危机决策者避责策略的四种模式及关键影响因素分析  

Leader's Four Blame Avoidance Strategies in Crises and Key Factors Analysis

作　　者：彭宗超[1] 祝哲 Peng Zongchao;Zhu Zhe

机构地区：[1]清华大学,北京100084

出　　处：《上海行政学院学报》2018年第4期93-101,共9页The Journal of Shanghai Administration Institute

基　　金：国家社科基金特别委托项目"京津冀协同发展过程中重大决策社会稳定风险评估的研究"(16@ZH003);国家社科基金重大项目"突发事件语义案例库建设与临机决策模式研究"(14ZDB153);国家自然科学基金重点项目"基于若干领域政策实践的中国公共决策模式及其现代化路径研究"(71233005);国家自然科学基金重大项目"国家安全管理及决策体系基础科学问题研究"子课题"重大国家安全事件管理机制研究"(71790611)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：政府官员的避责行为对危机治理的负面影响引发了广泛关注。基于现有研究,本文从危机情景避责行为的发生时间和决策主体的态度两个维度,将危机避责策略划分为不为式预估策略、有为式预估策略、借口式应激策略和辩护式应激策略等四种类型,并就职位确权与消极偏向两大要素对官员避责策略选择的影响进行了理论梳理。研究发现,职位确权将促进官员选择积极避责策略,而消极偏向可能导致官员更倾向于选择消极避责策略。最后,本文分析了已有研究的局限之处并提出未来可能的研究方向。The negative impacts of blame avoidance strategies that government officials take have raised concerns. Based on existing studies, according to two dimensions, before or after the accountability and the leader＇s reactive attitude,we divide the blame avoidance strategies into four categories, which are anticipatory inaction, anticipatory overreaction, reactive excuses, and reactive justification. Fur- ther, literature review for the key factors, including responsibility confirmation and negative bias, is made. Therefore, we found that can- finning responsibility mayurge the government officials choose the reactive strategies. Meanwhile, negative bias will do its work the other way around. In the end, we summarize the inadequacy of previous studies and put forward possible research questions.

关 键 词：危机管理 避责行为 职位确权 消极偏向 

分 类 号：D63[政治法律—政治学]