城市问题

城市问题 >

2024 , Vol. 351 >Issue 10: 71 - 81

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13239/j.bjsshkxy.cswt.241007

城市建设与发展

集租房共同生产行为的影响因素与组态路径

  • 李艺琳 ,
  • 于洋 ,
  • 石楠 ,
  • 胡逸帆
展开
李艺琳(1994—),女,河北石家庄人,中国人民大学公共管理学院城市规划与管理系博士研究生,主要研究方向为城市规划与公共政策;于洋(1982—),男,辽宁辽阳人,中国人民大学公共管理学院城市规划与管理系副系主任,副教授,主要研究方向为城市规划与公共政策、城市更新与城市治理;胡逸帆(2000—),男,江西上饶人,中国人民大学公共管理学院城市规划与管理系硕士研究生,主要研究方向为城市治理。
石楠(1961—),男,江苏南通人,中国人民大学公共管理学院博士研究生导师,教授级高级城市规划师,中国城市规划学会常务副理事长兼秘书长,国际城市与区域规划师学会(ISOCARP)副主席,主要研究方向为城市规划政策与理论。

收稿日期: 2024-08-20

  修回日期: 2024-09-26

  网络出版日期: 2024-12-16

收起

Influencing factors and configuration paths of co-production behavior in collective rental housing

  • LI Yi-lin ,
  • YU Yang ,
  • SHI Nan ,
  • HU Yi-fan
Expand

Received date: 2024-08-20

  Revised date: 2024-09-26

  Online published: 2024-12-16

Fold

摘要

采用模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)方法,基于经济实力、专业知识、风险感知和上级政府支持四个起始条件进行组态分析,尝试探讨多重因素综合影响农村集体选择与企业共同生产集租房的机制路径问题。结果表明,中国集租房共同生产存在知识互动型与经济互补型两类动力机制,且上级政府的支持和低风险感知是促进农村集体与企业合作的必要条件。中国集租房共同生产实践表明,政府在场是共同生产本土化过程的研究前提,共同生产的初始参与动力不仅是农村集体基于自身经济实力、专业知识与对合作风险的感知程度而进行的理性决策,而且是上级政府政策意图向下嵌入过程中农村集体进行非完全经济理性综合考量的结果。基于研究结论,提出相关政策建议,即建立和完善风险管控机制,降低农村集体与企业的风险感知水平;加强对村镇集体在集租房生产方面的专业知识培训,提高其参与能力;政府切实履行指导与监督管理职责,确保村镇集体与企业有序参与集租房生产。

关键词： 集租房; 共同生产; fsQCA; 农村集体决策; 北京市

本文引用格式

李艺琳 , 于洋 , 石楠 , 胡逸帆 . 集租房共同生产行为的影响因素与组态路径[J]. 城市问题, 2024 , 351(10) : 71 -81 . DOI: 10.13239/j.bjsshkxy.cswt.241007

Abstract

Using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) method, this study conducts a configurational analysis based on four initial conditions: economic power, professional knowledge, risk perception, and support from higher-level governments. It attempts to explore the mechanism and pathways through which multiple factors collectively influence rural collectives' choices to engage in co-production of rental housing on collective land with enterprises. The results indicate that there are two types of driving mechanisms in the co-production of rental housing on collective land in China: knowledge interaction and economic complementarity. Moreover, support from higher-level governments and low risk perception are necessary conditions for promoting cooperation between rural collectives and enterprises. The practice of co-production of rental housing on collective land in China demonstrates that the presence of the government is a prerequisite for studying the localization process of co-production. The initial motivation for participating in co-production is not only a rational decision made by rural collectives based on their economic power, professional knowledge, and perception of cooperation risks but also the outcome of comprehensive, non-purely economic rational considerations made by rural collectives during the downward embedding of higher-level government policy intentions. Based on the research findings, relevant policy suggestions are proposed: Establish and impro ve risk management and control mechanisms to reduce the risk perception levels of rural collectives and enterprises; Strengthen professional knowledge training for village and township collectives in the production of rental housing on collective land to enhance their participation capabilities; Governments should fulfill their guidance, supervision, and management responsibilities to ensure the orderly participation of village and township collectives and enterprises in the production of rental housing on collective land.

