行动者中心制度主义:探究政策过程中的互动效应

doi:10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2020.03.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 政策研究中的行动者中心制度主义是由德国学者弗里茨·沙普夫和雷娜特·迈因茨率先提出,并由弗里茨·沙普夫系统阐述而发展成为重要的政策过程理论。这一理论假设社会现实可以被解释为有目的行动者互动的结果,这些行动者包括个人、集体和公司行动者,他们之间互动在一个结构化环境中展开,并且互动结果是由他们所处的制度设置所塑造。公共政策的有效性和合法性,以及保证有效性和合法性得以产生的公共政策过程成为该研究关注的根本性问题。行动者、行动者集群、互动模式与制度成为这一框架和理论的要素,互动模式是其核心内容,存在单边行动、谈判协议、多数决策和等级命令等四种类型。行动者和制度有机结合,将会是制度理论的前沿方向。中国政策过程和治理过程将会为该理论的应用、检验及拓展提供更广阔的空间,在这一过程中我们也会形成理论发展的自觉。

关键词: 行动者中心制度主义, 政策过程, 行动者, 互动模式, 中国场景

Abstract: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research was initially put forward by German scholars Fritz Sharpf and Renate Mayntz, and it was developed by Sharf into one important theory of policy process. This theory assumes that social reality can be interpreted as the result of interaction, carried out in a structured environment, of purposeful actors, including individuals, collective and corporate actors, and the interaction results are shaped by their institutional settings. The effectiveness and legitimacy of public policy, as well as the policy process of their guarantee have been the ultimate issues of this study. Actors, actor cluster, interaction mode, and system become the elements of this framework and theory, among which interaction mode is its core content, with four types: unilateral action, negotiation agreement, majority decision-making, and hierarchical order. The organic combination of actors and institutions will be the forward direction of institutional theory. China’s policy process and governance process will provide a broader space for the application, testing and expansion of the theory, and in this process we will form a sense of theoretical development.

Key words: actor-centered institutionalism, policy process, actors, interactive mode, Chinese context

中图分类号:

D63-31

李文钊. 行动者中心制度主义:探究政策过程中的互动效应[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2020, 56(3): 19-42.

LI Wen-zhao. Actor-centered Institutionalism: Exploring the Interaction Effect in Policy Process[J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 56(3): 19-42.

参考文献

[1] Scharpf F W, Mayntz R. Policy making in the German federal bureaucracy[M]. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier, 1975.
[2] Scharpf F W. Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research[M]. Routledge, 1997.
[3] Lasswell H D. The emerging conception of the policy sciences[J]. Policy sciences, 1970,1(1):3-14.
[4] 李文钊. 公共政策研究的范式变迁及其超越[J]. 中国人民大学学报,2019(4):98-107.
[5] Weimer D L, Vining A R. Policy analysis: Concepts and practice[M]. Routledge, 2017.
[6] Farr J, Hacker J S, Kazee N. The policy scientist of democracy: The discipline of Harold D. Lasswell[J]. American Political Science Review, 2006,100(4): 579-587.
[7] Fischer F, Forester J The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning[C]. Duke University Press,1993.
[8] Fischer F. Evaluating Public Policy[M]. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995.
[9] Fischer F, Gottweis H. The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice[C]. Duke University Press, 2012.
[10] 李文钊.论作为认知、行为与规范的制度[J]. 公共管理与政策评论, 2017(2):5-20.
[11] Scharpf F W. Community and autonomy: institutions, policies and legitimacy in multilevel Europe[M]. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag, 2010.
[12] Scharpf F W. Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity[J]. European Political Science Review, 2009,1(2):173-204.
[13] Shepsle A Kenneth. Analyzing Politics: rationality, behavior, and institutions[M]. New York:W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
[14] March J G. How decisions happen in organizations[J]. Human-computer interaction, 1991, 6(2): 95-117.
[15] Simon H A. The sciences of the artificial[M]. MIT press, 1996.
[16] Searle J R. What is an institution? [J]. Journal of institutional economics, 2005, 1(1):1-22.
[17] Baumgartner F R, Jones B D. The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America[M]. University of Chicago Press,2015.
[18] Kreps D M. Game theory and economic modelling[M]. Oxford University Press, 1990.
[19] Crawford S E, Ostrom E. A grammar of institutions[J]. American political science review, 1995,89(3): 582-600.
[20] Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action[M]. Cambridge university press, 1990.
[21] Dahl R A, Lindblom C E. Politics, economics and welfare: planning and politico-economic systems, resolved into basic processes[M]. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953.
[22] Hayek F A. The constitution of liberty: The definitive edition[M]. Routledge, 2013.
[23] Schotter A. The economic theory of social institutions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
[24] Lindblom C E. The science of “muddling through”[J]. Public administration review, 1959,19(2):79-88.
[25] Coase R H. The Problem of Social Cost[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1960(3):1-44.
[26] Ostrom E, Walker J, Gardner R. Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible[J]. American political science Review, 1992, 86(2):404-417.
[27] Granovetter M. The Strength of Weak Ties (1973)[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 2008, 78(6):1360-13.
[28] Buchanan J M, Tullock G. The calculus of consent (Vol. 3)[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press, 1962.
[29] Downs A. An economic theory of political action in a democracy[J]. Journal of political economy, 1957, 65(2):135-150.
[30] Arrow K J. Social choice and individual values (Vol. 12)[M]. Yale university press, 2012.
[31] Shepsle K. A. Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models[J]. American Journal of Political Science, 1979, 23(1):27-59.
[32] Tuomela R. Social ontology: Collective intentionality and group agents[M]. Oxford University Press, 2013.
[33] Simon H A. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization[M]. New York: Free Press, 1947.
[34] Williamson O E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, markets, relational Contracting[M]. Free Press, 1985.
[35] Hayek F A. The use of knowledge in society[J]. The American economic review, 1945, 35(4):519-530.
[36] 安东尼·吉登斯. 社会的构成[M]. 北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998.
[37] 谢立中.结构-制度分析,还是过程-事件分析?——从多元话语分析的视角看[J]. 中国农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2007(4): 12-31.
[38] 肖瑛.从“国家与社会”到“制度与生活”:中国社会变迁研究的视角转换[J]. 中国社会科学, 2014(9):88-104.
[39] 吴晓林.结构依然有效:迈向政治社会研究的“结构-过程”分析范式[J]. 政治学研究, 2017(2):96-108.
[40] 高奇琦, 张鹏.英国“脱欧”与欧洲一体化前景:一种新结构政治学的分析[J]. 探索, 2019, 205(1):81-93.
[41] Scharpf F W. Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic?[M]. Oxford University Press, 1999.
[42] 周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J]. 经济研究, 2007(7):37-51.
[43] 周雪光, 练宏.政府内部上下级部门间谈判的一个分析模型——以环境政策实施为例[J]. 中国社会科学, 2011(5):81-97.
[44] 周雪光, 练宏.中国政府的治理模式:一个“控制权”理论[J]. 社会学研究, 2012 (5):69-93.
[45] 渠敬东.项目制:一种新的国家治理体制[J]. 中国社会科学, 2012(5):113-130+207.
[46] Scharpf F W. The joint‐decision trap revisited[J]. Journal of Common Market Studies, 2006, 44(4):845-864.
[47] Falkner G. The EU’s decision traps: comparing policies[C]. OUP Oxford, 2011.
[48] Hwang H, Colyvas J A, Drori G S. Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency, Action, and Authority[C]. Emerald Group Publishing, 2019.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed