當代中國「社會治理」：從機制類型到體制結構

“Social Governance” in Contemporary China: From Mechanism Types to Institutional Structures

當代中國經濟結構變遷，促使資源重組，引發各種社會衝突。對中共政權而言，管控這些衝突與代價，營造體制和基層社群的秩序關係，是經濟發展和政權調適性的基礎。而中國治理規模龐大，各個政治與社會場域南轅北轍，為政權帶來極大負荷和挑戰。何以理解中國基層紛雜的「社會治理」機制？這些機制各自生成於何種社會格局？呈現為哪些主要類型？有何趨向？以組織邏輯統整文獻概念和田野經驗，可定位四種基層社會格局，從而勾勒四種對應的治理機制及調適秩序：關係滲透的「包聯型」、關係吸納的「自治型」、規制滲透的「全控型」，以及規制吸納的「代表型」。四個區/縣級「社會治理」案例，展現了各自機制過程。然而，調適關係所需的基層自主性受到黨國體制結構限制。中央地方關係的多重張力之下，浮現「總體化」的特定趨向和困境，在「包聯型」與「全控型」之間權變糾結，時時面臨「走回封閉僵化的老路」的隱憂。

The market transformation that is occurring in contemporary China reorganizes economic and social resources and triggers reactions from different social forces. For the CCP, managing these conflicts and the associated costs of creating an orderly relationship between the institutions and the grassroots communities is the basis for economic development and the adaptability of authority. Given the vast scale of governance in China, the political and social fields vary greatly across different regions, which brings great burden and challenges to the authorities. How can we understand the diverse “social governance” mechanisms at the grassroots level in China? In what social configurations did these mechanisms originate? What are the main types? What is the trend? By analyzing the concepts found in the literature and from field experience, four grassroots social configurations can be identified, outlining four corresponding social governance mechanisms and adaptive orders: the “subcontracting type” of guanxi penetration, the “self-government type” of guanxi inclusion, the “totalism type” of regulatory penetration, and the “deputy type” of regulatory inclusion. These four district-level or county-level social governance cases illustrate their respective mechanisms and processes. However, the grassroots autonomy required for adaptability is limited by the party-state institutional structures. With the multiple tensions between central and local governments, “social governance” has shown certain trends and contingencies, swinging between “subcontracting” and “totalism”. From time to time, the hidden worry of “going back to the old and rigid closed-door policy” emerges.