【文献与探索】AJPS专刊：“亚洲政策与决策中的试验”

类别：政府治理　

导言

Asian Journal of Political Science杂志在2017年第3期出版一期由主编Kilkon Ko和清华公共管理学院教授朱旭峰联合担任特邀主编的专刊：“亚洲政策与决策中的试验”。

（文献来源：Special Section: Policy Experiment and Public Administration in Asia, Guest editors: Kilkon Ko and Xufeng Zhu, Asian Journal of Political Science，2017, 25(3)：257-349.）

文献1

（文献来源：KO, Kilkon; SHIN, Kayoung. How Asian countries understand policy experiment as policy pilots?. Asian Journal of Political Science, 2017, 25(3): 253-265.）

ABSTRACT: Policymaking based on the classical experimental design is regarded as a golden rule in the field of public policy. Despite the methodological superiority of randomized control experiment, the practices of policy experiment differ across countries, reflecting the different intentions of policymakers. This paper reviews how policy experiments arepractised in Asian countries, especially Korea, China, and Singapore. As ourreview suggests, the term ‘policy pilot’ is preferred to ‘experiment’ as the former is considered as an exemplar proposed by the central government. At the same time, the selection of pilot sites depends on central government’s political and practical (rather than methodological) consideration. Moreover, the utilization of policy pilots does not solely depend on the success of thepilot programme or the effect size per se. As the policymaking process is a complex endeavor involving multiple streams of actors, resources, and solutions, Asian countries use policy pilot results to get ideas on how different actors respond to policy, instead of a determinant of policy decision.Therefore, we conclude that Asian countries emphasize less the rigorousness of experimental design than the possibility of pragmatic utilization of policy pilots.

KEYWORDS: Policy Pilot, Experiment, Knowledge Utilization

摘要：基于经典实验设计的政策制定被视为公共政策领域的黄金法则。尽管随机控制实验具有方法论上的优越性，政策实验的实践在不同国家间却存在显著差异，这种差异反映了决策者不同决策目的。本文通过回顾亚洲国家——特别是韩国、中国和新加坡——的政策实验实践，发现“政策试点”一词要比“实验”更受欢迎，因为前者被视为中央政府提出的典例。同时，试点地点的选择取决于中央政府的政治和实际（而非方法论的）考虑。此外，政策试点的利用不仅仅取决于试点方案的成功及其效果的大小。由于政策制定是一个复杂的过程，涉及多个行动者、资源和解决方案，亚洲国家利用政策试点效果是为了了解不同行为者对政策的反应，而不是为了发现政策制定的决定因素。因此，本文认为相较于实验设计的严谨性，亚洲国家更强调政策试点的实际效用。

关键词：政策试点，实验，知识利用

文献2

（文献来源：Zhu, Xufeng. (2017). Inter-regional diffusion of policy innovation in China: A comparative case study. Asian Journal of Political Science, 25(3): 266-286.）

ABSTRACT: Classic theoretical research on the diffusion of policy innovation is usually based on decentralized democratic regimes. However, in authoritarian centralized countries such as China, questions such as, ‘What are the driving forces and the structural dynamics behind local government policy innovation andinter-regional diffusion?’ and ‘How do the governmental structural factors lead to the different patterns of diffusion of policy innovation across local governments?’ are interesting research topics. The theoretical framework proposed in this study highlights the roles of the contingent vertical and horizontal governmental relations in innovation diffusion. I extract two key properties: vertical mandatory intervention from the central government and horizontal political competition among peer governments. This research uses four models to develop a new typology of the inter-regional diffusion of policy innovation in China: (1) the enlightenment model, (2) the championship model,(3) the designation model, and (4) the recognition model. A comparative case study is conducted in this research, with four policy cases showing that China has developed diversified mechanisms to encourage local governments to perform policy innovation and inter-regional diffusion.

