比较视域下国家能力建设的历史渊源、制度逻辑及中国贡献

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (13)

Download: PDF (553 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The global spread of COVID-19 has increased difference among different social institutions and civilizations, and intensified the conflict of interest and ideology between countries. Political actors' value perception of state and government responsibility has great impact on their power organization, institutional framework and governance structure. This thesis elaborates upon national capacity, comparing the historical origin and system logic behind the difference between China and the West in fighting COVID-19. In terms of political value basis, China promotes politics of virtue while the West is dominated by politics of rationality. In terms of organizational mobilization, China is a tight society while the West is a loose society. In terms of institutional absorption capacity, China stresses the unity between family and nation while the West puts right first. In terms of institutional resilience, China is an active state while the West follows minimal statism. The COVID-19 has exposed many long-standing problems in western political ideas and institutions. Building a governance system conducive to the development of mankind has thus become a core issue. China can provide useful ideological inspiration and institutional resources to solve human problems. Firstly, it is necessary to stress the political logic of responsibility, review and redefine the role and function of the state. Secondly, it is necessary to enhance internal cohesion and rebuild organic connection between the public and private spheres. Thirdly, it is necessary to build a coordinated network of communication between different level to improve the grass-root governance. Lastly, it is necessary to raise awareness of coordination in response to crises and push for a new order of global governance.

Key words： COVID-19 pandemic national governance national capacity historical origin system logic global governance

Received: 20 January 2022

PACS:

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	LI Yuan-yuan

Cite this article:

LI Yuan-yuan. Historical Origin, System Logic of National Capacity Development and China's Contribution under a Comparative Perspective[J]. , 2022, 39(2): 5-12.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2022/V39/I2/5

[1] (德)乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会——新的现代性之路[M].张文杰,何博闻译.南京:译林出版社,2018.“前言”7.
[2] (美)塞缪尔·亨廷顿.变化社会中的政治秩序[M].王冠华等译.上海:上海人民出版社,2015.
[3] (美)弗朗西斯·福山.国家构建:21世纪的国家治理与世界秩序[M].郭华译,孟凡礼校.上海:学林出版社,2017.
[4] (美)弗朗西斯·福山.美国处在十字路口:民主、权力与新保守主义的遗产[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2008. 125.
[5] Andrew J.Nathan.Authoritarian Resilience[J].Journal of D-emocracy,2003,14(1):6-17.
[6] 艾云,周雪光.国家治理逻辑与民众抗争形式:一个制度主义视角的分析[J].社会学评论,2017,(4):14.
[7] (英)埃里克·霍布斯鲍姆.民族与民族主义[M].李金梅译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2006.5.
[8] 习近平.在省部级主要领导干部学习贯彻十八届三中全会精神全面深化改革专题研讨班开班式上的讲话[EB/OL].人民网,http://pic.people.com.cn/n/2014/0218/c1016-24387045.html,2020-03-18.
[9] 陈志武. 西方理性政治学述评[J].政治学研究,1986,(5):20.
[10] (英)马丁·雅克.大国雄心[M]. 孙豫宁,张莉译.北京:中信出版社,2016.107.
[11] 赵汀阳. 全球化之势:普遍技术和关系理性[J].探索与争鸣,2017,(3):47.
[12] Dave Nussbaum.Tight and Loose Cultures: A Conversation with Michele Gelfand[EB/OL].https://behavioralscientist.org/tight-and-loose-cultures-a-conversation-with-michele-gelfand/,2019-01-17.
[13] (美)威廉·弗格森.希腊帝国主义[M].晏绍祥译.上海:上海三联书店,2005.“前言”1.
[14] 许纪霖. 家国天下——现代中国的个人、国家与世界认同[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2017.“导论”5.
[15] 李军鹏. 责任政府与政府问责制[M].北京:人民出版社,2009.12 .
[16] 郑振清. 国家引导的合作责任治理——中国抗疫对风险治理的启发[J].文化纵横,2021,(2):119.
[17] (英)安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].田禾译.南京:译林出版社,2011.79.
[18] Rajib.Shaw, Yong-kyun Kim and Jinling Hua.Governance,Technology and Citizen Behavior in Pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19 in East Asia[EB/OL].https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S25900617203 00272,2020-04-06.
[19] 刘建军. 体系与能力:国家治理现代化的二重维度[J].行政论坛,2020,(4):32.
[20] (德)卡尔·施米特.政治的概念[M].刘宗坤,朱雁冰译.上海:上海人民出版社,2018.44.