公共行政的“问责”概念:来自中国话语的论域剖析  

“Accountability”in Public Administration Field:Analyzing Based on the Chinese Discourses

作　　者：李延伟 谢程远 张翔 LI Yanwei;XIE Chengyuan;ZHANG Xiang(School of Political Science and Public Administration,Shandong University;School of Public Administration,Nanjing Normal University;School of Public Affairs,Xiamen University)

机构地区：[1]山东大学政治学与公共管理学院 [2]南京师范大学公共管理学院 [3]厦门大学公共事务学院

出　　处：《公共管理评论》2024年第4期5-27,共23页China Public Administration Review

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“我国地方政府生态环境治理精准问责机制研究”(项目批准号:20BZZ036)的资助。

摘　　要：近年来,我国公共行政学者围绕问责这一概念开展大量研究,但不同学者对于问责这一概念的理解不尽相同,这不仅可能会阻碍概念的科学化与规范化发展,也不利于经验研究的开展与中国话语体系的构建。为此,本文首先梳理西方公共行政学界的问责概念,认为“契约—等级”的关系差异是造成中西方问责概念差异的原因,在此基础上,借助文献梳理和逻辑演绎,归纳总结我国公共行政领域的问责研究中主要呈现出的四种理解向度,即作为机制的问责、作为制度的问责、作为关系的问责与作为自律的问责,并对这四种理解的主要特征进行了论证,尝试厘清问责这一概念的本质与特征。这四种理解既可以作为一项“元框架”,塑造具有共识性的问责概念,同时也为政治学与行政学的分野提供了新的考察视角。期待这四种理解能协助我国公共行政学者积极发现问责实践、挖掘问责经验、发展问责理论,为构建中国问责话语体系作出原创性理论贡献。With the widespread implementation of accountability laws and the increasing emphasis on responsibility in governance,Chinese public administration scholars have undertaken extensive research into government behavior and state governance through the lens of accountability.Over time,this body of work has coalesced into a conceptual framework that incorporates multiple dimensions,including the accountability subject,object,environment,and mode.Despite this progress,significant variation persists among scholars regarding their understanding of accountability,largely due to differences in research fields and methodological approaches.Such divergence poses several challenges:it not only undermines the scientific rigor of the concept but also impedes its standardized development,hinders the advancement of empirical studies,and complicates the formation of a coherent accountability discourse within the Chinese context.To address these challenges,this paper engages in a comparative dialogue with Western scholarship on accountability in public administration,identifying key distinctions between Chinese and Western interpretations.The paper posits that the difference between the contractual relationships emphasized in the West and the hierarchical relationships that underlie Chinese governance is a major factor contributing to the divergent practical orientations and logical emphases in the two contexts.Western accountability frameworks tend to focus on mutual obligations codified through contracts,while Chinese frameworks are more aligned with hierarchical structures and power dynamics.These foundational differences shape both the practice and theoretical focus of accountability in their respective contexts.Through a comprehensive review of the literature and the application of logical deduction,this paper identifies four primary conceptualizations of accountability that have emerged in Chinese public administration research.These include:(1)Accountability as a mechanism,which refers to the processes and means through whi

关 键 词：公共行政 问责 中国话语 制度 自律 关系 

分 类 号：D03[政治法律—政治学]