“双一流”范围调整的社会风险:生成机理、特征表现与防控策略

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (2)

Download: PDF (635 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Public policies are formulated in an environment of high risks and uncertainty.Whether they trigger public antagonism or even social risks depends on the public's understanding of the government's public decision-making process and the extent to which public decision-making responds to public expectations against social context.The adjustment of the construction scope of “double first-class”,a major public educational decision made by the government,is related to the redistribution of major social interests,involving many possible risks.The conflicts and disputes caused by improper decision-making may cause risks to social stability.The potential risks have following characteristics:they have wide influence and high sensitivity;they attract wide public attention and expectation;they are very complicated and hard to balance;they are highly risky and can trigger massive ripple effects.To guard against possible risks,in the adjustment of the scope of “double first-class”construction.we should take following measures:we should implement a risk assessment mechanism for major decisions on social stability and anticipate risks in advance;we should increase transparency in information,guide social expectation in an appropriate way,and increase interaction with public opinion;we should conduct investigation in a rule-by-law way,prescribe rules,and increase transparency and credibility;we should expand public participation in the adjustment decision-making process,take into account the demands and interests of all parties to make rules completely legitimate;we should effectively improve the implementation methods so that the list of the top universities can be dynamically adjusted for a healthy competition.

Key words： "double first-class"construction dynamic adjustment risks to social stability decision-making risk public decision-making

Received: 10 September 2020

PACS:	G40-011.8
	G520.1

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	WANG Yong-cheng
	HU Sheng-quan

Cite this article:

WANG Yong-cheng,HU Sheng-quan. Social Risks of the Dynamic Adjustment of “Double First-class”:Generating Mechanism,Characteristics and Countermeasures[J]. , 2020, 37(6): 32-41.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2020/V37/I6/32

[1] 习近平.在党的十八届五中全会第二次全体会议上的讲话(节选)[J].求是,2016,(1):9.
[2] 李克强.继续创新宏观调控思路方式保持经济平稳运行[N].人民日报,2014-07-18(04).
[3] 赵俊芳,刘艳红.高考改革社会风险评估与规避机制刍议——基于权力监督与公共政策价值分析的视角[J].大学教育科学,2019,(1).
[4] (美)戴维·伊斯顿.政治生活的系统分析[M].王浦劬等译.北京:华夏出版社,1999.
[5] 陈庆云.公共政策分析[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.10.
[6] 齐明山.有限理性与政府决策[J].新视野,2005,(2):27-29.
[7] 蒋华林.从“条块分割”到“块块分割”——我国高等教育发展转型中的地方政府竞争研究[D].武汉:华中科技大学博士学位论文,2015.
[8] (美)安德烈·施莱弗,罗伯特·维什尼.掠夺之手:政府病及其治疗[M].赵红军译.北京:中信出版社,2017.6.
[9] 杨雪冬.风险社会理论述评[J].国家行政学院学报,2005,(1).
[10] Zucker L.G.Production of trust:Institutional sources of economic structure,1840-1920[J].Research in Organizational Behavior,1986,(8):53-111.
[11] 邹育根.当前中国地方政府信任危机事件的型态类别、形成机理与治理思路[J].中国行政管理,2010,(4):68-72.
[12] (美)迈克尔·罗斯金.政治科学(第九版)[M].林震译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6-8.
[13] 韩志明.行动的选择与制度的逻辑——对“闹大”现象的理论分析[J].中国行政管理,2010,(5):110-113.
[14] (英)安东尼·吉登斯.失控的世界[M].周红云译.南昌:江西人民出版社,2001.22.
[15] 薛晓源,刘国良.全球风险世界:现在与未来——德国著名社会学家,风险社会理论创始人乌尔里希·贝克教授访谈录[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,(1):44-55.
[16] (美)约翰·S·布鲁贝克.高等教育哲学(第3版)[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.71.
[17] 王建华.政策驱动改革及其局限——兼议“双一流”建设[J].江苏高教,2018,(6).
[18] Edward Freeman R,Evan W M.Corporate governance:A stakeholder interpretation[J].Journal of Behavioral Economics,1990,19(4):337-359.
[19] 中共中央文献研究室.习近平关于社会主义社会建设论述摘编[M].北京:中央文献出版社,2017.66-67.
[20] 涂端午.深化教育改革中的决策风险防控[J].清华大学教育研究,2018,(2):32-37.
[21] 中共十八届四中全会在京举行[N].人民日报,2014-10-24(01).
[22] 司马媛,童星.对风险社会理论的再思考及政策适应[J].学习与实践,2011,(12):95-100.
[23] 吴康宁.教育改革成功的基础[J].教育研究,2012,(1):24-31.
[24] 葛孝亿.教育改革的公共理性:“深水区”之后的省思[J].现代教育管理,2013,(12):6-11.