寓活力于秩序:包容性城市治理的制度建构及其反思  

Integrating Vitality into Order: Institutional Construction and Reflection of Inclusive Urban Governance

作　　者：文军[1] 王云龙 Wen Jun;Wang Yunlong

机构地区：[1]华东师范大学中国现代城市研究中心暨社会发展学院,上海200241 [2]华东师范大学社会发展学院,上海200241

出　　处：《学术研究》2020年第5期43-51,177,共10页Academic Research

基　　金：教育部重点研究基地重大项目“中国包容性城市发展思路研究” (19JJD840001);上海市教委科研创新计划人文社会科学重大项目“社会转型的中国实践与转型社会学的建构” (201701070005E00041)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：作为城市治理研究中的两个主导范式,"城市秩序论"与"城市活力论"之间实际上存在着逻辑上的张力与实践中的纠葛。"秩序论"更多将城市治理导向自上而下的"精英视角",内在寻求实践的结构性与稳定性。而"活力论"更多将城市治理导向自下而上的"市民视角",内在呼唤实践的行动属性与动态特征。两者由此演化出了"结构"与"行动"的二元论争。对此,在城市治理的制度建构过程中,倡导寓活力于秩序的包容性城市治理思路,通过打造包括多方参与主体在内的社会生活共同体,逐步营造出兼具"发展数量"与"发展质量"的包容性城市空间,不失为突破"城市秩序论"与"城市活力论"二元论争的有效途径。As the two leading paradigms in the study of urban governance, there are logical tension and practical disputes between"the theory of urban order"and"the theory of urban vitality". The"order theory"is more oriented to the"elite perspective"of top-down urban governance, and seeks internally the structure and stability of practice."Vitalism"is more oriented to the"citizen perspective"of bottom-up, and inherently calls for the action attributes and dynamic characteristics of practice. The two have thus evolved the dual argument of"structure"and"action". In this regard, in the process of institutional construction of urban governance, it advocates the idea of inclusive urban governance with vitality and order, and gradually builds a"quantity of development"and"quality of development"by building a living community that includes multiple participants. The inclusive urban space is an effective way to break through the dual debate between" the theory of urban order" and"the theory of urban vitality".

关 键 词：城市秩序论 城市活力论 制度建构 包容性城市 

分 类 号：C91[经济管理] D62[社会学]