KEYWORDS: Policy innovation, inter-regional diffusion, verticaland horizontal governmental relations, China, comparative case study

摘要：政策创新扩散的经典理论研究通常是以分权的民主制度为基础。然而，在中央集权的威权主义国家，诸如“何为地方政府政策创新及其扩散的驱动力和结构性动力”以及“政府结构性因素如何导致政策创新扩散的不同模式”等问题则是众多学者感兴趣的研究主题。本文所提出的理论框架强调了纵向或横向的政府间关系在创新扩散中的作用。本文提炼出两个关键属性——中央政府的纵向强制干预和同级政府间的横向政治竞争，并发展出一种新的关于中国地方政府政策创新扩散的类型学：（1）启迪模型，（2）争先模型，（3）指令模型，（4）认可模型。通过比较分析四个政策案例，本文发现中国已经发展出鼓励地方政府进行政策创新与推动政策扩散的多元化机制。

关键词：政策创新，区域间扩散，纵向与横向政府间关系，中国，比较案例分析

文献3

（文献来源：LEE, Celia; MA, Liang; ZHOU, Yishu. The changing dynamics of policy experiment in Singapore: does the 2011 general election makea difference?. Asian Journal of Political Science, 2017, 25(3): 287-306.）

ABSTRACT: The city-state of Singaporeis proactive in harnessing policy experimentation to incubate innovations, transfer knowledge and facilitate collaborations across different public sectors. Given the country’s strong knack for pragmatism, international practices and lessons are usually first tested and adapted in policy experiments before scaling up to nationwide policies. Singapore’s practice of policy experimentation, however, has also demonstrated evolution over time. This article reviews the evolving role of experimentation in Singapore’s policy decision-making and implementation, and analyses pilot programmes in public housing to elicit the key attributes and commonalities of its policy experiments. It finds that policy experiments have been increasingly used after the 2011 general election, which witnessed a radical political rebalancing in Singapore’s governance history. Pilot projects have thus transformed from autilitarian to citizen-centric, design-thinking approach after 2011. Pilot programmes are used for multiple purposes in policy innovations, among which civil service mentoring, knowledge transfer and cross-boundary collaboration are the values primarily pursued. The article discusses the contributions ofthe findings to the literature and policy implications for practitioners.

KEYWORDS: Policy experimentation, Singapore, Collaboration, Knowledge transfer, Pilot programmes

摘要：新加坡在城市治理中主动利用政策实验孵化政策创新，知识转移和公共部门协作。基于新加坡的实用主义治理策略，国际惯例和经验通常首先在政策实验中加以检验和调整，然后再推广为全国性政策。然而，新加坡的政策实验实践也随着时间而不断演变。本文回顾了实验在新加坡的政策制定和执行中的作用，并通过分析公共住房试点方案提炼出政策实验的关键属性和共性。本文发现，新加坡在2011年大选后越来越多地使用政策实验，这是新加坡治理历史上的一次激进的政治再平衡。2011年后，试点项目已经从功利主义转向以公民为中心的设计思维方式。政策创新的试行方案服务于多元目标，其中公务员辅导、知识转移和跨界合作是主要追求的价值观。本文最后探讨了本文的研究发现的学术贡献及其对政策实践者的政策启示。

关键词：政策实验，新加坡，协作，知识转移，试点方案

文献4

（文献来源：CHEN, Bo, et al. Local climate governance and policy innovation in China: a case study of a piloting emission trading scheme in Guangdong province. Asian Journal of Political Science, 2017, 25(3): 307-327.）

ABSTRACT: This paper investigates how piloting programmes in China can promote local policy innovations. By using one of the piloting emission trading schemes (ETS) in Guangdong province as a case study, it is argued that the main features of the piloting experiments, particularly in the climate change domain, are largely different from previous local marketization experiments that dominate the reform period of China. Whereas previous experiments are often characterized as bottom-up or indigenous initiatives with strong patronage relations to the pro-reform politicians at central level, the current piloting programmes are often craftedin a top-down fashion that is often misaligned with local market or corporate interests. Hence, local policy innovations are designed, developed and brokered by the local state officers, in order to bridge this central–local interest gap. As a result, successful implementation of these policy innovations largely depends on local political traditions, bureaucratic culture and perceptions of distinctive development needs.

