科研管理 ›› 2019, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (4): 233-244.

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

知识型专家影响空气质量标准政策变迁的中美比较研究

孙岩1,刘红艳2   

  1. 1.大连理工大学公共管理系,辽宁 大连116024;
    2.大连理工大学经济管理学院,辽宁 大连116024
  • 收稿日期:2016-01-13 修回日期:2016-08-02 出版日期:2019-04-20 发布日期:2019-04-23
  • 通讯作者: 孙岩
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究项目:“政策学习对我国环境政策变迁的作用机制研究”(16YJC630107);中央高校基本科研业务费专项项目:“我国大气污染治理中政策学习的路径研究”(DUT17RW213)。

Comparison of behavioral patterns of knowledge-experts participation in changes of national ambient air quality standard policy in China and America

Sun Yan1, Liu Hongyan2   

  1. 1. Department of Public Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, Liaoning, China;
    2. School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, Liaoning, China
  • Received:2016-01-13 Revised:2016-08-02 Online:2019-04-20 Published:2019-04-23

摘要: 专家治策是政策科学研究的新趋势之一。本文运用比较案例研究方法,分析了近60年来中美知识型专家参与空气质量标准政策过程的模式及其对政策变迁的影响。研究发现,中国专家主要采用直接咨询模式参与政策过程,推动了内生型政策学习,并适时承担起政策经纪人的角色身份。专家群体构成趋于多样化,具有个体强群体弱的特征,但专家政策参与的能力和自身角色认知仍有欠缺,参与路径和效果缺乏法律制度的保障。

关键词: 知识型专家, 空气质量标准, 政策变迁, 倡议联盟框架, 政策学习, 专家参与模式

Abstract: Since the 1960s, the Chinese government has issued multiple versions of Air Quality Standards Policy and related policies, in which experts frequently participated. As an important role in the policy subsystem, experts are one of the important factors influencing the change of public policy, in which the characteristics and behavioral patterns of expert participation, including the size, manner and result are all worth thinking about.This paper uses the comparative case study method, summarizes and compares the evolution of Air Quality Standard Policy between China and the United States, and analyses the behavioral patterns of expert participation and its impact on the process of Air Quality Standard Policy changes to find out the differences between two countries, which will provide some theoretical supports for the effective expert participation in the field of environmental policy in China.It is found that the behavioral patterns of linear access and outside-in enlightenment exist in the two stages of policy change. However, there are also behavioral patterns of deprofessionalized campaign, and locked-out in each stage. Moreover, in the United States, the two patterns of linear access and outside-in enlightenment are basically balanced, while it is more stable to promote endogenous learning through the behavioral patterns of linear access to promote policy process in China. More generally, there are some similar effects brought about by expert participation on the process of Air Quality Standard Policy changes between two countries. However, the effect of expert participation in China has its own unique characteristics.First of all, expert participation is mainly based on the behavioral pattern of linear access, and it is different from the US where the behavioral pattern of outside-in enlightenment is the main one, which is inconsistent with previous research conclusions, the main reason is that Chinese policymakers pay more attention to the opinions of experts and stipulate the necessity of expert participation in relevant policies and laws. The behavioral pattern of linear access of expert participation can quickly and effectively influence policy-making and decision-making, however, under these circumstances, only a small range of experts can take effect, which leads to the result of more external experts lack effective ways or paths to participate in the policy process.Secondly, experts mainly promote endogenous policy learning and the transformation of secondary policy beliefs, which is particularly obvious in the first three stages of policy change, and only in the last stage, experts discussed and appealed for air pollution issues by publishing research results to the society, which showed the role of promoting social learning so as to promote the change of policy core belief system of policymakers.Thirdly, the composition types of expert participation tend to be diversified. With the democratization of policy concepts, more experts from non-governmental organizations joined in policy research. Along with the development of new media and social network, more experts participate in the policy process to respond to the requirement of scientific and democratic decision-making. Additionally, in the form of individuals, experts mostly play an important role in policy change in China, while American think tanks, as an important form of expert group, have a more profound and systematic impact on policy.The fourth point is that the ability of expert participation is still insufficient, and their role orientation is not clear. In the progress of Air Quality Standard Policy changes, the experts in China lacks the research on air quality standards with considering a more cutting-edge perspective and practical significance of long-term social development.Finally, the path and effect of expert participation lacks the guarantee of legal system, which caused that experts could not have a systematic and stable impact on environmental policy.This paper suggests that the government should continue promoting policy initiative change through encouraging the linear access of expert participation with forward-looking and sustained research, and constantly improve Air Quality Standards Policy and related policies so as to ensure long-term improvement of air quality. Meanwhile, experts need to fully understand the position and responsibilities of self-roles in environmental policy system, and actively explore effective strategies of policy participation.

Key words: knowledge expert, national ambient air quality standards, policy change, advocacy coalition framework, policy learning, expert participation pattern