村民自治转型的路径差异及其解释——以宁海和秭归两地的模式为例
|
摘要
为了提高村庄治理绩效,村民自治的重心从选举转向了治理,不过村民自治的治理转型具有区域差异。基于对宁海与秭归经验的比较研究,发现两地面临着不同的村民自治困境,村民自治转型的路径也不相同。完善村民自治的治理机制要立足于村庄现状,否则就达不到治理效果。宁海农村主体在场,社会分化高,利益密集和任务密集,村民自治转型的方向是"民主政治再造";秭归农村主体缺场,社会分化低,利益稀薄和任务稀少,村民自治转型的方向是"村治主体再造"。区域比较的视角丰富了对村民自治的研究,村民自治还值得进一步深入研究。
In order to improve the performance of village governance,the focus of villagers' autonomy shifted from election to governance. However,the governance transformation of villagers' autonomy has regional differences. Based on a comparative study of the experience of Ninghai and Zigui,it is found that the villagers' autonomy in these two places face different dilemmas,and the path of villagers' autonomy transformation is also different. The improvement of the governance mechanism of the villagers' autonomy should be based on the social nature of the village,otherwise it will not be effective. The nature of the villages in Ninghai County is that the main body is in the village,the society is highly divided,the interests and tasks are focused; the direction of villagers' autonomy transformation is "reconstruction of democratic politics". The nature of villages in Zigui County is in the absence of the main body,with indistinct social differentiation, scarce interests and tasks; the direction of villagers' autonomy transformation is "reconstruction of village governance subject". The perspective of regional comparison enriches the study of villagers' autonomy,which is worth of further studies.
In order to improve the performance of village governance,the focus of villagers' autonomy shifted from election to governance. However,the governance transformation of villagers' autonomy has regional differences. Based on a comparative study of the experience of Ninghai and Zigui,it is found that the villagers' autonomy in these two places face different dilemmas,and the path of villagers' autonomy transformation is also different. The improvement of the governance mechanism of the villagers' autonomy should be based on the social nature of the village,otherwise it will not be effective. The nature of the villages in Ninghai County is that the main body is in the village,the society is highly divided,the interests and tasks are focused; the direction of villagers' autonomy transformation is "reconstruction of democratic politics". The nature of villages in Zigui County is in the absence of the main body,with indistinct social differentiation, scarce interests and tasks; the direction of villagers' autonomy transformation is "reconstruction of village governance subject". The perspective of regional comparison enriches the study of villagers' autonomy,which is worth of further studies.
引文
[1]仝志辉.“后选举时代”的乡村政治和乡村政治研究[J].学习与实践,2006(5):70-76.
[2]李人庆.依法治村如何可能——浙江宁海小微权力清单改革的案例研究[J].中国发展观察,2014(12):54-57.
[3]刘伟.村民自治的运行难题与重构路径——基于一项全国性访谈的初步探讨[J].江汉论坛,2015(2):64-69.
[4]杜鹏.村民自治的转型动力与治理机制——以成都“村民议事会”为例[J].中州学刊,2016(2):68-73.
[5]吴理财.村民自治与国家政权建设[J].学习与探索,2002(1):24-29.
[6]贺雪峰.论半熟人社会——理解村委会选举的一个视角[J].政治学研究,2000(3):61-69.
[7]杨华,王会.重塑农村基层组织的治理责任——理解税费改革后乡村治理困境的一个框架[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2011(2):41-49.
[8]冷波.村庄“双轨治理”的特征与效果分析——基于秭归县C村的考察[J].湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2017(3):50-55.
[9]耿羽.“输入式供给”:当前农村公共物品的运作模式[J].经济与管理研究,2011(12):39-47.
[10]王海娟.项目制与农村公共品供给“最后一公里”难题[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2015(4):62-67.
[11]赵晓峰.“行政消解自治”:理解税改前后乡村治理性危机的一个视角[J].长白学刊,2011(1):73-78.
[12]张雪霖.利益密集型乡村的富人治村逻辑——以浙江省D镇为个案[J].中共宁波市委党校学报,2015(2):81-88.
[13]仇叶.富人治村的类型与基层民主实践机制研究[J].中国农村观察,2017(1):52-66.
[14]夏柱智,贺雪峰.半工半耕与中国渐进城镇化模式[J].中国社会科学,2017(12):117-137.
[15]杜姣.村治主体的缺位与再造——以湖北省秭归县村落理事会为例[J].中国农村观察,2017(5):1-14.
[16]桂华.村庄公共品供给中的“理事会”[J].中国老区建设,2010(9):15-16.
(1)“两长”是指理事长和党小组长;“八员”包括调解员、监督员、宣传员、管护员、帮扶员、环卫员、张罗员、经济员,一般由3个人兼任。“两长八员”极大地扩大了村治主体的队伍,村治主体队伍由过去的1 847人增加到11 000人。
[2]李人庆.依法治村如何可能——浙江宁海小微权力清单改革的案例研究[J].中国发展观察,2014(12):54-57.
[3]刘伟.村民自治的运行难题与重构路径——基于一项全国性访谈的初步探讨[J].江汉论坛,2015(2):64-69.
[4]杜鹏.村民自治的转型动力与治理机制——以成都“村民议事会”为例[J].中州学刊,2016(2):68-73.
[5]吴理财.村民自治与国家政权建设[J].学习与探索,2002(1):24-29.
[6]贺雪峰.论半熟人社会——理解村委会选举的一个视角[J].政治学研究,2000(3):61-69.
[7]杨华,王会.重塑农村基层组织的治理责任——理解税费改革后乡村治理困境的一个框架[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2011(2):41-49.
[8]冷波.村庄“双轨治理”的特征与效果分析——基于秭归县C村的考察[J].湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2017(3):50-55.
[9]耿羽.“输入式供给”:当前农村公共物品的运作模式[J].经济与管理研究,2011(12):39-47.
[10]王海娟.项目制与农村公共品供给“最后一公里”难题[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2015(4):62-67.
[11]赵晓峰.“行政消解自治”:理解税改前后乡村治理性危机的一个视角[J].长白学刊,2011(1):73-78.
[12]张雪霖.利益密集型乡村的富人治村逻辑——以浙江省D镇为个案[J].中共宁波市委党校学报,2015(2):81-88.
[13]仇叶.富人治村的类型与基层民主实践机制研究[J].中国农村观察,2017(1):52-66.
[14]夏柱智,贺雪峰.半工半耕与中国渐进城镇化模式[J].中国社会科学,2017(12):117-137.
[15]杜姣.村治主体的缺位与再造——以湖北省秭归县村落理事会为例[J].中国农村观察,2017(5):1-14.
[16]桂华.村庄公共品供给中的“理事会”[J].中国老区建设,2010(9):15-16.
(1)“两长”是指理事长和党小组长;“八员”包括调解员、监督员、宣传员、管护员、帮扶员、环卫员、张罗员、经济员,一般由3个人兼任。“两长八员”极大地扩大了村治主体的队伍,村治主体队伍由过去的1 847人增加到11 000人。