本文選題：社會(huì)組織 + 社區(qū)治理�。� 參考：《青島大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)的進(jìn)一步發(fā)展,原先單一的行政管理模式逐漸轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樯鐣?huì)多元管理模式。社會(huì)組織逐漸興起,并在社會(huì)治理中發(fā)揮著越來(lái)越重要的作用。我們應(yīng)當(dāng)充分發(fā)揮社會(huì)組織在社會(huì)治理中的這種輔助作用,實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)治理模式由單一的政府治理向多元的政府治理、居民組織、社會(huì)組織三者合一的模式轉(zhuǎn)變。這種多元的社會(huì)治理模式有利于在全社會(huì)形成積極自主的社會(huì)氛圍和民主氛圍,解決社區(qū)改革中長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)存在的活力不足的問(wèn)題。這種三者合一的治理模式比起政府的單獨(dú)治理或者是完全的居民自治更具科學(xué)性。因?yàn)檎膯为?dú)治理會(huì)導(dǎo)致居民產(chǎn)生懶惰的依賴(lài)心理,遇到問(wèn)題只會(huì)譴責(zé)政府的失職;完全的居民自治容易產(chǎn)生“烏合之眾”的嚴(yán)重后果,在當(dāng)前的社會(huì)發(fā)展中,居民的能力和素質(zhì)不足以對(duì)社區(qū)治理中的重重問(wèn)題。促進(jìn)居民自治與政府治理相結(jié)合,有利于促使社區(qū)治理的可能性大大增加,同時(shí)也提升了居民的相應(yīng)行動(dòng)能力和權(quán)責(zé)意識(shí),也增強(qiáng)了公民性的建構(gòu)。本研究采用質(zhì)性案例研究,通過(guò)對(duì)選取的兩個(gè)社區(qū)進(jìn)行調(diào)研,分別總結(jié)出社會(huì)管理和社會(huì)治理視角下社會(huì)組織參與社區(qū)治理的工作思路、路徑選擇,對(duì)其運(yùn)作邏輯、治理效果進(jìn)行了分析。調(diào)研后發(fā)現(xiàn),在實(shí)際的社區(qū)治理過(guò)程中,居委會(huì)作為社區(qū)治理的基層機(jī)構(gòu),往往發(fā)揮著主導(dǎo)作用。居民們?nèi)鄙倜裰鞯臎Q策與參與,居委會(huì)成為社區(qū)治理中的權(quán)威存在。我們所提倡的居民自治鼓勵(lì)居民在獨(dú)立、自主、民主的前提下參與社區(qū)治理,而不僅僅是服從權(quán)威。只有讓廣大居民參與到關(guān)乎自己切身利益的社區(qū)治理當(dāng)中,才能夠構(gòu)建社區(qū)治理的和諧氛圍,建立起良性的社區(qū)“參與——互動(dòng)”平臺(tái),才能夠提高居民的民主意識(shí)、權(quán)利意識(shí)和責(zé)任意識(shí)。
[Abstract]:With the further development of economy and society, the former single administrative mode has gradually changed into the social pluralistic management model. The social organization rises gradually, and plays a more and more important role in the social governance. We should give full play to the auxiliary role of social organizations in social governance, and realize the transformation of social governance model from single government governance to pluralistic government governance, the integration of residents' organizations and social organizations. This pluralistic social governance model is conducive to the formation of a positive and independent social atmosphere and democratic atmosphere in the whole society, and to solve the problem of lack of vitality in community reform for a long time. This kind of three-in-one governance model is more scientific than the government alone or complete resident autonomy. This is because the individual governance of the government will cause residents to become lazy and dependent, and when they encounter problems, they will only condemn the government for failing in their duties. Full resident autonomy will easily lead to the serious consequences of the "mob", and in the current social development, The ability and quality of residents are not enough to deal with various problems in community governance. To promote the combination of residents' autonomy and government governance is conducive to greatly increase the possibility of community governance, at the same time to enhance the residents' corresponding ability of action and sense of power and responsibility, and also to strengthen the construction of citizenship. This study adopts qualitative case study, through the investigation of two selected communities, summarizes the social organization participation in community governance under the perspective of social management and social governance, the way to choose, the logic of its operation. The effect of governance is analyzed. After investigation, it is found that, in the process of community governance, neighborhood committees, as grass-roots organizations of community governance, often play a leading role. Residents lack democratic decision-making and participation, neighborhood committees become the authority in community governance. We advocate resident autonomy that encourages residents to participate in community governance on the basis of independence, autonomy and democracy, not just subdue authority. Only by allowing the residents to participate in the community governance which concerns their own vital interests, can we build a harmonious atmosphere of community governance, establish a benign platform of community participation and interaction, and enhance the democratic consciousness of the residents. Awareness of rights and responsibilities.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：青島大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D632.9;D669.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬全中;;中國(guó)社區(qū)治理研究:近期回顧與評(píng)析[J];新疆師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2017年02期

2 盧瑋靜;趙小平;張叢叢;;中國(guó)城市社區(qū)治理政策的困境、原因與對(duì)策——基于政策分析的視角[J];城市發(fā)展研究;2016年08期

3 吳素雄;陳字;吳艷;;社區(qū)社會(huì)組織提供公共服務(wù)的治理邏輯與結(jié)構(gòu)[J];中國(guó)行政管理;2015年02期

4 徐道穩(wěn);;社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)、制度環(huán)境和行政化陷阱——對(duì)深圳市社區(qū)治理體制的考察[J];人文雜志;2014年12期

5 李雪萍;曹朝龍;;社區(qū)社會(huì)組織與社區(qū)公共空間的生產(chǎn)[J];城市問(wèn)題;2013年06期

6 唐文玉;;城市社區(qū)中的權(quán)威效能治理——基于T社區(qū)的個(gè)案研究[J];浙江社會(huì)科學(xué);2013年04期

7 涂才江;;社區(qū)社會(huì)組織發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略思考[J];社團(tuán)管理研究;2012年04期

8 吳素雄;楊華;;政府對(duì)社區(qū)社會(huì)組織培育的制度結(jié)構(gòu)與政策選擇——以浙江省杭州市為表述對(duì)象[J];湖北行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年02期

9 文軍;;從單一被動(dòng)到多元聯(lián)動(dòng)——中國(guó)城市網(wǎng)格化社會(huì)管理模式的構(gòu)建與完善[J];學(xué)習(xí)與探索;2012年02期

10 鄭杭生;黃家亮;;論我國(guó)社區(qū)治理的雙重困境與創(chuàng)新之維——基于北京市社區(qū)管理體制改革實(shí)踐的分析[J];東岳論叢;2012年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 李慧鳳;社區(qū)治理與社會(huì)管理體制創(chuàng)新[D];浙江大學(xué);2011年

2 任慧穎;非營(yíng)利組織的社會(huì)行動(dòng)與第三領(lǐng)域的建構(gòu)[D];上海大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 �？”�;沈陽(yáng)市社會(huì)組織參與社區(qū)治理研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2011年

2 郭廣雷;上海市社會(huì)組織參與社區(qū)治理研究[D];華東師范大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1868684