作　　者： ;

机构地区： 华南农业大学

出　　处： 《中国行政管理》 2010年第7期120-123,共4页

摘　　要： 转型社会由于“制度失灵”的客观存在，使得“制度性风险”的治理成为理论研究的焦点。公共利益理论希望确证普适性的“公共利益”来消解制度性风险的潜在损失，但却缺乏具体路径；街头官僚理论强调以程序制衡来克服自由裁量权对公共利益的侵蚀，但却缺乏具体措施；多中心治理理论则因过于强调政府分权的逻辑功效，使其制度安排存在“无序地方主义”的潜在危机。走向公共治理的制度创新，需要凭借公共领导权威，将技术官僚的政策分析和第三部门的风险救治能力转化为生产结果，从而使消解“制度性风险”的路径，在“弃官僚制权力目的中心”与“立官僚制权威手段中心”之间构建兼具制度目标生成和制度执行绩效的“区别式组织”治理模式。 Owing to an objective reality of ＂institutional failure＂ in transitional society, the governance of ＂institutional risk＂ has be- come a focus of theoretical research. Public Interest theory hopes to verify that a universal ＂public interest＂ can mitigate the potential losses of institutional risk, but it lacks of specific path. Street bureaucratic theory emphasizes on the procedure of checks and balances to overcome the erosion of discretion to public interest, but it lacks of specific measures. Polycentric governance theory emphasizes too much on the logic effectiveness of government decentralization and makes its institutional arrangements have potential crisis of＂ disorder localism＂. Towards the institutional innovation of public governance, we need to apply with public authority to transfer the policy analysis of technocrats and the risk cure capacity of third sector into the production results. Thereby we can find a path to mitigate the＂ institutional risk＂ between the＂ purpose of abandoning bureau- cratic powers＂ and the＂ purpose of building bureaucratic authorized measures ＂ in order to build a ＂distinct organizational＂ governance model with both characteristics of institutional objectives formation and institutional implementation performance.

关 键 词： 结构性风险 制度性风险 区别式组织

分 类 号： [D035]

领　　域： []