非均衡改革(中俄经验比较分析)

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Political Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-06-23 DOI:10.30570/2078-5089-2022-105-2-49-70
F. Haiting
{"title":"非均衡改革(中俄经验比较分析)","authors":"F. Haiting","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2022-105-2-49-70","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transforming a political system is never an easy task. The reforms that launched this process can easily fall into the “balancing trap”, when a lion's share of political capital is directed to ensure a balance of interests of various social groups, which inevitably leads to the curtailment of reforms and, as a result, stagnation. The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the approaches of China and Russia to solving this problem. The essence of the Chinese approach, which is usually referred to as the “policy experimentation”, is that reforms are first carried out in a separate region, and then, if successful, gradually spread to the whole country. However, the key to China's success lies not only in experimentation, but also in a variety of reform strategies, the choice of which is determined by the specific conditions prevailing in a given region. Russia also uses this model, which is known as an “unbalanced reform” and aimed at spotting areas of least resistance to reforms in order to prevent the unification of the efforts of the opponents to reforms and direct confrontation between the state and the society. However, its Russian version differs remarkably from the Chinese one. According to the author, the differences between the Chinese and the Russian models of reforms are rooted in the political sphere and are associated with the specifics of the electoral and party systems of these countries, and most importantly, with the nature of the relations in the “center-regions” system. In China, when carrying out reforms, the emphasis is placed upon the initiative from below, while Russia prefers political instruments that are under the direct control of the federal structures.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"27 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unbalanced Reform (Comparative Analysis of China’s and Russia’s Experience)\",\"authors\":\"F. Haiting\",\"doi\":\"10.30570/2078-5089-2022-105-2-49-70\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Transforming a political system is never an easy task. The reforms that launched this process can easily fall into the “balancing trap”, when a lion's share of political capital is directed to ensure a balance of interests of various social groups, which inevitably leads to the curtailment of reforms and, as a result, stagnation. The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the approaches of China and Russia to solving this problem. The essence of the Chinese approach, which is usually referred to as the “policy experimentation”, is that reforms are first carried out in a separate region, and then, if successful, gradually spread to the whole country. However, the key to China's success lies not only in experimentation, but also in a variety of reform strategies, the choice of which is determined by the specific conditions prevailing in a given region. Russia also uses this model, which is known as an “unbalanced reform” and aimed at spotting areas of least resistance to reforms in order to prevent the unification of the efforts of the opponents to reforms and direct confrontation between the state and the society. However, its Russian version differs remarkably from the Chinese one. According to the author, the differences between the Chinese and the Russian models of reforms are rooted in the political sphere and are associated with the specifics of the electoral and party systems of these countries, and most importantly, with the nature of the relations in the “center-regions” system. In China, when carrying out reforms, the emphasis is placed upon the initiative from below, while Russia prefers political instruments that are under the direct control of the federal structures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"27 2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-105-2-49-70\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-105-2-49-70","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

改变一个政治体制从来都不是一件容易的事。启动这一进程的改革很容易落入“平衡陷阱”,当大部分政治资本被用于确保各种社会群体的利益平衡时,这不可避免地导致改革的缩减,从而导致停滞。本文对中俄两国解决这一问题的途径进行了比较分析。通常被称为“政策试验”的中国模式的实质是,首先在一个单独的地区进行改革,然后,如果成功,逐步推广到全国。然而,中国成功的关键不仅在于试验,还在于多种改革策略,而这些策略的选择取决于特定地区的具体情况。俄罗斯也采用这种模式,被称为“不平衡改革”,旨在找出改革阻力最小的领域,以防止改革反对者的努力统一,国家与社会之间的直接对抗。然而,它的俄文版本与中文版本有很大的不同。作者认为,中国和俄罗斯改革模式的差异根植于政治领域,与两国选举和政党制度的具体情况有关,最重要的是,与“中心地区”制度中关系的性质有关。在中国,在进行改革时,强调自下而上的主动性,而俄罗斯更喜欢联邦结构直接控制下的政治工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unbalanced Reform (Comparative Analysis of China’s and Russia’s Experience)
Transforming a political system is never an easy task. The reforms that launched this process can easily fall into the “balancing trap”, when a lion's share of political capital is directed to ensure a balance of interests of various social groups, which inevitably leads to the curtailment of reforms and, as a result, stagnation. The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the approaches of China and Russia to solving this problem. The essence of the Chinese approach, which is usually referred to as the “policy experimentation”, is that reforms are first carried out in a separate region, and then, if successful, gradually spread to the whole country. However, the key to China's success lies not only in experimentation, but also in a variety of reform strategies, the choice of which is determined by the specific conditions prevailing in a given region. Russia also uses this model, which is known as an “unbalanced reform” and aimed at spotting areas of least resistance to reforms in order to prevent the unification of the efforts of the opponents to reforms and direct confrontation between the state and the society. However, its Russian version differs remarkably from the Chinese one. According to the author, the differences between the Chinese and the Russian models of reforms are rooted in the political sphere and are associated with the specifics of the electoral and party systems of these countries, and most importantly, with the nature of the relations in the “center-regions” system. In China, when carrying out reforms, the emphasis is placed upon the initiative from below, while Russia prefers political instruments that are under the direct control of the federal structures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating International Agreements: The Voluntarist Reply and Its Limits Issue Information The Journal of Political Philosophy Index, Volume 31 (2023) The challenge of policing minorities in a liberal society Noncompliance and the Demands of Public Reason
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1