属地管理体制下基层政府的困境与对策探究

发布时间：2018-02-15 14:30

本文关键词： 属地管理体制基层政府责任政府　出处：《吉林大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：政府责任的实现问题已成为理论研究和实践探索的热点和难点,虽然围绕基层政府责任实现的研究成果不少,但结合属地管理体制来考察基层政府责任问题的成果尚不多,且已有成果宏观分析多、微观考察少。本文以基层政府责任实现途径为视角,从相关责任主体、责任受体、管理制度、社会环境因素、政府责任、正向绩效管理、监督管理等方面进行分析,联系实际分析基层政府的“三性”特征,从学理和实务角度对属地管理体制概念、属地管理的应用范围、属地管理的优劣着手,探究在目前属地管理体制下基层政府面临的种种困境和难题,并进行拓展性原因分析,最后提出完善行政管理体制,促进基层政府积极履行职责,化解乡镇属地化管理困境,巩固基层政权的初浅建议。属地管理体制本来是中央政府分权和用于约束地方政府工作的一种制度,并区别于垂直管理体制,旨在给地方一定的自主权,但实践中,属地管理体制已扩大了原来的范畴,上级部门通过制定工作方案、发通知、召开会议等形式,完成工作部署,轻而易举已地将工作任务进行分解、转嫁,事后只要监督、检查即可。基层政府作为最基层单元,面对的不是几个,而是数十个上级职能部门同时实施管理和考核,基层政府一方面疲于应付,另一方面有好处的事情大家争着做,不利的事情相互推诿。在属地管理体制实施过程中,面对“条条”之间互相冲突的政令时,往往一筹莫展。并且,在法规或文件中,并无明确规定基层政府条块如何结合?双重领导如何分权?故在实践中出现管理真空、交叉管理和多头管理的窘况。实践中,在乡、镇和街道,最怕听到“属地管理”的会议要求,如果职能部门举起“属地管理”大旗,则基层单位基本无好结果。加之,在上级政府和职能部门面前,基层政府话语权较小,对于属地管理体制的实施职能是被动接受。这种管理体制由于存在权限不清、责大于权、有责无权,以有限的权力承担着无限的责任等弊端,势必造成政府职能缺位和不到位,甚至导致上级职能部门与基层工作人员对属地管理持完全对立的态度。一般而言,基层政府是国家政令、决议的最直接实施者,工作的困境多是贯彻执行和责任问题,不涉及制度本身,那么,这个冲突的背后究竟是制度安排问题?还是政策执行问题?现行条块分割管理体制与基层政府效能和绩效考核是否存在关联?需要认真思考,高度关注。
[Abstract]:The realization of government responsibility has become a hot and difficult point in theoretical research and practical exploration. Although there are a lot of research results around the realization of grass-roots government responsibility, there are not many achievements in examining the problem of grass-roots government responsibility in combination with the territorial management system. From the perspective of the basic level government responsibility realization approach, from the relevant responsibility subject, responsibility receptor, management system, social environmental factors, government responsibility, positive performance management, the article takes the basic level government responsibility as the angle of view, from the related responsibility subject, responsibility receptor, management system, social environment factor, government responsibility, positive performance management. From the angle of theory and practice, this paper analyzes the concept of the territorial management system, the scope of application of the territorial management, the advantages and disadvantages of the territorial management, and analyzes the characteristics of the grass-roots government in terms of supervision and management, and analyzes the characteristics of the "three characteristics" of the grass-roots government. This paper probes into the difficulties and difficulties faced by grass-roots governments under the present territorial management system, and analyzes the reasons for the expansion. Finally, it proposes to perfect the administrative management system, to promote the grass-roots governments to carry out their duties actively, and to resolve the difficulties of local township management. The territorial management system was originally a system used by the central government to decentralize and restrain the work of local governments, and is different from the vertical management system in order to give the local authorities some autonomy, but in practice, The territorial management system has expanded its original scope. Through the formulation of work plans, the issuance of circulars, and the convening of meetings, the higher authorities have completed their work arrangements, easily decomposing and transferring the work tasks, and after that they only need supervision. The grass-roots government, as the most basic unit, is faced with not a few but dozens of higher functional departments simultaneously implementing management and assessment. On the one hand, the grass-roots government is struggling to cope with it, on the other hand, everyone is scrambling to do good things. In the process of implementing the territorial management system, when faced with the conflicting decrees between the "articles", they are often at a loss. Moreover, in laws and regulations or in the documents, there is no clear provision on how to combine the sections of the grass-roots government... How can dual leadership be decentralized? Therefore, in practice there is a dilemma of management vacuum, cross-management and multi-management. In practice, in townships, towns and streets, they are most afraid of hearing the demands of "territorial management" meetings. If the functional departments raise the banner of "territorial management," In addition, in the presence of higher levels of government and functional departments, the grass-roots government has a relatively small right to speak, so it is passive to accept the implementation functions of the territorial management system. This kind of management system is more responsible than the right because of the lack of clear authority. Having responsibilities and not having power, taking unlimited responsibilities with limited power, and so on, will inevitably lead to the absence and imperfection of government functions, and even lead to a completely opposite attitude towards territorial management between higher functional departments and grass-roots staff. Generally speaking, Grass-roots government is the government decree, the most direct implementation of the resolution, the plight of the work is the implementation and responsibility of the problem, not the system itself, so behind the conflict is the institutional arrangements? Or policy implementation? Is there any relationship between the current management system and the effectiveness and performance appraisal of grass-roots government? Need serious thinking, high attention.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D630

【相似文献】