城市居民纠纷解决方式的选择及其影响因素
|
摘要
秩序问题是法社会学的重要议题之一。在社会结构转型与经济体制转轨的当代中国,社会秩序发生了剧烈变迁,基层社会不断涌现且呈现高发态势的矛盾纠纷是直接的现实表现。当前学界对于矛盾纠纷现状成因的解释框架主要有新生社会矛盾纠纷论、矛盾纠纷演化论、人民内部矛盾论、矛盾纠纷转型发展论以及矛盾纠纷个体容忍度理论等五种理论。面对基层社会矛盾纠纷的复杂性、动态性与多元性,除司法途径之外,诸多专家学者也开始逐步探寻多元化的纠纷解决机制。但是现有研究大多集中于探讨当代中国矛盾纠纷缘由、纠纷过程以及解决方式,缺乏针对居民纠纷选择途径以及何种因素会影响民众选择纠纷解决途径方式的考察。本研究立足于纠纷解决框架,借助"纠纷解决金字塔"和"纠纷解决宝塔"理论以及"法律代理的资源假设",利用中国社会调查2006年(CGSS2006)的数据对城市居民纠纷解决的方式选择及影响因素进行了研究探讨,其中城市居民纠纷有效样本708份。得到如下结论:我国城市居民的纠纷类型整体呈现多样化的特征,转型发展性纠纷仍是主要纠纷,其中失业保障和企业改制的纠纷尤其凸显。在纠纷解决方式的选择上呈现出近似"纠纷解决宝塔"的形态,行政权威以及单位权威仍然具有较高的认同,纠纷解决中法律权威也逐渐被公众所接受,纠纷解决权威类型具有多元性。根据logistics回归分析,基于个体居住空间而反映的个人社会经济地位对于城市居民纠纷方式的选择影响并不显著,受教育程度对于个人采取法律诉讼来解决纠纷具有显著影响,年龄因素对于纠纷自行解决具有显著影响。但以定量数据进行探讨的本研究并不能完全呈现基层矛盾纠纷因素的多元性、复杂性以及鲜活性,同时在影响因素分析上也相对简单。鉴于此,对基层矛盾纠纷的研究可进一步从宏观上把握基层社会纠纷的动态演变,在微观层面以个案或深度访谈呈现城乡矛盾纠纷的复杂多元,把握矛盾纠纷的空间地域差异,注重矛盾纠纷的时间演变规律,注重传统纠纷解决方式的现代应用价值,探讨现代纠纷解决方式的共建共享共治。
The issue of order is one of the important topics in sociology of law. In the contemporary China, with the transformation of social structure and the transition of economic system, the social order has undergone dramatic changes. The contradictions and disputes in the grassroots which constantly emerge and show a high incidence are the direct manifestations of reality. At present, the theoretical framework for the causes of contradictions and disputes in the academic circles mainly includes five theories: the new social contradictions and disputes, the evolution of contradictions and disputes, the contradictions of the people, the transformation and development of contradictions and disputes, and the theory of individual tolerance of contradictions and disputes. In the face of the complexity, dynamics and pluralism of grassroots social contradictions and disputes, many experts and scholars have begun to explore a diversified dispute resolution mechanism in addition to the judicial channels. However, most of the existing studies focus on the causes,processes and solutions of conflicts and disputes in contemporary China. There is a lack of research on the choice way of residents' disputes solution and what factors affect people's choices of ways to resolve disputes.Based on the dispute resolution framework, by using the "the Dispute Pyramid", "the Dispute Pagoda" theory and "Resource Proposal Resource Hypothesis" and using the date of CGSS2006, this paper makes a research on the choice of dispute resolution methods for urban residents and its influencing factors and 708 valid samples of urban residents' disputes are referred. The following conclusions are drawn: The types of disputes of urban residents in China are generally diversified. The transitional development disputes are still the main disputes, especially the disputes between unemployment protection and enterprise restructuring. In the choice of dispute resolution methods, a similar form of the "Dispute Pagoda" is shown. The administrative authority and unit authority still have high recognition. The legal authority in dispute resolution is gradually accepted by the public, and the type of dispute resolution authority is diverse. According to the logistic regression analysis,the individual socioeconomic status reflected by the individual living space has no significant influence on the choice of urban residents' disputes solution ways. The degree of education has a significant impact on the individual's legal action to resolve the dispute, and age has a significant impact on the self-resolution of disputes. However, the study based on quantitative data can't fully show the diversity, complexity and fresh activity of the grassroots contradictions and disputes. At the same time, the analysis of the influencing factors is relatively simple. In view of this, the research on grassroots contradictions and disputes can further grasp the dynamic evolution of grassroots social disputes from a macro perspective. At the micro level, we can present the complexity and diversity of urban and rural contradictions and disputes through case studies or in-depth interviews. We should also grasp the spatial and regional differences of contradictions and disputes, pay attention to the temporal evolution of contradictions and disputes, and also pay attention to the modern application value of traditional dispute resolution methods, and explore the co-construction, sharing and cogovernance of modern dispute resolution methods.
