技术官僚型治理的生成与后果——对当代西方治理演进的考察与反思
|
摘要
明确"谁"的问题与确定集体问题的解决方案一直是政治的两大主题,也是政治理论必须回应的两大挑战。在西方语境下,传统政体理论试图通过授予"哲学王"完整合法权威来同时解决这两大问题,而随着代表制度的产生,对这两大问题的解决出现了分离。由于缺乏回答"谁"的问题的完整权威,代表也就无法专注于寻找技术上最有效率的解决集体问题的方案,使得代表型政治日益成为一种无法有效解决集体问题的政治模式,并催生了一种技术官僚型的治理。技术官僚型治理试图把所有集体问题都化简为在2和1之间作出选择的问题,并通过不断创新更准确计算2和1的技术手段来提高治理的有效性。这种治理模式一方面为所有集体问题的解决提供了标准化的答案,另一方面又排斥了普通民众的政策参与。要矫正技术官僚型治理的消极后果,需通过知识重建来推动政治重建。
To make clear "who"it is to serve and to find solutions to collective issues are two basic themes of politics and two challenges to political theory. In western context,traditional polity theory tries to meet these two challenges by giving the Philosopher King complete legitimate authority. However,with the rise of representative system,solutions to these two challenges separate from each other. Because they lack the complete authority to answer the question of "who",representatives cannot concentrate themselves on searching for the most effective solutions to collective issues,which makes representative politics an ever-ineffective mode of politics,and gives birth to a new mode of technocratic governance. Technocratic governance tries to simplify all collective issues as choices between 2 and 1,and attempts to make itself more effective by creating more accurate technologies to calculate 2 and 1 in given situations. This mode of governance gives standard answer to different collective issues,while excludes the public from public policy making. To correct its negative consequences,we need to reconstruct our knowledge of governance.
To make clear "who"it is to serve and to find solutions to collective issues are two basic themes of politics and two challenges to political theory. In western context,traditional polity theory tries to meet these two challenges by giving the Philosopher King complete legitimate authority. However,with the rise of representative system,solutions to these two challenges separate from each other. Because they lack the complete authority to answer the question of "who",representatives cannot concentrate themselves on searching for the most effective solutions to collective issues,which makes representative politics an ever-ineffective mode of politics,and gives birth to a new mode of technocratic governance. Technocratic governance tries to simplify all collective issues as choices between 2 and 1,and attempts to make itself more effective by creating more accurate technologies to calculate 2 and 1 in given situations. This mode of governance gives standard answer to different collective issues,while excludes the public from public policy making. To correct its negative consequences,we need to reconstruct our knowledge of governance.
引文
[1]Matthew Flinders and Jim Buller.Depoliticisation:Principles,Tactics and Tools[J].British Politics,2006,(3):293-318.
[2][4]Alan S.Blinder.Is Government Too Political[J].Foreign Affairs,1997,(6):117.
[3][13]Irving Louis Horowitz.Social Science Mandarins:Policymaking as a Political Formula[J].Policy Sciences,1970,(3):340,358-359.
[5][21]Jean Tirole,Economics for the Common Good[M].Translated by Steven Rendall.Princeton:Princeton University Press,2017:165,166.
[6][23]Magali Sarfatti Larson.Notes on Technocracy:Some Problems of Theory,Ideology and Power[J].Berkeley Journal of Sociology,1972-1973,17:25,23.
[7]Anders Esmark.Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Technocracy?An Old Framework for a New Analysis of Administrative Reforms in the Governance Era[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2017,27(3):504.
[8]Lisa A.Zanetti and Guy B.Adams.In Service of the Leviathan:Democracy,Ethics and the Potential for Administrative Evil in the New Public Management[J].Administrative Theory&Praxis,2000,22(3):539.
[9]Jürgen Habermas.Toward A Rational Society:Student Protest,Science,and Politics[M].Translated by Jeremy J.Shapiro.Cambridge:Polity Press,1989:113.
[10][12]Frank Fischer.Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise[M].Newbury Park,California:SAGEPublications,Inc.,1990:15-16,154.
[11]Duncan Mc Donnell and Marco Valbruzzi.Defining and Classifying Technocratic-Led and TechnoCratic Governments[J].European Journal of Political Research,2014,53(4):659.
[14][15]Frank Fischer.American Think Tanks:Policy Elites and the Politicization of Expertise[J].Governance:An International Journal of Policy and Administration,1991,4(3):334-335,343.