KEYWORDS:Policy Experiments, Policy Innovation, Emission Trading, Carbon Markets, Climate Governance, Climate Policy, China

摘要：本文探讨了中国的试点方案如何促进地方政策创新。通过对广东省的一个碳排放交易计划（ETS）试点的案例分析，本文认为气候变化领域试点实验的主要特征与之前主导了中国改革的地方市场化实验有很大的不同。以往的政策实验往往以自下而上或与中央改革派政治家有密切关系的本土行动为特点，但目前的试点方案常常是以自上而下的方式制定的，往往与地方市场或公司利益不符。因此，地方政策创新往往由地方政府设计、发展或促成，以弥合中央与地方的利益差距。政策创新的成功执行很大程度上取决于地方政治传统，官僚文化和地方政府官员对当地独特发展需求的看法。

关键词：政策实验，政策创新，排放交易，碳市场，其后治理，气候政策，中国

文献5

（文献来源：Jung, Haeil, & Zhang, Ruodan. (2017). Impacte valuations in South Korea and China. Asian Journal of Political Science, 25(3): 328-349.）

ABSTRACT: While evidence-based policy-making is increasingly in demand, as new policies are required to bring effective results to targeted groups in South Korea and China, few studies have investigated the progress of quantitative impact evaluation that focuses on causality. This paper studies the trends of quantitative impact evaluation of public policy in South Korea and China by surveying major public administration and public policy journals in these two countries from 2000 to 2015. Among published articles in the major journals, our study pool includes research articles directly related to quantitative impact evaluation. Our study foundthat there has been considerable progress in impact evaluation research in South Korea and China in both data quality and empirical methods. However, empirical impact evaluation still comprises a small fraction (only one to two percent) of all research in public administration and public policy in both countries. We also found limited discussion on the selection mechanism and related bias in South Korea even in recent years, while causality and selection bias have been more commonly discussed in China. Also, advanced empirical methods are more frequently observed in journal articles in China than those in South Korea.

KEYWORDS: Impact Evaluations, Quantitative Methods, Social Experiments, Natural Experiments, Causality

摘要：尽管中国和韩国对循证决策的需求日益增长——新政策总要为标的群体带来有效的结果，却很少有研究考察以因果关系为重点的政策影响定量评估的进展。本文通过调查2000-2015年中国和韩国的主要公共管理和公共政策杂志，分析了公共政策影响定量评估在这两个国家的发展趋势。本研究的数据池是在主要期刊上发表的、与政策影响的定量评估直接相关的文章。本研究发现，中国和韩国的政策影响评估研究在数据质量和实证方法方面都取得了长足的进步。尽管如此，实证影响评估研究仍然仅占这两个国家的公共管理和公共政策研究总体很小的一部分（只有10%-20%）。本研究还发现，关于选择机制和相关偏误的探讨在韩国近几年仍很有限，在中国则引发了更为普遍的讨论；同样地，相较于韩国，先进的研究方法更多地被中国的期刊文章所采用。

关键词：影响评估，量化方法，社会实验，自然实验，因果关系

如果您喜欢此文，请转发和分享给朋友们。谢谢！

附参考文献参考文献附参考文献

略

近期推送的相关文献：(直接点击链接即可进入该页面)

此处也可以下载全文：

原文链接（阅读原文　点击左下角）：

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02185377.2017.1360784

凤凰网一点资讯：

http://www.yidianzixun.com/channel/m408752

欢迎您提出与本文内容、主题或翻译有关的各种问题与建议！

欢迎关注、订阅微信公众号【治理学术】。本公众号是由公共管理与政治学学科的老师和学生志愿者开发的学术和交流平台，重点是治理理论与实践领域的热点问题，我们每日整理、翻译并推荐一篇最新权威英文文献。核心内容分为三大板块：1、治理理论　文献与探索，2、管理实践　治理与反思，3、公共治理　教学与交流。

欢迎推荐或自荐研究成果，来稿请致邮箱：[e-mail]

PS：如何加入微信公众号：

您可以扫描下面的二维码，或者搜索公众号：“治理学术”，或者加原始ID: 
　 gh_dd2c06e61722　然后点击加入即可。

PS：如何查看以前推送的精彩文章：

您只要点标题下方的“治理学术”，并选择“查看历史消息”即可，精彩就会尽现。谢谢！