【作者】 刘杰；

【导师】 韩自强；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 行政管理， 2023， 博士

【摘要】 全球城市化的快速发展,带来城镇繁荣的同时也滋生了许多问题,建设安全有韧性的城市成为各国关注的热点问题。我国自2010年出台了安全发展示范城市(简称“安发”城市)政策,这一政策实际上也是国际韧性理念在我国本土化的政策创造。尽管实施至今已有十余年之久,但仍不清楚“安发”城市政策在地方的采纳和执行情况。“安发”城市在我国经历了怎样的政策过程?对我国城市安全发展产生了哪些影响?这些问题亟需深入的理论研究予以回应。本文将政策过程理论和政策创新扩散理论相结合,按照“提出问题—理论分析—框架构建—实证研究”的思路,系统分析了我国“安发”城市的政策扩散、执行与效果。对于“安发”城市这类非经济领域的倡议性政策,地方政府对政策的采纳(政策扩散)是政策执行的前提。围绕研究问题采取质性分析和量化实证分析相结合的混合方法。质性方法首先被用于建立分析“安发”城市政策扩散、执行与效果的理论分析框架;之后,采用定量方法建立2010—2021年“安发”城市政策扩散广度的生存数据和扩散深度的面板数据,对“安发”城市在全国281个地级市和副省级城市的扩散逻辑进行了实证检验。再次,运用质性方法,按照“试点探索-全面铺开-精简优化”的政策执行阶段,分析“安发”城市政策地方执行历程,剖析倡议性政策地方政府执行的动力和逻辑。然后,使用组合赋权方法建立“安发”城市政策执行效果评价指标体系,以2010—2019年城市综合韧性水平和分类别韧性水平为具体指标分析了政策执行效果。最后,基于研究结果,提出对“安发”城市推进的政策启示和本文的未来展望。研究发现:(1)我国“安发”城市政策地方在采纳与否和政策出台数量两个方面呈现差异化的逻辑:在政策采纳阶段,为了同中央政府步调保持一致,会倾向于积极采纳中央推行的政策,较少考虑本地实际情况;到了政策落地阶段,地方政府才意识到财政的捉襟见肘,进而渐渐减少了对这一类政策的关注,特别是对于“安发”城市这类需要投入大量资金同时又缺乏足够激励的政策。(2)倡议性政策在地方执行的过程中,由于不同地区自身条件存在差异,即使面临相同的考评指标,在达标的过程中也需要付出不同的行政成本和财政投入。对于“安发”城市政策,随着政策的持续推进,考评指标也经历了不断调整、降低甚至部分删减的过程。(3)“安发”城市政策地方执行过程中存在“寒蝉效应”,地方政府对政策结果的宣传与否,与惩戒强度大小密切相关,这一效应在一定程度上解释了为什么地方政府对于特定领域的政策采取“高调入场,低调收尾”的宣传和动员策略。(4)地方政府执行“安发”城市政策的背后是作为先行者的“头部效应”、有限的经济和政治激励、隐性的反向激励、提升城市和部门荣誉感、与地方工作重点相契合和强化部门存在感等内外部逻辑共同作用的结果。其中,外部逻辑侧重阐释倡议性政策地方执行的政治考量和经济激励,内部逻辑侧重回应倡议性政策地方执行的内在治理动力和合理性逻辑。(5)政策实施效果上,我国城市平均韧性指数在过去十年间得到明显提升,但是城市间韧性水平差异悬殊,区域发展极不平衡,城市出台“安发”城市政策与较高的韧性水平具有正相关性。城市经济社会发展、区位地理和政府组织管理水平的相互影响、共同作用造成了我国城市韧性发展水平的时空分异格局。本文对现有研究的贡献主要包括:首先,本文首次从政策扩散、政策执行和政策评价的视角对我国安全发展示范城市政策过程进行了总结剖析;其次,本文在考察“安发”城市政策在我国地方采纳的基础上,进一步揭示了地方在采纳政策之后的政策出台数量,即政策扩散“深度”的驱动逻辑,为政策扩散提供了一种新的研究思路;再次,本文从内外部逻辑的视角揭示了地方政府执行倡议性政策的动力,并提出了“安发”城市政策地方执行过程中的“寒蝉效应”;最后,本文建立的“安发”城市政策效果评价指标体系可以为研究人员和地方执行者开展城市评估提供规范化的操作工具。基于研究发现,本文提出推动倡议性政策地方执行的政策启示:首先,关注央地互动关系,中央政府不仅要关注地方是否采纳政策,还要关注地方如何执行政策;其次,合理设置政策目标和内容,科学量化地方执行的难易度;再次,建立倡议性政策执行配套政策,将激励机制纳入政策化的执行过程;最后,明确韧性发展时空分异格局,因地制宜增强城市风险抗灾力和可持续发展潜能。更多还原

