明星和他們的配角陣容：國家、市場和社區(qū)在城市治理中的角色【外文翻譯】

1、本科畢業(yè)設計（論文）外 文 翻 譯原文：stars and their supporting cast: state,market and community as actors in urban governancejohn minnery in the search for better ways to govern cities there has been a shift from an emphasis on the role of urban government to an emphasis on urban governance. governance is now widel

2、y understood as incorporating the role of the state in policy making and implementation but extending beyond that single actor to include the roles of the private sector (market) and community (civil society). the relationships amongst the three are both complex and changing. this article proposes a

3、 conceptual framework that structures our understanding of how the actors in urban governance interact, based on relationships where one of the actors has far greater influence than the other two, in other words where one is the star or central actor. the framework then addresses the question of the

4、 roles of the supporting cast, or the other two actors. the governance orthodoxy is that relationships are collaborative and consensual, expressed through ideas about partnerships and networks. the framework, however, draws attention to the possibility of conflict. the article explores some of the i

5、mplications for urban governance theory and practice of these complex relationships.the nature of governancealthough the idea of governance originated in political science. kjrs (2004) discussion of its different forms is also located within political science, although she takes this as a broad disc

6、ipline that includes public administration, public policy, international relations and comparative politics. despite these various uncertainties about its home the idea of governance has been absorbed into the discourses of a number of disciplines, including urban planning and urban policy.it is, ho

7、wever, now widely accepted that governance incorporates but transcends the notion of government or of the state. it is also widely accepted that the way governance transcends government is by incorporating the private sector and civil society into policy making and implementation. these three compon

8、ents of governance are described by thynne (2000, p. 228) as “the state . . . viewed, very generally, as an organized political community that both features in, and has interdependent relationships with, the market as an organized economic community and civil society as an organized social community

9、”.just how the two non-government sectors are incorporated, and the nature of the resulting relationships amongst the three actors, is the starting point for the many debates about governance.forms of interactiondespite the complexity and rate of change of both governance and urban governance there

10、appears to be one consistent feature of the analyses of the different players roles: they either assume or predicate that one of the three players is central to the relationship. analysts take a state-centric, a market-centric or a community-centric approach. this centrality can take a number of for

11、ms; it does not necessarily imply a dominant power relationship. following the metaphor used in the title of this article one actor can be the star while other two actors play supporting roles. centrality, or star status, may imply nothing more than being the centre of attention; but on the other ha

12、nd it may imply some form of dominance. and in any three-person play the role played by the star normally needs the full participation of the supporting cast. in urban governance, centrality and non-centrality can take on a similar range of meanings.the analysis by geddes of welfare regimes in the e

13、uropean union uses a similar set of relationships in a different context. his triangular structure identifies “forms of local partnership” where the strongest role is played by the state (for example, “public sector partnerships” in the netherlands and scandinavia), or where the market is stronger (

14、such as “l(fā)ocal corporatist partnerships” in austria) or where civil society is stronger (such as “public/voluntary community partnerships” in portugal).in urban governance, if one of the triad of players is central then the other two must play some role in relation to that central player.2 this is t

15、he focus of the second major issue to be addressed in this article. when one player is assumed to play, or is defined as playing, a central role what exactly are the roles of the other two players? how do they support (or not support) the central player?state-centralitymany of the analysts of both g

16、overnance and urban governance identify or imply that the state is the central of the three actors. marshall (2000), in exploring whether there is a barcelona model of urban governance, focuses on the barcelona city council in its relations with other agencies. the model has local government at the

17、centre.pierre and stoker (2002, p. 32) accept that the role of government in governance is contingent but still give formal governmentas political elites, rather than the state as a wholea central role:local, regional and national political elites alike seek to forge coalitions with private business

18、es, voluntary associations and other social actors to mobilize resources across the publicprivate border in order to enhance their chances of guiding society towards politically defined goals.even when analysts seem to argue that governance occurs without governmentfor example, in rhodes (1996) anal

19、ysis, or peters and pierre (1998)effectively they are identifying governance where there are many centres of power but where the state, while no longer supreme, is still the key player. it is really a case “governance-beyond-thestate” rather than governance-without-the-state. in fact, most of rhodes

20、 writings on governance focus on the shift “from line bureaucracies to fragmented service delivery” in relation to the whitehall model of administration in the uk, where the central government “has swapped direct for indirect controls”. to rhodes it is clear that the control still rests with the cen

21、tral government even if it is now indirect rather than direct and its indirect control relies on working with the private sector and community sector players. in the australian context, otoole and burdess, whilst recognising the complexity of the sets of relationships involved in governance, make it

22、 clear that governance “has been utilized to promote the ideological repositioning of the state in the broader context of the market and civil society”.market-centralitythere are, of course, many market-driven approaches that play down the role of the state and community in favour of market mechanis

