to manage.To better understand the upgrading and transformation of value conflicts,this article uses the rooted theory to investigate the value conflict evolution logic and path of local government performance evaluation with the Zizhong County Government of Sichuan Province as the research object.It is found that the endogenous logic of the evolution of value conflicts is due to the scarcity of public resources,the self-interest of organizational and the design of technology and capacity barriers,which leads to the conflict of value supply and demand based on the replacement of value objectives and lacks of value supply capacity.The exogenous logic of the evolution of value conflict is because the group stereotype caused by information asymmetry makes the value cognition divergence more serious,and the lack of interaction mechanism,the lack of consensus on the value of the result,which leads to the conflict of value orientation.It is precisely under the combined effect of exogenous logic in the evolution of value conflicts that the evolution path of value conflicts in local government performance evaluation presents repeated cycles of conflicts between value supply and demand conflicts and value orientation conflicts.
引文
[1]蓝志勇,胡税根:《中国政府绩效评估:理论与实践》,《政治学研究》2008年第3期,。
[2]马宝成:《试论政府绩效评估的价值取向》,《中国行政管理》2001年第5期。
[3]金东日,李松林:《地方政府绩效评估困境三维分析》,《理论与改革》2012年第3期。
[4]倪星,余凯:《试论中国政府绩效评估制度的创新》,《政治学研究》2004年第3期。
[5]彭国甫:《中国绩效评估研究的现状及展望》,《中国行政管理》2006年第11期。
[6]Rosenbloom,D.H.Beyond Efficiency:Value Frameworks for Public Administration.Chinese Public Administration Review,2017,8(1):37-45.
[7]Fountain,J.E.Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service.Governance,2001,14(1):55-73.
[8]Jennings,E.T.Social Equity and the Performance Measurement Systems of American States.Paper Presented at the Conference on A Performing Public Sector:The Second TransAtlantic Dialogue,Leuven,Belgium,2006.
[9]De Graaf,G.The Bright Future of Value Pluralism in Public Administration.Administration&Society,2015,47(9):1094-1102.
[10]Nieuwenburg,P.The agony of choice:Isaiah Berlin and the phenomenology of conflict.Administration&Society,2004,35(6):683-700.
[11]Spicer,M.W.Value Conflict and Legal Reasoning in Public Administration.Administrative Theory&Praxis,2009,31(4):537-555.
[12]Heckman,J.,Heinrich,C.&Smith,J.Assessing the Performance of Performance Standards in Public Bureaucracies.The American Economic Review,1997,87(2):389-395.
[13]Jacobs,K.&Manzi,T.Evaluating the Social Constructionist Paradigm in Housing Research.Housing,Theory and Society,2000,17(1):35-42.
[14][39]孙斐,赵晓军:《价值协同:一个新的地方政府绩效评价价值冲突成因》,《公共行政评论》2016年第2期。
[15][21]孙斐:《地方政府绩效评价的价值冲突成因》,《领导科学论坛》2016年第21期。
[16]Moore,M.Creating Public Value:Strategic Management in Government.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1995.
[17]Grandy,C.The“Efficient”Public Administrator:Pareto and a Well-Rounded Approach to Public Administration.Public Administration Review,2009,69(6):1115-1123.
[18]Rhodes,R.A.W.Understanding Governance:Policy Networks,Governance,Reflexivity and Accountability.Buckingham:Open University Press,1997.
[19]Johnsen,A.Implementation Mode and Local Government Performance Measurement:A Norwegian Experience.Financial Accountability&Management,1999,15(1):41-66.
[20]Klijn,E-H.Trust in Governance Networks:Looking for Conditions for Innovative Solutions and Outcomes.In Osborne,S.P.Eds.The New Public Governance:Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance.London&New York:Routledge,2010.
[22]De Graaf,G.,Huberts,Leo.&Smulders,R.Coping With Public Value Conflicts.Administration&Society,2016,48(9):1101-1127.
[23]Lukes,S.Making sense of moral conflict.In N.L.Rosenbloom(Ed.),Liberalism and the moral life.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1989.
[24]刘文杰,朱桂龙:《责任式创新的多过程理论框架:价值冲突转化链》,《科学学研究》2018年第3期。
[25]常建,金瑞:《论公共冲突过程中摇言的作用、传播与防控》,《天津社会科学(公共政策研究)》2010年第6期。
[26]陈向明:《扎根理论的思路和方法》,《教育研究与实验》1999年第4期。
[27]李志刚:《扎根理论方法在科学研究中的运用分析》,《东方论坛》2007年第4期。
[28]Devaus,D.Research Design in Social Research.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage Publications Inc,2001.