【Abstract】 The rapid worldwide growth of urbanization has brought about economic prosperity as well as a multitude of challenges.The construction of secure and resilient cities has arisen as a critical issue for nations across the globe.In the year 2010,China introduced the Role Model City for Safe Development(RMCSD)policy,presenting a localized interpretation of the global resilience concept.Despite more than a decade having passed since its inception,the adoption and implementation of the RMCSD policy at the local level remain unclear.Moreover,there is a necessity to examine the policy process undergone by the RMCSD policy in China and its influence on the enhancement of urban safety in the country.Addressing these inquiries requires comprehensive theoretical research.This paper provides a systematic analysis of the diffusion,implementation,and effects of China’s RMCSD policy,utilizing the theories related to policy process and policy innovation diffusion.The analysis follows a structured approach encompassing problem formulation,theoretical analysis,framework construction,and empirical research.Policy diffusion significantly influences the implementation of non-economic initiative policies,such as the RMCSD policy.The study employs a mixed-methods approach,integrating both qualitative and quantitative empirical analyses to address the research inquiries.First,a qualitative approach is used to establish a theoretical framework for analyzing the diffusion,implementation,and effects of the RMCSD policy.Next,a quantitative approach is employed to collect survival data on the breadth of RMCSD policy dissemination and panel data on its depth from 2010-2021.This empirical testing aims to examine the diffusion logic of the RMCSD policy in 281 prefecture-level cities(sub-provincial cities)throughout China.Additionally,the paper uses a qualitative approach to analyze the local implementation of the RMCSD policy,which encompasses pilot exploration,full-scale implementation,and subsequent streamlining and optimization.The paper develops an evaluation index system for assessing the effectiveness of the RMCSD policy and analyzes these effects by examining the spatial and temporal changes in the comprehensive resilience level and the categorical resilience level of cities from 2010 to 2019.Finally,drawing on the comprehensive findings,the paper puts forth policy implications for promoting the RMCSD policy and suggests directions for future research.This study uncovers several significant findings.Firstly,the local adoption and implementation of China’s RMCSD policy exhibit distinct patterns.In the adoption phase,a proactive inclination exists to adopt policies endorsed by the central government,frequently without fully considering the local context.Throughout the policy implementation phase,local governments recognize financial limitations and gradually reduce their emphasis on this policy type.Secondly,while implementing initiative policies,regions with differing conditions face diverse administrative costs and demand varying financial commitments to meet identical assessment indicators.In the case of the RMCSD policy,owing to its ongoing promotion,assessment indicators have undergone constant modifications,reductions,and even partial removals.A "chilling effect" is evident in the local implementation of the RMCSD policy,where the degree of publicity of the policy’s outcomes by the local government is intricately tied to the severity of disciplinary measures.This phenomenon partially clarifies the local government’s preference for a "high-profile entry,low-profile end" strategy in publicizing and mobilizing policies within particular domains.Furthermore,the study identifies the intricate interplay between internal and external factors that impact the implementation of the RMCSD policy by local governments.These dynamics encompass the "head effect" as a pioneering influence,constrained economic and political incentives,implicit counter-incentives,promotion of civic and departmental pride,alignment with local priorities,and reinforcement of departmental presence.External factors prioritize political considerations and economic incentives in the local implementation of initiative policy,while internal factors highlight governance intentions and rationality in local implementation.Moreover,the study reveals that although the average resilience index of Chinese cities has experienced significant improvement in the past decade,there is considerable variation in resilience levels among cities,highlighting significant regional disparities in development.The introduction of RMCSD policy in cities is positively correlated with higher resilience levels.The spatial and temporal divergence in the degree of resilience development in Chinese cities stems from the intricate interplay and cumulative impacts of urban economic and social progress,geographical positioning,and governmental organization and management.This paper makes significant contributions to existing literature.Firstly,it provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of the policy process of China’s RMCSD policy,considering the perspectives of policy diffusion,implementation,and evaluation.Secondly,through an exploration of the policy’s adoption in China,the paper reveals the fundamental motivations driving the introduction of subsequent policies,referred to as the "depth" of policy diffusion.This innovative perspective enhances our comprehension of policy diffusion dynamics.Additionally,this paper reveals the motivation of local governments to implement the initiative policy from the perspective of internal and external logic,and proposes a "chilling effect" in the local implementation of the RMCSD policy.Lastly,the paper institutes an index system for assessing the impacts of the RMCSD policy,furnishing a standardized instrument for researchers and local implementers to perform thorough urban evaluations.Drawing from the research findings,this paper offers policy implications to foster the local implementation of initiative policies.Firstly,emphasis should be placed on central-local interaction.The central government should focus not solely on policy adoption by local governments,but also on its local-level implementation.Secondly,it is important to set reasonable policy goals and content and quantitatively assess the difficulty of local implementation in a scientific manner.Thirdly,creating supportive policies for initiative policy implementation that integrate incentive mechanisms into the implementation process is necessary.Lastly,it is crucial to clarify the spatial and temporal differentiation patterns of resilient development,adapting measures to local conditions to enhance urban resilience and increase the potential for sustainable development.更多还原