[16]拉詹.断层线:全球经济潜在的危机[M].刘念等译.北京:中信出版社,2011:17.
[17]Executive Order 12291-Federal Regulation[EB/OL].https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html,2016-8-15.
[18][19][20][22]Cass R.Sunstein.The Cost-Benefit Revolution[M].Cambridge,Massachusetts:The MITPress,2018:14,ix,xi,30.
[24]John G.Gunnell.The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy[J].Technology and Culture,1982,23(3):392-416.
[25]Miguel Angel Centeno.The New Leviathan:The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy[J].Theory and Society,1993,22(3):318.
[26]张康之.社会治理建构的反思性阐释[J].行政论坛,2018,(2).
[27]张小劲,孟天广.论计算社会科学的缘起、发展与创新范式[J].理论探索,2017,(6).
[28]渠敬东,周飞舟,应星.从总体支配到技术治理---基于中国30年改革经验的社会学分析[J].中国社会科学,2009,(6).
[29]Camilla Stivers.The Listening Bureaucrat:Responsiveness in Public Administration[J].Public Administration Review,1994,54(4):364-369.
[30]张乾友.朝向合作社会的治理想象[J].浙江学刊,2019,(1).
(1)桑斯坦1981年时正好作为美国司法部下的律师为该法令的实施提供法律咨询。后来桑斯坦在奥巴马政府中担任信息与监管事务办公室主任。
[2][4]Alan S.Blinder.Is Government Too Political[J].Foreign Affairs,1997,(6):117.
[3][13]Irving Louis Horowitz.Social Science Mandarins:Policymaking as a Political Formula[J].Policy Sciences,1970,(3):340,358-359.
[5][21]Jean Tirole,Economics for the Common Good[M].Translated by Steven Rendall.Princeton:Princeton University Press,2017:165,166.
[6][23]Magali Sarfatti Larson.Notes on Technocracy:Some Problems of Theory,Ideology and Power[J].Berkeley Journal of Sociology,1972-1973,17:25,23.
[7]Anders Esmark.Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Technocracy?An Old Framework for a New Analysis of Administrative Reforms in the Governance Era[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2017,27(3):504.
[8]Lisa A.Zanetti and Guy B.Adams.In Service of the Leviathan:Democracy,Ethics and the Potential for Administrative Evil in the New Public Management[J].Administrative Theory&Praxis,2000,22(3):539.
[9]Jürgen Habermas.Toward A Rational Society:Student Protest,Science,and Politics[M].Translated by Jeremy J.Shapiro.Cambridge:Polity Press,1989:113.
[10][12]Frank Fischer.Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise[M].Newbury Park,California:SAGEPublications,Inc.,1990:15-16,154.
[11]Duncan Mc Donnell and Marco Valbruzzi.Defining and Classifying Technocratic-Led and TechnoCratic Governments[J].European Journal of Political Research,2014,53(4):659.
[14][15]Frank Fischer.American Think Tanks:Policy Elites and the Politicization of Expertise[J].Governance:An International Journal of Policy and Administration,1991,4(3):334-335,343.
[16]拉詹.断层线:全球经济潜在的危机[M].刘念等译.北京:中信出版社,2011:17.
[17]Executive Order 12291-Federal Regulation[EB/OL].https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html,2016-8-15.
[18][19][20][22]Cass R.Sunstein.The Cost-Benefit Revolution[M].Cambridge,Massachusetts:The MITPress,2018:14,ix,xi,30.
[24]John G.Gunnell.The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy[J].Technology and Culture,1982,23(3):392-416.
[25]Miguel Angel Centeno.The New Leviathan:The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy[J].Theory and Society,1993,22(3):318.
[26]张康之.社会治理建构的反思性阐释[J].行政论坛,2018,(2).
[27]张小劲,孟天广.论计算社会科学的缘起、发展与创新范式[J].理论探索,2017,(6).
[28]渠敬东,周飞舟,应星.从总体支配到技术治理---基于中国30年改革经验的社会学分析[J].中国社会科学,2009,(6).
[29]Camilla Stivers.The Listening Bureaucrat:Responsiveness in Public Administration[J].Public Administration Review,1994,54(4):364-369.
[30]张乾友.朝向合作社会的治理想象[J].浙江学刊,2019,(1).
(1)桑斯坦1981年时正好作为美国司法部下的律师为该法令的实施提供法律咨询。后来桑斯坦在奥巴马政府中担任信息与监管事务办公室主任。
© 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 |