中国城市社区治理现代化进程的结构性张力与适应性创新
作者简介:向昉,中国社会科学院中国社会科学评价研究院助理研究员 (北京 100732)。
基金项目:
本文为国家自然科学基金项目 "社会拓扑视角下城市密度演化动态与治理机制研究——以北京市为例"(42101196)的阶段性成果
摘要: 中国城市社区治理现代化是制度、资源与技术三要素动态互构的复杂进程,其演进始终伴随结构性张力与适应性创新的双重逻辑。制度要素通过权威规则与科层逻辑框定治理边界,资源依赖财政分配与社会资本支撑治理能力,技术以效率驱动重塑治理流程。自1991年治理重心从单一服务逐渐转向综合性治理空间重构以来,社区治理现代化历经了试验探索期、全面深化期与转型赋能期三阶段演进。然而,社区治理在取得阶段性成效的同时,也面临制度刚性约束与流动社会需求的适配落差、资源输入密集化与自治能力消解的悖反、技术效率崇拜与治理价值脱嵌的冲突。对此,未来社区治理现代化需以弹性治理重构制度韧性,通过权责再平衡与动态调适机制突破行政主导逻辑;以痛点驱动激活社会资本,构建“主辅协同”的内生参与网络;以人本导向纠偏技术工具,推动算法规则与地方性知识的双向调适,从而在制度韧性、资源适配与技术包容的协同共振中实现适应性创新。
Structural Tensions and Adaptive Innovations in the Modernization of Urban Neighborhood Governance
Abstract: The modernization of urban neighborhood governance in China is a complex and dynamic process driven by the interconstruction of institutional, resource-based, and technological elements. This process is consistently shaped by a dual logic of structural tensions and adaptive innovations. Institutional elements delineate governance boundaries through authoritative rules and bureaucratic logics; resource elements depend on fiscal allocations and social capital to sustain governance capacity; and technological elements reshape governance processes through efficiency-driven mechanisms. Since the governance paradigm began shifting in 1991 from single-service provision to a comprehensive restructuring of governance space, the modernization of neighborhood governance has undergone three stages:experimental exploration, comprehensive deepening, and transformative empowerment. Despite periodic achievements, this process has encountered persistent challenges, including the mismatch between institutional rigidity and the fluidity of societal demands, the paradox of resource intensification undermining autonomous capacity, and the conflict between technocratic efficiency and the detachment from governance values. Moving forward, the modernization of neighborhood governance must enhance institutional resilience through flexible governance by rebalancing responsibilities and introducing dynamic adjustment mechanisms to transcend administrative dominance; activate social capital by addressing governance pain points and constructing an endogenous participatory network characterized by “primary-auxiliary collaboration”; and recalibrate the role of technology through a human-centered orientation that enables mutual adaptation between algorithmic rules and local knowledge. Ultimately, adaptive innovation can be achieved through the synergistic resonance of institutional resilience, resource adaptation, and technological inclusiveness.