Suchergebnisse

本研究从超常规色彩强烈的重大灾害危机处置入手,分析当代中国动员体制在改革时代的变化特征,以此为切入点来考察动员这项"革命制度遗产对当代中国政治的影响。本研究以中国政府在地震领域的危机动员实践作为实证案例,从1949年以后的不同时期选取四场震例进行纵向比较,以此来把握中国政府在危机条件下启动的政治动员在不同的政治发展阶段会呈现出什么样的整体特点。中国在地震领域的危机动员实践能够证明,中国的政治动员体制比传统动员政治研究假定的要更具动态性。兴起于革命时代的政治动员在进入改革时代以后依然能够延续,并没有随着乌托邦意识形态、计划经济乃至全能主义体制的整体瓦解而走向直线衰落。至少作为中国政府独特的公共危机处置手段,政治动员在改革时代呈现出的变化轨迹是复杂的,成形于全能主义时期的动员政治元素在改革时代不仅没有直接衰败,在某些阶段还重新获得了发展动力,能够与改革时代出现和或者强化的动员模式并存。本研究通过观察中国政府跨越不同政治经济发展阶段的地震危机动员实践发现,中国政府涉灾财政能力和行政能力的发展均衡程度,以及中国政治精英对国家在灾害治理领域角色定位的认知变化,能够对中国政府的地震危机动员模式产生重要影响;既包括s新模式兴起和旧模式衰落,也包括新旧模式的共存。而且,尽管国家能力和国家意愿之间没有必然关联,可是一旦两个因素出现比较同步的增强,还能够为这种"革命制度遗产在改革提供新的制度化动力,促成动员模式更进一步的变化。本研究的结论是,只要作为关键动员主体的中共政权在规范和结构上保持相对稳定,政治动员仍将会是中国政府重要的危机管理工具。而且随着中国政府有更强的意愿和能力来承担公共服务供给职责,政治动员形式和内涵都会有所改变。曾经具有很强非正式和应急色彩的政治动员不仅会变得越来越常态化,而且还会成为正规、任务内容更加广泛的中国涉灾公共治理体系的重要组成部分。 ; This research investigates the dynamics and resilience of China's politlical moblization by making hsitrocial comparison of Chinese government's management of earthquake disasters across four decades. The author selects four major earthquake catastrophesTangshan, Lancang-Gengma, Lijiang, and Wenchuanfrom different historical periods to examine how Chinese government mobilized different types of subjects to contain and control crises under different political, social, and economic conditions. Based upon participatory and non-participatory observation, interviews, and extensive document analyses, this research reveals that China's political mobilization, at least in the issue area of catastrophe management, has demonstrated a more complicated trajectory of change than predicted by most mainstream politilcal theories, espeically in the post-revolutionary era featured by increasing socio-economic pluralization and political liberalization. Insitutional elements promoting mass particpation and self-sufficience thriving in the revolutionary stage not only continue to function in the reform era, but also coexist with newly emerged mobilizational elements featured by increased state dominance, formal legal procedures, and professional expertise. ...

The COVID-19 pandemic brought on the so-called "coronacrisis," a global crisis event enormous in size and force. The crisis questioned the ability of states and instruments of international governance to respond quickly and effectively to the global threats. It is noteworthy that there was no strong correlation between crisis management efficacy and the type of political system of a country. However, the countries with elaborated and well-financed health systems, were able to struggle with the devastating consequences of the coronacrisis better than those with systemic, structural and financial problems of their healthcare sectors. It is obvious that the ability to manage the coronacrisis is not related to the type of political governance or ideology, but to the state administrative resources and competence of the cabinet / leaders. That potentially gave an opportunity for countries with different ideological foundations to neglect their tensions and unite the efforts in the containment of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (e.g. create mutual programmes of vaccination and medicine distribution). The main forces are the Transatlantic alliance, Russia and China. Unfortunately, no visible COVID-19-related agreement between them ever happened so far. Instead, the coronacrisis situation was used by the political rivals to intensify their aggressive rhetoric against each other (e.g., USA and Russia, USA and China) or profit from it in deepening international collaboration not connected with the pandemic itself (e.g., Russia and China). We do not observe any real mutual efforts of liquidating the pandemic consequences even within an ideological block, to say nothing about different blocks. The US–EU relationships worsened during the pandemic, especially at the background of Trump's cool attitude towards international organisations and his decision to leave the World Health Organization in the midst of the pandemic and his threatening words that US may also abandon the NATO. Likewise, John Bolton spoke of the EU as an entity hostile ...