本文選題：禁摩限電　切入點：政策價值　出處：《深圳大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：深圳市于2003年正式“禁摩”,2012年正式“限電”,“禁摩限電”工作成為深圳市政府的常規(guī)性工作。深圳市公安局交通警察局于2016年3月公布了更為嚴厲的新“禁摩限電”實施細則,然而,此次政策引來了鋪天蓋地的網民議論和媒體負面報道,深圳市政府的公共管理能力遭到嚴重質疑�！罢呷绾尾拍茏屔鐣姖M意”,是政府運用公共政策實施社會管理首先要思考的問題。深圳市2016年的“禁摩限電”政策實踐所引發(fā)的廣泛社會質疑和巨大政策執(zhí)行阻力,無疑為政府的政策行為敲響了警鐘。深入分析這一政策的經驗,具有重要的理論和實踐意義。學界現有對于深圳市“禁摩限電”政策的研究,主要研究該政策在政策具體內容、政策制定和執(zhí)行方式以及政策影響方面的不合理性,鮮有從政策價值角度深入分析該政策出現困境的原因。本文將政策價值作為研究深圳市2016年“禁摩限電”政策經驗的視角和工具,以公眾對政策的價值訴求為參照,審視深圳市“禁摩限電”政策中政府的政策價值選擇,以深層討論為什么公眾會對政策不滿意。本文認為,深圳市政府在2016年“禁摩限電”的政策價值選擇,存在與公眾關于該政策的價值訴求的偏離,具體而言,在這一政策過程中,政府以法治行政為行動綱領,以改善城市公共交通為集中目標,追求法治氛圍、公共交通安全和城市全局改進;公眾則以政策的個體利益效應為根本關注點,以政策的社會公平效應為集中敏感點,關注個體微觀出行條件便利性,關注政府的社會綜合服務能力以及公共資源的公平分配。對于兩大主體在政策價值方面出現差異化傾向的原因方面,本文嘗試從三對矛盾提供初步解釋:公共利益一致性與個體利益多元性、政府部門職能專門性與政策影響領域多重性、政策資源有限性與公共問題復雜性。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：深圳大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D631.5

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 周博文;張再生;;倫理學視角下低保政策的價值審視與優(yōu)化路徑[J];中共福建省委黨校學報;2017年01期

2 劉令;李博超;邵研;高健;;“禁摩限電”對深圳交通的影響[J];吉林建筑大學學報;2016年06期

3 陳菲;;澳大利亞對非洲政策的演變及價值取向[J];西亞非洲;2016年06期

4 王運鋒;;公共政策制定過程中部門利益沖突的動因分析[J];河北大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2016年06期

5 徐玲;;21世紀我國繼續(xù)教育政策的價值取向分析[J];成人教育;2016年11期

6 盧嘉昕;肖翔;許伯生;古f^;;“禁摩限電”綜合效果的評價[J];上海工程技術大學學報;2016年03期

7 胡利明;;禁摩禁電的行政法分析[J];重慶三峽學院學報;2016年05期

8 高雅春;;“禁摩限電”令引發(fā)的關于我國快遞運送的思考——針對“最后一公里”配送難問題[J];學理論;2016年09期

9 周念琪;;集中整治需遵循行政正當原則——評深圳市“禁摩限電”執(zhí)法[J];宜賓學院學報;2016年07期

10 王儲;;“禁摩限電”的合法性考量[J];黨政干部學刊;2016年07期

，

本文編號：1569624