Key words： rental housing on collective land; co-production; fsQCA; rural collective decision-making; Beijing

参考文献

[1] Chen J, Hu M, Lin Z. Does housing unaffordability crowd out elites in Chinese superstar cities?[J]. Journal of Housing Economics, 2019,45: 101571
[2] 林依标,林瀚. 利用集体建设用地建租赁房相关问题研究——以全国13个试点城市为例[J]. 中国土地, 2020(7): 4-8
[3] 叶旺. 集体建设用地发展租赁住房的障碍与对策研究——以北京市海淀区唐家岭为例[J]. 城市管理与科技, 2019 (4): 34-37
[4] 伍振军. 集体建设用地建租赁房的困境与对策——基于北京市的探索实践[J]. 中国土地, 2017(10): 8-10
[5] 柴铎,林梦柔,范华. 集体土地建租赁住房的利益影响机理与多中心治理机制[J]. 经济地理, 2018 (8): 152-161
[6] 方武冬,朱秋诗,陈诺思. 利益相关者经济理性视角下的集体租赁住房供给研究——对广州试点实践的分析思考[C].中国城市规划年会.人民城市规划赋能——2022中国城市规划年会论文集(19住房与社区规划).中国建筑工业出版社, 2023:12
[7] 于洋,李艺琳,余孟璇,等. 集体土地租赁住房开发中的利益相关者及其网络分析——以北京市十八里店乡项目为例[J]. 城市问题, 2022(11): 84-93
[8] 吕萍,顾岳汶,于璐源. 集体土地建设租赁住房的定位和影响研究——基于政策系统分析的逻辑框架[J]. 中国软科学, 2020(8): 91-100
[9] Alford J. The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom[J]. Public Management Review, 2014 (3): 299-316
[10] Alford J. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-production[M]. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009
[11] Li B, Hu B, Liu T, et al. Can co-production be state-led? Policy pilots in four Chinese cities[J]. Environment and Urbanization, 2019 (1): 249-266
[12] Huang H, Akaateba M A, Li F. A reflection on coproduction processes in urban collective construction land transformation: A case study of Guangzhou in the Pearl River Delta[J]. Land Use Policy, 2020,99: 105007
[13] Joshi A, Moore M. Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments[J]. Journal of Development Studies, 2004 (4): 31-49
[14] Bovaird T, Stoker G, Jones T, et al. Activating collective co-production of public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK[J]. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2016(1): 47-68
[15] Van Eijk C, Steen T. Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence[J]. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2015(1): 28-46
[16] Alford, J. Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a Contingency Theory[J]. Administration & Society, 2016(1): 32-56
[17] Alford J, Yates S. Co-production of public services in australia: The roles of government organisations and co-producers[J]. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2016(2): 159-175
[18] Verschuere B, Brandsen T, Pestoff V. Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda[J]. Voluntas, 2012(4): 1083-1101
[19] Alonso J M, Andrews R, Clifton J, et al. Factors influencing citizens’ co-production of environmental outcomes: A multi-level analysis[J]. Public Management Review, 2019 (11): 1620-1645
[20] 魏双慧. 集体建设用地租赁住房开发模式选择研究[D]. 郑州大学, 2019
[21] 李梦晗,陈宇琳,王崇烈. 风险—收益视角下的北京集体土地租赁住房开发模式研究[J]. 北京规划建设, 2021(3): 44-49
[22] Liu Y, Wu J, Yi H, et al. Under what conditions do governments collaborate? A qualitative comparative analysis of air pollution control in China[J]. Public Management Review, 2021 (11): 1664-1682
[23] Li F, Lynam A, Huang H, et al. Institutional co-production at neighbourhood scale: Cases of urban renewal for Shanghai’s ageing population[J]. Habitat International, 2024(144): 103000
[24] Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2007 (4): 543-571
[25] Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2012(1): 1-29
[26] Qu Z, Wei Y, Li X. Risk perception of rural land supply reform in China: From the perspective of stakeholders[J]. Agriculture, 2021(7): 646
[27] Logsdon, J. M. Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving collaborations[J]. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1991(1): 23-37
[28] Imperial, M. T. Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs[J]. Administration & Society, 2005(3): 281-320
[29] Sedgwick D. Managing collaborative paradox: Examining collaboration between head start and the virginia preschool initiative[J]. Administration & Society, 2016(2): 190-215
