深圳市“禁摩限电”的政策价值分析

发布时间：2018-03-05 09:16

本文选题：禁摩限电　切入点：政策价值　出处：《深圳大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：深圳市于2003年正式“禁摩”,2012年正式“限电”,“禁摩限电”工作成为深圳市政府的常规性工作。深圳市公安局交通警察局于2016年3月公布了更为严厉的新“禁摩限电”实施细则,然而,此次政策引来了铺天盖地的网民议论和媒体负面报道,深圳市政府的公共管理能力遭到严重质疑。“政策如何才能让社会公众满意”,是政府运用公共政策实施社会管理首先要思考的问题。深圳市2016年的“禁摩限电”政策实践所引发的广泛社会质疑和巨大政策执行阻力,无疑为政府的政策行为敲响了警钟。深入分析这一政策的经验,具有重要的理论和实践意义。学界现有对于深圳市“禁摩限电”政策的研究,主要研究该政策在政策具体内容、政策制定和执行方式以及政策影响方面的不合理性,鲜有从政策价值角度深入分析该政策出现困境的原因。本文将政策价值作为研究深圳市2016年“禁摩限电”政策经验的视角和工具,以公众对政策的价值诉求为参照,审视深圳市“禁摩限电”政策中政府的政策价值选择,以深层讨论为什么公众会对政策不满意。本文认为,深圳市政府在2016年“禁摩限电”的政策价值选择,存在与公众关于该政策的价值诉求的偏离,具体而言,在这一政策过程中,政府以法治行政为行动纲领,以改善城市公共交通为集中目标,追求法治氛围、公共交通安全和城市全局改进;公众则以政策的个体利益效应为根本关注点,以政策的社会公平效应为集中敏感点,关注个体微观出行条件便利性,关注政府的社会综合服务能力以及公共资源的公平分配。对于两大主体在政策价值方面出现差异化倾向的原因方面,本文尝试从三对矛盾提供初步解释:公共利益一致性与个体利益多元性、政府部门职能专门性与政策影响领域多重性、政策资源有限性与公共问题复杂性。
[Abstract]:Shenzhen Municipality officially "forbade friction" on 2003, and formally "power cut" on 2012. The work of "banning and restricting electricity" has become a routine work of the Shenzhen municipal government. On March 2016, the Traffic Police Department of the Shenzhen Municipal Public Security Bureau announced more stringent rules for the implementation of the new "no-friction power restriction". However, the policy has attracted numerous Internet comments and negative media reports. The public management ability of Shenzhen municipal government has been seriously questioned. "how to make the public satisfied with the policy" is the first question that the government should think about when applying the public policy to implement the social management. The wide range of social doubts and great resistance to policy implementation caused by the practice of the policy, Undoubtedly, it is a wake-up call for the government's policy behavior. It is of great theoretical and practical significance to deeply analyze the experience of this policy. Irrationality in the way policies are formulated and implemented and in terms of their impact, This paper takes the policy value as the perspective and tool to study the policy experience of "banning and restricting electricity" in Shenzhen in 2016, and refers to the value appeal of the public to the policy. In order to discuss why the public is dissatisfied with the policy, this paper argues that the Shenzhen Municipal Government decided to choose the policy value of "banning and restricting electricity" in 2016. In the process of this policy, the government regards the administration of the rule of law as the action program, and takes the improvement of urban public transport as the concentrated goal to pursue the atmosphere of the rule of law. Public transportation safety and the overall improvement of the city, the public take the individual benefit effect of the policy as the basic concern, take the social fair effect of the policy as the concentrated sensitive point, pay attention to the convenience of the individual micro-travel condition, Pay attention to the government's social comprehensive service ability and the fair distribution of public resources. This paper attempts to provide a preliminary explanation from three pairs of contradictions: consistency of public interest and diversity of individual interests, functional specialization of government departments and multiple fields of policy influence, limitation of policy resources and complexity of public problems.
【学位授予单位】：深圳大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D631.5

【参考文献】