The issue of order is one of the important topics in sociology of law. In the contemporary China, with the transformation of social structure and the transition of economic system, the social order has undergone dramatic changes. The contradictions and disputes in the grassroots which constantly emerge and show a high incidence are the direct manifestations of reality. At present, the theoretical framework for the causes of contradictions and disputes in the academic circles mainly includes five theories: the new social contradictions and disputes, the evolution of contradictions and disputes, the contradictions of the people, the transformation and development of contradictions and disputes, and the theory of individual tolerance of contradictions and disputes. In the face of the complexity, dynamics and pluralism of grassroots social contradictions and disputes, many experts and scholars have begun to explore a diversified dispute resolution mechanism in addition to the judicial channels. However, most of the existing studies focus on the causes,processes and solutions of conflicts and disputes in contemporary China. There is a lack of research on the choice way of residents' disputes solution and what factors affect people's choices of ways to resolve disputes.Based on the dispute resolution framework, by using the "the Dispute Pyramid", "the Dispute Pagoda" theory and "Resource Proposal Resource Hypothesis" and using the date of CGSS2006, this paper makes a research on the choice of dispute resolution methods for urban residents and its influencing factors and 708 valid samples of urban residents' disputes are referred. The following conclusions are drawn: The types of disputes of urban residents in China are generally diversified. The transitional development disputes are still the main disputes, especially the disputes between unemployment protection and enterprise restructuring. In the choice of dispute resolution methods, a similar form of the "Dispute Pagoda" is shown. The administrative authority and unit authority still have high recognition. The legal authority in dispute resolution is gradually accepted by the public, and the type of dispute resolution authority is diverse. According to the logistic regression analysis,the individual socioeconomic status reflected by the individual living space has no significant influence on the choice of urban residents' disputes solution ways. The degree of education has a significant impact on the individual's legal action to resolve the dispute, and age has a significant impact on the self-resolution of disputes. However, the study based on quantitative data can't fully show the diversity, complexity and fresh activity of the grassroots contradictions and disputes. At the same time, the analysis of the influencing factors is relatively simple. In view of this, the research on grassroots contradictions and disputes can further grasp the dynamic evolution of grassroots social disputes from a macro perspective. At the micro level, we can present the complexity and diversity of urban and rural contradictions and disputes through case studies or in-depth interviews. We should also grasp the spatial and regional differences of contradictions and disputes, pay attention to the temporal evolution of contradictions and disputes, and also pay attention to the modern application value of traditional dispute resolution methods, and explore the co-construction, sharing and cogovernance of modern dispute resolution methods.
引文
[1]陆益龙.转型中国的社会秩序构建机制研究[J].人民论坛·学术前沿,2013(18):86-95.
[2]郑杭生.改革开放三十年:社会发展理论与社会转型理论[J].中国社会科学,2009(2):10-19.
[3]郭星华,刘蔚.纠纷解决机制的失落与重建---从舅权在传统社会纠纷解决所起作用中引发的思考[J].广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014(4):73-80.
[4]国家统计局.调解民间纠纷数、人民法院审理民事一审案件收案数、人民法院审理一审案件收案数年度数据[DB/OL].(2016)[2019-06-11].http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01.
[5]李强.从社会学角度看“构建社会主义和谐社会”[J].社会科学战线,2005(6):241-250.
[6]吴忠民.中国改革进程中的重大社会矛盾问题[M].北京:中共中央党校出版社,2011:12.
[7]于咏华.当代中国社会矛盾论[M].北京:九州出版社,2004:26-28.
[8]陆益龙.社会主要矛盾的转变与基层纠纷的风险[J].学术研究,2018(6):45-52.
[9]郑绍杰.国家社科基金重大项目“深化基层矛盾纠纷化解共建共治机制及其风险预判研究”开题会召开[EB/OL].(2019-04-16)[2019-06-21].http://ssps.ruc.edu.cn/index.php?s=/Index/news_cont/id/1279.html.
[10]陆益龙.纠纷管理、多元化解机制与秩序建构[J].人文杂志,2011(6):163-171.
[11]沈恒斌,吴少鹰.新时期社会矛盾纠纷的表现形式及其多元化解决机制建构思路[J].法治论坛,2007(1):86-94.
[12]大卫·拉尔森,张勤.美国的替代性纠纷解决[J].东南司法评论,2018,11:351-358.
[13]范愉.当代世界多元化纠纷解决机制的发展与启示[J].中国应用法学,2017(3):48-64.
[14]伊恩·罗伯逊.社会学:上册[M].北京:商务印书馆,1994:25.
[15]陆益龙.基层纠纷的社会风险及其动态监测[J].贵州省党校学报,2017(6):89-98.
[16]郑杭生.社会学概论新修[M].3版.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:545-546.
[17]查尔斯·霍顿·库利.社会过程[M].包凡一,等译.北京:华夏出版社,2000:28.
[18]郭星华.法社会学教程[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2011.
[19]C·赖特·米尔斯.社会学的想象力[M].陈强,张永强,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000:49.
[20]William L.F.Felstiner,Richard L.Abel and Austin Sarat.The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes:Naming,Blaming,Claiming[J].Law and Society Review,1980-1981(6):631-654.
[21]邢朝国.农民工选择纠纷解决方式的影响因素[J].湖南社会科学,2009(1):76-80.
[22]布莱克.法律的运作行为[M].唐越,苏力,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1994:19.
[23]范愉,李浩.纠纷解决---理论、制度与技能[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2010:6.
[24]程金华,吴晓刚.社会阶层与民事纠纷的解决---转型时期中国的社会分化与法治发展[J].社会学研究,2010(2):151-179.
[25]刘精明,李路路.阶层化:居住空间、生活方式、社会交往与阶层认同---我国城镇社会阶层化问题的实证研究[J].社会学研究,2005(3):52-81.
[26]张海东,杨程晨.住房与城市居民的阶层认同---基于北京、上海、广州的研究[J].社会学研究,2017(5):39-63.
[27]李路路.“单位制”的变迁与研究[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2013(1):11-14.
[28]第六届全国人民代表大会常务委员会.全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于在公民中基本普及法律常识的决议[EB/OL].(2000-12-06)[2019-05-10].http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/zt/qt/pfgz/2000-12/06/content_1988448.htm.
[29]中国第三次就业高峰到来06年失业率预期将达到4.6%[EB/OL].(2006-06-19)[2019-05-10].http//www.ce.cn/finance/foreignexchange/fenxi/200606/19/t20060619_7423026.shtml.
[30]国务院办公厅转发国资委关于进一步规范国有企业改制工作的实施意见[EB/OL].(2005-12-19)[2019-05-20].http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2006/content_185178.htm.
[31]彭勇,蔡国兆.2006房地产业风雨又一年[J].中国产业,2007(1):30.
[32]郭星华.权威的演化与嬗变---从一份“请示报告”看我国的法治化进程[J].社会科学论坛,2009(8)5-11.
[33]陆益龙,杨敏.关系网络对乡村纠纷过程的影响---基于CGSS的法社会学研究[J].学海,2010(3)174-180.
(1)据国家统计局数据显示,调解民间纠纷数(件)数据始于1984年,故1978-1983年数据缺失。
(2)根据《2018年国民经济和社会发展统计公报》,2018年年末,我国城镇常住人口83137万人,占总人口比重(常住人口城镇化率)为59.58%,比上年末提高1.06个百分点。参见国家统计局2018年国民经济和社会发展统计公报,http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201902/t20190228_1651265.html.
(3)详细内容请见郭星华教授为刘正强博士所撰写的《乡土社会的时间与文本》序言。参见刘正强著的《新乡土社会的事件与文本---鲁县民间纠纷的社会学透视》,上海社会科学院出版社,2012年。
[2]郑杭生.改革开放三十年:社会发展理论与社会转型理论[J].中国社会科学,2009(2):10-19.
[3]郭星华,刘蔚.纠纷解决机制的失落与重建---从舅权在传统社会纠纷解决所起作用中引发的思考[J].广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014(4):73-80.
[4]国家统计局.调解民间纠纷数、人民法院审理民事一审案件收案数、人民法院审理一审案件收案数年度数据[DB/OL].(2016)[2019-06-11].http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01.
[5]李强.从社会学角度看“构建社会主义和谐社会”[J].社会科学战线,2005(6):241-250.