23、ms in governance and urban governance (geddes, 2005b). these are sometimes criticised as mere emblems of the neo-liberalist project. the shift from government to governance is equated by some with a shift from a state-centric to a market-centric model; but in fact examples range widely. for example,

24、 cashore (2002) refers to non-state market-driven governance, and harding et al. address what they see as a move from “municipalism” to a “business-dominated local agenda” at the local level in the uk. pattberg, although not dealing specifically with urban governance, identifies three functional pat

25、hways to global private forestry management: governance through regulation, governance through learning and discourse, and governance through integration, thus identifying three forms of marketcentric governance. the world bank is sometimes credited with introducing the term governance into the deve

26、lopment literature, with its report on the development crisis in sub-saharan africa in 1989, but the banks focus is on improving governance as a pathway to supporting a largely free market economy. in other words, the efficient working of a free market is the critical goal and the kind of governance

27、 structure the bank originally supported is there to sustain and buttress a free market.one reason for the necessity to incorporate the private sector in governance is the tension between the territorial boundedness of local governments and the lack of territorial restriction shown by the problems w

28、ith which local government has to deal. bock (2006) goes as far as to claim that “the municipality in its territorial boundaries and as a political institution based exclusively on a representative mandate will no longer be a sufficiently viable entity” (p. 327). the local municipality needs to move

29、 towards new local and regional alliances and forms of cooperation, including those with the private sector.community-centralitythere are also approaches to governance and urban governance that focus on civil society as the central player. the terms community or third sector or civil society are pre

30、ferred here to the common alternative of networks, as the term networks can potentially include the state and market as well as the community sector. many authors use the term networks when referring to the ways the community sector works because this implies it relies on informal relationships buil

31、t on trust and mutual obligation.some approaches that extol community centrality in governance are versions of the continuing discourses on civil society and social capital that hyden has identified as contemporary extensions of long-standing philosophies, approaches that people such as putnam and c

32、ox have given a more modern meaning to. for example, beall, using the term “social resources” rather than “social capital”, argues that public action as a social process embraces the ways “in which social resources feed into political processes.there is also a dark side to a focus on community in ur

33、ban governance. first, the retreat by governments from many formerly public responsibilities has often relied on community organisations and the wider society picking up these responsibilities. as beall notes, the concept of social capital that underpins many of these changes appeals to state policy

34、 makers because “the social capital framework is underpinned by an implicit rationale that allows for the unburdening of fiscal responsibility onto lower-order institutions and citizens themselves” (p. 359). second, there are the continuing problems of the them and us division inherent in the develo

35、pment of strong community identities. community-based nimbyism can block policy initiatives with wider public implications and support. and recent developments such as gated communities give concrete form to a kind of community-centric governance that relies on exclusion for its effectiveness.some o

36、f the examples used by healey illustrate both the positive community contributions and the difficulties that can arise when community is seen as central to governance. in her examples, which focus on different areas within newcastle, uk, community trusts were the initiating factors for urban renewal

37、 and regeneration. the rhetoric of the new labour central government in the uk since 1997 has been to support local democracy through community involvement in partnership arrangements focusing on regeneration of run-down urban localities. in addition, because local and central government in the uk h

38、as a very strong presence, “governance initiatives outside the state have had difficulties growing and surviving without finding a way to link to formal government in some way” (p. 313). the changes in local governance in rural towns in victoria discussed by otoole and burdess saw several roles for

39、local citizens, one of which was as active governors or enablers in local communities through their participation in local community associations. in fact, “the different groups participate in governance through their leadership roles in the local towns and their partnerships with outside agencies”

40、(p. 250). the examples related to the structure of the australian welfare state explored by mcdonald and marston , although not connected directly to urban governance, show that “the non-profit community sector (as opposed to the state) has been actively privileged as a key institutional site for re

41、sponding to future welfare demands” (p. 384). the relevant discourse has enthusiastically endorsed some of these changes seeing them as leading to the re-emergence of community, the strengthening of social capital, to social entrepreneurship, to the enabling state, to the third way and to active cit

42、izenship. clearly in a community-centred approach to governance the two main players are seen to be the community and the state; the private sector may play a role through entrepreneurship or building partnerships in local economic development but unless there is a clear economic focus its potential

43、 role is largely overlooked. source：urban policy and research,vol. 25, no. 3, 325345, september 2007譯文：明星和他們的配角陣容：國家、市場和社區(qū)在城市治理中的角色作者：約翰密內(nèi)理在尋找更好的方法來管理城市的過程中，側(cè)重面從“城市政府”的作用轉(zhuǎn)移到了“城市治理”。目前，人們通常對治理做如下理解：把國家在政策制定和政策執(zhí)行兩方面的職責結(jié)合起來，并將它擴展開來，吸納私有部門（市場）和社區(qū)（市民社會）的力量。三者的關系復雜多變。本文提出一個概念性框架，梳理我們對不同行為者在城市治理中的互動的理解。這種理

44、解的基礎就是在三者的關系中，有一方影響遠遠大于其他兩方。換言之，有一方是“明星”或主要演員。而我們的框架要研究的是“班底”，也就是其他兩方的角色，根據(jù)“治理圭臬”關系就是合作與同意，通過“伙伴”、“網(wǎng)絡”之類的理念表現(xiàn)出來。我們的框架卻讓人注意沖突的可能性。本文探討了城市治理理論的意義，以及現(xiàn)實中對這些復雜關系。治理的本質(zhì)治理思想起源于政治學?？藖啝柕模?004年）的各種形式的討論也基于政治學，雖然她研究廣泛的學科，包括公共管理，公共政策，國際關系和比較政治的。盡管有種種不明朗因素的存在，但是治理思路已被吸收到了一些學科的論述中，包括城市規(guī)劃和城市政策?，F(xiàn)在被廣泛接受的治理理念融合并且超越政府

45、或國家。它也被廣泛接受通過將私營企業(yè)和公民社會融合進政策制定和實施，這使治理超越政府。治理的三個組成部分，蒂溫（2000年，第228頁）將其描述成：“國家觀點，非常普遍，在一個組織的政治群體中都占有重要的地位，并相互依賴，市場是一個組織的經(jīng)濟體，公民社會是一個組織的社會體”。究竟這兩個非政府部門怎樣納入，以及由此產(chǎn)生的三者之間的關系，是關于治理的很多辯論的起點?；拥男问奖M管治理和城市治理變化的復雜性，似乎是不同角色在分析的基礎上有一致的特點，他們假設或者斷言，三個角色其中一個處于中心地位。分析家們采取了國家中心、市場中心或社區(qū)中心的方法。這個“中心”可以采取一定數(shù)量的形式，但是這并不意味著主

46、導力量關系。下面這個比喻可以用這篇文章的標題，一個演員“明星”，而其他兩位演員扮演支持的角色。中心的明星地位，或者，可能意味著不外乎是人們關注的中心，但從另一方面來說，這可能意味著某種形式的優(yōu)勢。在任何三者中扮演“星”的角色，通常需要充分參與的班底。在城市治理中，“中心”和“無中心”可以采取類似的含義的范圍。在歐盟，迪格斯福利制度的分析在不同的環(huán)境中采用了相似的關系。它的三角形結(jié)構(gòu)識別“當?shù)睾献骰锇殛P系的形式”，在國家扮演最強角色的地方（例如，在荷蘭和斯堪的納維亞半島的“公共領域合作”）或市場最強（例如奧地利的“本地社團合作伙伴”）或者公民社會最強（如葡萄牙的“公共/志愿社區(qū)合作伙伴”）。在城

47、市治理中，如果三者之中的一個扮演中心角色，則另外兩個必須扮演關于這個中心的角色。這是亟待解決的第二次重大問題。當一個角色扮演或者假定扮演中心角色，那么其他兩個扮演的是什么呢？他們?nèi)绾沃С?或不支持)中心？國家中心許多分析家對于治理與城市治理識別或暗示國家處于中心地位。皮埃爾的方法，舉例來說，是絕對的國家中心論，當?shù)卣侵行模骸爸卫硎侵傅胤秸退饺死孀非蠊餐繕说倪^程”。馬歇爾（2000），探討是否有“巴塞羅那城市治理模式”，集中在巴塞羅那市議會中與其他部門之間的關系。該模型具有地方政府的中心。皮埃爾和斯托克（2002）認為，政府在治理方面的作用是偶然的，但仍給予正式的政府，作為政治精英，

48、而不是作為一個整體，一個國家的核心作用：地方，區(qū)域和國家的政治精英都結(jié)成聯(lián)盟，尋求與私營企業(yè)，志愿組織和其他社會行動者通過公共和私營部門的邊境資源，以提高他們政治上向著既定目標社會的機會。即使當分析師認為，如果沒有政府的管治出現(xiàn)，例如，在羅得島（1996）的分析，或彼得斯和皮埃爾（1998年），他們有效地確定那里有治理的權力，但如果國家多中心，而不再是至高無上的，但仍是關鍵角色。這的確是一個“超越國家治理”，而不是“無國家治理”的例子。事實上，羅得島的大部分關于治理的著作重點從“線官僚機構(gòu)到分散服務”涉及到英國當局管理的白廳模型，那里的中央政府“有直接的間接交換控制”。即使政府現(xiàn)在是間接而非依賴于私營部門和社區(qū)部門的直接和間接控制。在澳大利亞方面，奧圖爾和布德斯（2005），同時認識到在參與治理的關系中的復雜性，并明確，治理“已利用在市場和公民社會廣泛的背景下提高國家定位和思想”。市場中心有很多市場為導向的途徑，淡化了國家和社區(qū)在治理和城市管