大数据驱动的决策制定:乐观抑或悲观?  

Big Data-Driven Decision-Making:Optimism or Pessimism?

作　　者：李强彬[1] 刘思雨 LI Qiang-Bin;LIU Si-Yu

机构地区：[1]四川大学公共管理学院,四川成都610065

出　　处：《党政研究》2024年第5期40-51,M0004,共13页Studies on Party and Government

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目“民主协商推进基层群众有效自治的长效机制与实现路径研究”(21AZZ005)。

摘　　要：大数据驱动公共决策模式迭代升级,重构了决策制定、执行、监督和反馈全链条中的权力关系与资源配置。对此,学界出现了乐观论与悲观论两种基本的论调:乐观者认为大数据驱动的决策制定具有诸多优势和良好发展前景;悲观者则认为现实中的大数据并不一定会促使决策更加精准、科学和民主,反而可能会因数据本身来源和格式的复杂性、数据互通和共享标准的差异性、多主体利益博弈的政治性以及隐私侵犯和信息泄露的可能性而导致更为复杂的政策失灵。进一步分析发现,乐观论和悲观论之间的分歧主要源于技术与政治、权利与权力、工具理性与价值理性之间孰轻孰重。面向未来,可以推动大数据驱动的决策制定向审慎的乐观主义迈进,建构数字技术、政治过程与制度运作之间的互嵌与互适关系,以此锚定大数据驱动决策制定的基本方向,真正发挥大数据在政府决策和社会治理中的作用。The application of big data technology is driving the iterative evolution of public decision-making models,reshaping power dynamics and resource allocation across decision-making,execution,supervision,and feedback processes.In academic discussions,two main perspectives emerge:optimism and pessimism.Optimists highlight the advantages and promising prospects of big data-driven decision-making,while pessimists argue that,in practice,big data may not lead to more accurate,scientific,or democratic decisions.Instead,due to complexities in data sources and formats,discrepancies in data exchange standards,political power struggles,and the risk of privacy infringement,big data could exacerbate policy failures.Upon further analysis,this divide stems from differing views on the significance of technology versus politics,power versus authority,and instrumental rationality versus value rationality.Looking ahead,a cautiously optimistic approach can be fostered by creating an embedded and adaptive relationship between digital technologies,political processes,and institutional frameworks,thereby ensuring that big data plays a constructive role in government decision-making and social governance.

关 键 词：大数据 数据政治 决策过程 决策制定 循证决策 

分 类 号：D035[政治法律—政治学]