[29]Berlin,I.Against the current.New York:Penguin Books,1982:69.
[30]De Graaf,G.&Paanakker,H.Good Governance:Performance Values and Procedural Values in Conflict.American Review of Public Administration,2015,45(6):635-652.
[31][38]Spicer,M.W.Value Pluralism and Its Implications for American Public Administration.Administrative Theory&Praxis,2001,23(4):507-528.
[32]王学军,韩志青:《从测量到治理:构建公共价值创造的整合分析模型》,《上海行政学院学报》2017年第6期。
[33]De Graaf,G.,&Van der Wal,Z.Managing conflicting public values:Governing with integrity and effectiveness.American Review of Public Administration,2010,40(6):623-630.
[34]Bovens,M.A.P.,‘t Hart,P.,&Van Twist,M.J.W.Openbaar bestuur.Beleid,organisatie en politiek[Public Governance.Policy,Organization and Politics].Dordrecht,The Netherlands:Kluwer,2007.
[35]Thacher,D.,&Rein,R.Managing value conflict in public policy.Governance,2004,17(4):457-486.
[36]Berlin,I.The crooked timber of humanity.New York:Vintage Books,1992.
[37]Andersen,L.B.,J?rgensen,T.B.,Kjeldsen,A.M.,Pedersen,L.H.&Vrangb?k,K.Public Values and Public Service Motivation:Conceptual and Empirical Relationships.The American Review of Public Administration,2012,43(3):292-311.
[40][瑞士]皮亚杰:《发生认识论原理》,王宪钿等译,商务印书馆1981年版,第3-10页。
[41][美]谢里尔·西姆拉尔·金,卡米拉·斯蒂福斯:《民有政府:反政府时代的公共管理》,中央编译出版社2010年版,第140页。
[42]Rosenbloom,D.H.Beyond Efficiency:Value Frameworks for Public Administration.Chinese Public Administration Review,2017,8(1):37-46.
(1)文章是在《地方政府绩效评价的价值冲突成因》一文的基础上,不断拓展研究内容形成的。
(1)Steenhuisen&Van Eeten(2008)认为,那些实施政策的公务员要比制定政策的官员更易感知到价值冲突。县级政府在我国府际关系中扮演政策执行者的角色,再加之它们与公众距离更近,互动更为频繁。因此,选择县级政府作为案例对象。
(1)本文对不同类型的受访者按照其英文字母缩写编码,将县级领导班子成员、县级各职能部门分管领导、职能部门一线员工和职能部门服务对象分别编码为cl、dl、fls和so。
[2]马宝成:《试论政府绩效评估的价值取向》,《中国行政管理》2001年第5期。
[3]金东日,李松林:《地方政府绩效评估困境三维分析》,《理论与改革》2012年第3期。
[4]倪星,余凯:《试论中国政府绩效评估制度的创新》,《政治学研究》2004年第3期。
[5]彭国甫:《中国绩效评估研究的现状及展望》,《中国行政管理》2006年第11期。
[6]Rosenbloom,D.H.Beyond Efficiency:Value Frameworks for Public Administration.Chinese Public Administration Review,2017,8(1):37-45.
[7]Fountain,J.E.Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service.Governance,2001,14(1):55-73.
[8]Jennings,E.T.Social Equity and the Performance Measurement Systems of American States.Paper Presented at the Conference on A Performing Public Sector:The Second TransAtlantic Dialogue,Leuven,Belgium,2006.
[9]De Graaf,G.The Bright Future of Value Pluralism in Public Administration.Administration&Society,2015,47(9):1094-1102.
[10]Nieuwenburg,P.The agony of choice:Isaiah Berlin and the phenomenology of conflict.Administration&Society,2004,35(6):683-700.
[11]Spicer,M.W.Value Conflict and Legal Reasoning in Public Administration.Administrative Theory&Praxis,2009,31(4):537-555.
[12]Heckman,J.,Heinrich,C.&Smith,J.Assessing the Performance of Performance Standards in Public Bureaucracies.The American Economic Review,1997,87(2):389-395.
[13]Jacobs,K.&Manzi,T.Evaluating the Social Constructionist Paradigm in Housing Research.Housing,Theory and Society,2000,17(1):35-42.