[6]吴忠民.中国改革进程中的重大社会矛盾问题[M].北京:中共中央党校出版社,2011:12.
[7]于咏华.当代中国社会矛盾论[M].北京:九州出版社,2004:26-28.
[8]陆益龙.社会主要矛盾的转变与基层纠纷的风险[J].学术研究,2018(6):45-52.
[9]郑绍杰.国家社科基金重大项目“深化基层矛盾纠纷化解共建共治机制及其风险预判研究”开题会召开[EB/OL].(2019-04-16)[2019-06-21].http://ssps.ruc.edu.cn/index.php?s=/Index/news_cont/id/1279.html.
[10]陆益龙.纠纷管理、多元化解机制与秩序建构[J].人文杂志,2011(6):163-171.
[11]沈恒斌,吴少鹰.新时期社会矛盾纠纷的表现形式及其多元化解决机制建构思路[J].法治论坛,2007(1):86-94.
[12]大卫·拉尔森,张勤.美国的替代性纠纷解决[J].东南司法评论,2018,11:351-358.
[13]范愉.当代世界多元化纠纷解决机制的发展与启示[J].中国应用法学,2017(3):48-64.
[14]伊恩·罗伯逊.社会学:上册[M].北京:商务印书馆,1994:25.
[15]陆益龙.基层纠纷的社会风险及其动态监测[J].贵州省党校学报,2017(6):89-98.
[16]郑杭生.社会学概论新修[M].3版.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:545-546.
[17]查尔斯·霍顿·库利.社会过程[M].包凡一,等译.北京:华夏出版社,2000:28.
[18]郭星华.法社会学教程[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2011.
[19]C·赖特·米尔斯.社会学的想象力[M].陈强,张永强,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000:49.
[20]William L.F.Felstiner,Richard L.Abel and Austin Sarat.The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes:Naming,Blaming,Claiming[J].Law and Society Review,1980-1981(6):631-654.
[21]邢朝国.农民工选择纠纷解决方式的影响因素[J].湖南社会科学,2009(1):76-80.
[22]布莱克.法律的运作行为[M].唐越,苏力,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1994:19.
[23]范愉,李浩.纠纷解决---理论、制度与技能[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2010:6.
[24]程金华,吴晓刚.社会阶层与民事纠纷的解决---转型时期中国的社会分化与法治发展[J].社会学研究,2010(2):151-179.
[25]刘精明,李路路.阶层化:居住空间、生活方式、社会交往与阶层认同---我国城镇社会阶层化问题的实证研究[J].社会学研究,2005(3):52-81.
[26]张海东,杨程晨.住房与城市居民的阶层认同---基于北京、上海、广州的研究[J].社会学研究,2017(5):39-63.
[27]李路路.“单位制”的变迁与研究[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2013(1):11-14.
[28]第六届全国人民代表大会常务委员会.全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于在公民中基本普及法律常识的决议[EB/OL].(2000-12-06)[2019-05-10].http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/zt/qt/pfgz/2000-12/06/content_1988448.htm.
[29]中国第三次就业高峰到来06年失业率预期将达到4.6%[EB/OL].(2006-06-19)[2019-05-10].http//www.ce.cn/finance/foreignexchange/fenxi/200606/19/t20060619_7423026.shtml.
[30]国务院办公厅转发国资委关于进一步规范国有企业改制工作的实施意见[EB/OL].(2005-12-19)[2019-05-20].http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2006/content_185178.htm.
[31]彭勇,蔡国兆.2006房地产业风雨又一年[J].中国产业,2007(1):30.
[32]郭星华.权威的演化与嬗变---从一份“请示报告”看我国的法治化进程[J].社会科学论坛,2009(8)5-11.
[33]陆益龙,杨敏.关系网络对乡村纠纷过程的影响---基于CGSS的法社会学研究[J].学海,2010(3)174-180.
(1)据国家统计局数据显示,调解民间纠纷数(件)数据始于1984年,故1978-1983年数据缺失。
(2)根据《2018年国民经济和社会发展统计公报》,2018年年末,我国城镇常住人口83137万人,占总人口比重(常住人口城镇化率)为59.58%,比上年末提高1.06个百分点。参见国家统计局2018年国民经济和社会发展统计公报,http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201902/t20190228_1651265.html.
(3)详细内容请见郭星华教授为刘正强博士所撰写的《乡土社会的时间与文本》序言。参见刘正强著的《新乡土社会的事件与文本---鲁县民间纠纷的社会学透视》,上海社会科学院出版社,2012年。
© 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 |