[30] Warner J F. More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management[J]. Water Resources Development, 2006(1): 15-35
[31] Murdock B S, Wiessner C, Sexton K. Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental agreements: Analysis of 10 project XL case studies[J]. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2005(2): 223-250
[32] 吴结兵,钱倩严慧. 公民共同生产行为的影响因素研究——基于环境治理的多层次分析[J]. 浙江社会科学, 2022(5): 76-85
[33] Hadler M, Haller M. Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior[J]. International Sociology, 2011(3): 315-345
[34] Berliant M, Fujita M. Dynamics of knowledge creation and transfer: The two person case[J]. International Journal of Economic Theory, 2010(2): 155-179
[35] Maartensson H, Loi N M. Exploring the relationships between risk perception, behavioural willingness, and constructive hope in pro-environmental behaviour[J]. Environmental Education Research, 2022(4): 600-613
[36] 张书维,刘星,汪彦. 目标框架对居民社区安全合作生产意愿的影响:风险感知的中介作用[J]. 西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2024(4): 5-20
[37] 王亚新. “四化同步”下的农村土地经营模式探索——基于广东湛江的实践[J]. 经济地理, 2015(8): 157-164
[38] 刘靖羽,尹奇,唐宏,等. 农村集体经营性建设用地入市中村委会寻租行为的监督博弈模型[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2018(6): 805-813
[39] 周亚楠,付光辉. 基于复杂网络分析的集体建设用地入市关键风险研究[J]. 农村经济与科技, 2021(13): 24-28
[40] Vangen S, Huxham C. Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers[J]. British Journal of Management, 2003,14: S61-S76
[41] 田莉,吴雅馨,严雅琦. 集体土地租赁住房发展:政策供给何以失灵——来自北上广深的观察与思考[J]. 城市规划, 2021(10): 89-94
[42] 周进萍,周沛. 城市社区治理共同体生成路径、类型特质与实践反思——基于56个案例的QCA定性比较研究[J]. 治理研究, 2022(6): 93-104
[43] 王晓楠. 公众环境风险感知对行为选择的影响路径[J]. 吉首大学学报(社会科学版), 2019(4): 114-123
[44] Khan F I, Amyotte P R, Amin M T. Advanced methods of risk assessment and management: An overview[J]. Methods in Chemical Process Safety, 2020, (4): 1-34.
[45] Khan F, Rathnayaka S, Ahmed S. Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future[J]. Process Safety & Environmental Protection, 2015,98: 116-147
[46] 山少男,段霞. 复杂性视角下公共危机多元主体协同治理行为的影响因素与行动路径——基于元分析与模糊集QCA的双重分析[J]. 公共管理与政策评论, 2022 (1): 104-119
[47] Liou, Ru-Shiun, Chao, et al. Emerging economies and institutional quality: Assessing the differential effects of institutional distances on ownership strategy[J]. Journal of World Business, 2016(4): 600-611
[48] Hossain M, Quaddus M, Warren M, et al. Are you a cyberbully on social media? Exploring the personality traits using a Fuzzy-set Configurational Approach[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2022,66: 102537
[49] 刘畅,张世龙. 农村集体土地建租赁房的风险及其防范[J]. 江苏商论, 2019(7): 139-141
[50] Pappas I O, Woodside A G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2021(58): 102310
[51] 刘洪伟,吴贵生,和金生. 知识与信息:学习成本与交易成本[J]. 技术经济, 2009(9): 5-11
[52] 刘明霞. 新经济下知识与组织关系:组织治理与知识治理的对比分析[J]. 珞珈管理评论, 2009(1): 49-57
[53] Drucker P F. Post-Capitalist Society[M]. New York: Butterworth Heineman, 1993
[54] Itami H, Roehl T W. Mobilizing Invisible Assets[M]. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1991
[55] Mcmichael G. Rethinking access to land and violence in post-war cities: Reflections from Juba, Southern Sudan.[J]. Environment and Urbanization, 2014(2): 389-400
[56] Akaateba M A, Huang H, Adumpo E A. Between co-production and institutional hybridity in land delivery: Insights from local planning practice in peri-urban Tamale, Ghana[J]. Land Use Policy, 2018,72: 215-226
[57] Galuszka J. What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current debate on co-production[J]. Planning Theory, 2019(1): 143-160
[58] Barnes B. The Nature of Power[M]. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988
[59] Voorberg W, Jilke S, Tummers L, et al. Financial rewards do not stimulate coproduction: Evidence from two experiments[J]. Public Administration Review, 2018(6): 864-873
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