[14][39]孙斐,赵晓军:《价值协同:一个新的地方政府绩效评价价值冲突成因》,《公共行政评论》2016年第2期。
[15][21]孙斐:《地方政府绩效评价的价值冲突成因》,《领导科学论坛》2016年第21期。
[16]Moore,M.Creating Public Value:Strategic Management in Government.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1995.
[17]Grandy,C.The“Efficient”Public Administrator:Pareto and a Well-Rounded Approach to Public Administration.Public Administration Review,2009,69(6):1115-1123.
[18]Rhodes,R.A.W.Understanding Governance:Policy Networks,Governance,Reflexivity and Accountability.Buckingham:Open University Press,1997.
[19]Johnsen,A.Implementation Mode and Local Government Performance Measurement:A Norwegian Experience.Financial Accountability&Management,1999,15(1):41-66.
[20]Klijn,E-H.Trust in Governance Networks:Looking for Conditions for Innovative Solutions and Outcomes.In Osborne,S.P.Eds.The New Public Governance:Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance.London&New York:Routledge,2010.
[22]De Graaf,G.,Huberts,Leo.&Smulders,R.Coping With Public Value Conflicts.Administration&Society,2016,48(9):1101-1127.
[23]Lukes,S.Making sense of moral conflict.In N.L.Rosenbloom(Ed.),Liberalism and the moral life.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1989.
[24]刘文杰,朱桂龙:《责任式创新的多过程理论框架:价值冲突转化链》,《科学学研究》2018年第3期。
[25]常建,金瑞:《论公共冲突过程中摇言的作用、传播与防控》,《天津社会科学(公共政策研究)》2010年第6期。
[26]陈向明:《扎根理论的思路和方法》,《教育研究与实验》1999年第4期。
[27]李志刚:《扎根理论方法在科学研究中的运用分析》,《东方论坛》2007年第4期。
[28]Devaus,D.Research Design in Social Research.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage Publications Inc,2001.
[29]Berlin,I.Against the current.New York:Penguin Books,1982:69.
[30]De Graaf,G.&Paanakker,H.Good Governance:Performance Values and Procedural Values in Conflict.American Review of Public Administration,2015,45(6):635-652.
[31][38]Spicer,M.W.Value Pluralism and Its Implications for American Public Administration.Administrative Theory&Praxis,2001,23(4):507-528.
[32]王学军,韩志青:《从测量到治理:构建公共价值创造的整合分析模型》,《上海行政学院学报》2017年第6期。
[33]De Graaf,G.,&Van der Wal,Z.Managing conflicting public values:Governing with integrity and effectiveness.American Review of Public Administration,2010,40(6):623-630.
[34]Bovens,M.A.P.,‘t Hart,P.,&Van Twist,M.J.W.Openbaar bestuur.Beleid,organisatie en politiek[Public Governance.Policy,Organization and Politics].Dordrecht,The Netherlands:Kluwer,2007.
[35]Thacher,D.,&Rein,R.Managing value conflict in public policy.Governance,2004,17(4):457-486.
[36]Berlin,I.The crooked timber of humanity.New York:Vintage Books,1992.
[37]Andersen,L.B.,J?rgensen,T.B.,Kjeldsen,A.M.,Pedersen,L.H.&Vrangb?k,K.Public Values and Public Service Motivation:Conceptual and Empirical Relationships.The American Review of Public Administration,2012,43(3):292-311.
[40][瑞士]皮亚杰:《发生认识论原理》,王宪钿等译,商务印书馆1981年版,第3-10页。
[41][美]谢里尔·西姆拉尔·金,卡米拉·斯蒂福斯:《民有政府:反政府时代的公共管理》,中央编译出版社2010年版,第140页。
[42]Rosenbloom,D.H.Beyond Efficiency:Value Frameworks for Public Administration.Chinese Public Administration Review,2017,8(1):37-46.
(1)文章是在《地方政府绩效评价的价值冲突成因》一文的基础上,不断拓展研究内容形成的。
(1)Steenhuisen&Van Eeten(2008)认为,那些实施政策的公务员要比制定政策的官员更易感知到价值冲突。县级政府在我国府际关系中扮演政策执行者的角色,再加之它们与公众距离更近,互动更为频繁。因此,选择县级政府作为案例对象。
(1)本文对不同类型的受访者按照其英文字母缩写编码,将县级领导班子成员、县级各职能部门分管领导、职能部门一线员工和职能部门服务对象分别编码为cl、dl、fls和so。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |