| 1,243 | 1 | 2583 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
繁文缛节指组织中冗赘的规则和程序，行政负担则是政民互动中的各类成本，对二者的研究兼具学理和实务价值。然而，国内学术界虽就这两个概念的定义达成共识，却忽略了二者在政府公文中的实际指代差异。通过分析中央和地方政府涉及繁文缛节的293份公文、行政负担的70份公文，本文发现，政府在运用这两个概念时存在指代差异与含混不清的症结，对它们的理解和使用与学术界有显著差异，且存在定义繁杂和运用交叠的情况。在未来，学界可进一步探究造成指代差异与含混不清症结的前因后果，并加强与政府的沟通协作。
Abstract：While red tape refers to burdensome and ineffective rules and procedures in an organization, an administrative burden is a concept that can be easily conflated with red tape—it is defined as a function of learning and psychological and compliance costs that citizens experience in their interactions with government. Red tape and administrative burdens are not only important research topics in public administration but also are salient issues for government and citizens. While scholars have reached a consensus on their respective definitions, limited research has been conducted on how China's public workers use both terms in their practices. In fact, “red tape” and “administrative burdens” were already being used in state rules, regulations, and documents well before Chinese scholars introduced the terms into Chinese academia. In light of such a phenomenon, this paper examines how the two terms are adopted and used by the Chinese state in official documents. Through a systematic search of China's central-level and provincial-level government rules and regulations, we find that there are 293 documents that incorporate the phrase “red tape” and 70 documents that cite “administrative burdens”. However, a closer examination reveals a significant “referential difference” between scholarly definitions of the two terms and their applications in state documents. Further analysis shows that even these state documents face a “situation of ambiguity” when applying the definition of each term. There is a lack of consistency and coherence in official understandings of what red tape and administrative burdens stand for and how they should be used—policy documents at different levels and in various regions define red tape in 19 ways, and they define administrative burdens in as many as 12 ways, and many of these definitions are overlapping. For instance, government documents use red tape and administrative burdens interchangeably to describe burdensome government policies. Such ambiguity may undercut the empirical relevance of academic findings on red tape and administrative burdens, thereby making it even more difficult for scholars and practitioners to find the “silver bullet” to tackle such bureaucratic ills. Based on our analysis, we call for an academic research agenda to further diagnose the antecedents and consequences of the academia-practitioner divide as well as to produce recipes to bridge this divide.
句华.2017.政府购买服务相关术语的混用现象及其辨析[J].中国行政管理，(1):67-71.Ju H.2017.Clarification of the terms in government outsourcing[J].Chinese Public Administration,(1):67-71.(in Chinese)
罗梁波.2023.公共管理理论如何与实践相结合：从复合研究方式出发[J].浙江学刊，(2):41-53.Luo L B.2023.How to combine public administration's theory with practice:From the perspective of compound research[J].Zhejiang Academic Journal,(2):41-53.(in Chinese)
马亮.2010.作为一种官僚病的繁文缛节：评《官僚制与繁文缛节》[J].公共行政评论，3(1):183-194.
马亮，孙晓燕.2012.繁文缛节的起源、特征与影响[J].吉首大学学报(社会科学版),33(6):87-95,123.Ma L,Sun X Y.2012.On the sources,characteristics and consequences of red tape:A literature review[J].Journal of Jishou University (Social Sciences Edition),33(6):87-95,123.(in Chinese)
马亮.2019a.政务服务创新何以降低行政负担：西安行政效能革命的案例研究[J].甘肃行政学院学报，(2):4-11,126.Ma L.2019a.How do administrative service innovations alleviate administrative burden:A case study of administrative reform in Xi'an[J].Journal of Gansu Administration Institute,(2):4-11,126.(in Chinese)
马亮.2019b.国家治理、行政负担与公民幸福感——以“互联网+政务服务”为例[J].华南理工大学学报(社会科学版),21(1):77-84.Ma L.2019b.State governance,administrative burden,and citizens' happiness—A case study of “Internet Plus Administrative Services”[J].Journal of South China University of Technology (Social Science Edition),21(1):77-84.(in Chinese)
马亮.2022.行政负担：研究综述与理论展望[J].甘肃行政学院学报，(1):4-14,124.Ma L.2022.Administrative burdens:Literature review and research prospect[J].Journal of Gansu Administration Institute,(1):4-14,124.(in Chinese)
彭珮文，杨一.2025.剪不断理还乱：公共组织繁文缛节感知和罗生门困境[J].公共管理与政策评论，14(1):108-124.Peng P W,YANG Y.2025.Entangled:Organizational rashomon effect as a roadblock to red tape reduction[J].Public Administration and Policy Review,14(1):108-124.(in Chinese)
陶青.2008.班级规模与生师比的混用、辨析及其政策启示[J].上海教育科研，(11):17-20.Tao Q.2008.Confusion,analysis and policy enlightenment of class size and pupil-teacher ratios[J].Shanghai Research on Education,(11):17-20.(in Chinese)
王云萍.2009.美国公共行政：理论、实践与伦理——访美国著名公共行政学教授乔治·弗雷德里克森[J].中国行政管理，(7):97-100.Wang Y P.2009.Public administration in the United Slates:Theory,practice and ethics—An interview with George Frederickson,A Prominent American Professor[J].Chinese Public Administration,(7):97-100.(in Chinese)
张焕培.2024.公共数据授权运营：现实困境与纾解路径[J].图书馆研究与工作，(8):5-12.Zhang H P.2024.Public data authorization operation:Real challenges and remedial paths[J].Library Science Research & Work,(8):5-12(in Chinese)
张利洪.2018.学前教育：概念的混用与澄清[J].陕西学前师范学院学报，34(2):39-44.Zhang L H.2018.Study on the inextricability and clarification of preschool education conception[J].Journal of Shaanxi Xueqian Normal University,34(2):39-44.(in Chinese)
张乾友.2019.寻找绩效管理的规范政治解释——兼论“从实践出发”与“理论指导实践”的统一[J].中国行政管理，(9):82-88.Zhang Q Y.2019.In search of a normative political account of performance management[J].Chinese Public Administration,(9):82-88.(in Chinese)
周霓羽.2023.行政负担的理论溯源与转化路径[J].江南论坛，(4):61-65.Zhou N Y.2023.Administrative burden:Theory and practice[J].Jiangnan Forum,(4):61-65.(in Chinese)
Baekgaard M,Madsen J K.2024.Anticipated administrative burdens:How proximity to upcoming compulsory meetings affect welfare recipients' experiences of administrative burden[J].Public Administration,102(2):425-443.
Borry E L.2016.A new measure of red tape:Introducing the three-item red tape (TIRT) scale[J].International Public Management Journal,19(4):573-593.
Bozeman B.1993.A theory of government “Red Tape”[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,3(3):273-304.
Bozeman B.2012.Multidimensional red tape:A theory coda[J].International Public Management Journal,15(3):245-265.
Bozeman B,Anderson D M.2016.Public policy and the origins of bureaucratic red tape:Implications of the Stanford yacht scandal[J].Administration & Society,48(6):736-759.
Christensen J,Aar?e L,Baekgaard M,et al.2020.Human capital and administrative burden:The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions[J].Public Administration Review,80(1):127-136.
Cuffey J,Newby K,Smith S.2024.Social inequity in administrative burdens:Evidence from the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP)[J].Public Administration Review,84(2):338-356.
Davis R S,Pandey S K.2024.‘Feeling Out’ the rules:A psychological process theory of red tape[J].Public Administration Review,84(6):1038-1051.
DeHart-Davis L,Pandey S K.2005.Red tape and public employees:Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,15(1):133-148.
Feeney M K,Bozeman B.2009.Stakeholder red tape:Comparing perceptions of public managers and their private consultants[J].Public Administration Review,69(4):710-726.
Heinrich C J.2016.The bite of administrative burden:A theoretical and empirical investigation[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,26(3):403-420.
Heinrich C J.2018.Presidential address:“A Thousand Petty Fortresses”:Administrative burden in U.S.immigration policies and its consequences[J].Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,37(2):211-239.
Herd P,Moynihan D P.2018.Administrative burden:Policymaking by other means[M].New York:Russell Sage.
Jacobsen C B,Jakobsen M L.2018.Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in public services[J].Public Administration Review,78(1):24-36.
Jilke S,Van Dooren W,Rys S.2018.Discrimination and administrative burden in public service markets:Does a public-private difference exist?[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,28(3):423-439.
Kaufman H.1977.Red tape:Its origins,uses,and abuses[M].Washington,DC:The Brookings Institution.
Kaufmann W,Feeney M K.2014.Beyond the rules:The effect of outcome favourability on red tape perceptions[J].Public Administration,92(1):178-191.
Kaufmann W,Borry E L,DeHart-Davis L.2019.More than Pathological Formalization:Understanding Organizational Structure and Red Tape[J].Public Administration Review,79:236-245.
Kaufmann W,Haans R F J.2021.Understanding the meaning of concepts across domains through collocation analysis:An application to the study of red tape[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,31(1):218-233.
Masood A,Nisar M A.2021.Administrative capital and citizens' responses to administrative burden[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,31(1):56-72.
Moynihan D,Herd P,Harvey H.2015.Administrative burden:Learning,psychological,and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,25(1):43-69.
Neely S R,Coggburn J D.2017.Incentives for sharing knowledge:A survey of scholarly practices in public affairs and administration[J].Political Science & Politics,50(2):480-486.
Newman J.2014.Revisiting the “two communities” metaphor of research utilisation[J].International Journal of Public Sector Management,27(7):614-627.
Newman J,Cherney A,Head B W.2016.Do policy makers use academic research?Reexamining the “Two Communities” theory of research utilization[J].Public Administration Review,76(1):24-32.
Nisar M A.2018.Children of a lesser god:Administrative burden and social equity in citizen-state interactions[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,28(1):104-119.
Peeters R.2020.The political economy of administrative burdens:A theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of administrative burdens[J].Administration & Society,52(4):566-592.
Roberts A.2018.The aims of public administration:Reviving the classical view[J].Perspectives on Public Management and Governance,1(1):73-85.
van Loon N M,Leisink P L M,Knies E,et al.2016.Red tape:Developing and validating a new job-centered measure[J].Public Administration Review,76(4):662-673.
Vento I,Kuokkanen K.2020.Mapping the post-bureaucratic landscape:Project managers' perception of bureaucracy in European Union Cohesion policy projects[J].International Review of Administrative Sciences,88(2):587-604.
Walker R M,Brewer G A.2008.An organizational echelon analysis of the determinants of red tape in public organizations[J].Public Administration Review,68(6):1112-1127.
Weaver R K.2015.Getting people to behave:Research lessons for policy makers[J].Public Administration Review,75(6):806-816.
Zahradnik S.2024.Red tape:Redefinition and reconceptualization based on production theory[J].International Public Management Journal,27(3):343-362.
(1)通过检索北大法宝,本文发现“繁文缛节”一词最早出现在政府公文中的时间为1999年,参见《国务院关于克服官僚主义进一步转变工作作风提高办事效率有关问题的通报》;“行政负担”一词最早出现在政府公文中的时间为1997年,参见《中共深圳市委办公厅、深圳市人民政府办公厅关于减少资产经营公司行政事务负担的通知》。
(2)以中国知网(CNKI)为例,其中最早介绍繁文缛节的期刊论文是马亮(2010):《作为一种官僚病的繁文缛节:评〈官僚制与繁文缛节〉》,载《公共行政评论》2010年第1期;最早介绍行政负担的学术论文是马亮(2019b):《国家治理、行政负担与公民幸福感——以“互联网+政务服务”为例》,载《华南理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2019年第1期。此前虽有涉及繁文缛节或行政负担的零星讨论,但尚未形成一定体系。
(3)从词源上看,繁文缛节本意是指英国政府在装订、捆绑法律文件时使用的红色带子,后被逐渐用来指代官僚制弊病(Kaufman,1977;马亮和孙晓燕,2012),包括无意义且繁杂的文书工作和不必要且烦琐的规则程序。
(4)需要特别提及的是,为了科学诊断繁文缛节的前因后果,需要对其水平进行测量,学者们根据具体研究条件,开发出适用于特定情境的量表,其中,一般繁文缛节量表(general/global red tape scale)和具体层次繁文缛节量表(subsystem measure)的使用最为广泛。在一般繁文缛节量表中,繁文缛节的定义是给定的,受访者需要依据自身的经历和体验,对其工作场所的繁文缛节水平进行打分(Feeney and Bozeman,2009)。具体层次繁文缛节量表则将繁文缛节分解为人事、行政、采购、信息、预算等不同维度下繁文缛节的若干具体表现,这有利于学者获取更具针对性的信息(Kaufmann and Feeney 2014)。此外,学者还开发了以工作为中心的繁文缛节量表(job-centered red tape scale)(van Loon et al.,2016)和三项繁文缛节量表(three-item red tape scale)(Borry,2016)等,作为对之前量表的有益修正和补充。
(5)个体(或企业)在寻求公共服务的过程中,可能会面临行政负担。比如,当公民去移民管理局办理手续时,需要提交一系列的证明材料、完成大量且复杂的文书工作,这些事项给公民带来了一定程度的负担。
(6)与繁文缛节一样,学者们也通过量表等方式,对行政负担展开测量,以便在后续的研究中更加科学地诊断其前因和后果。学术界对行政负担的测量侧重服务对象的个体感知。比如,Digital Benefits Hub针对Herd and Moynihan(2018)提出的行政负担概念开发的三项行政负担量表,也是使用最为广泛的量表。量表题目包括:(1)学习成本:“您在寻找或更新项目信息时,面临的困难程度有多大?”(2)合规成本:“您在填写文书材料、提供资格证明或面试时,面临的困难有多大?”(3)心理成本:“您在经历上述活动时,是否感受到困惑?”受访者需要对自己的困难或困惑程度进行打分。最后,学者会综合三项问题计算出受访者的总体行政负担感知水平。Baekgaard and Madsen(2024)则在量表中将学习成本、合规成本和心理成本进行了细化,以便学者对某一维度的负担进行实证分析。
(7)这些政府公文分布在北京市(3)、天津市(4)、河北省(5)、山西省(10)、内蒙古自治区(2)、辽宁省(19)、吉林省(19)、黑龙江省(7)、上海市(2)、江苏省(7)、浙江省(7)、安徽省(20)、福建省(17)、江西省(5)、山东省(3)、河南省(38)、湖南省(2)、湖北省(1)、广东省(16)、广西壮族自治区(18)、四川省(3)、贵州省(10)、云南省(5)、陕西省(6)、甘肃省(10)、青海省(14)、宁夏回族自治区(7)、新疆维吾尔自治区(4)、海南省(2)、重庆市(2)。同时,根据侧栏日期计算,应有269份,但在本文分析时,发现湖南省2018年出台的一份现行有效的政府公文并未与北大法宝检索栏中的日期匹配,故总共有268份。详见:https://pkulaw.com/lar/ c38bad639b3ea3df5157584353df286dbdfb.html?keyword=繁文缛节%20&way=listView.
(8)这些公文分布在北京市(4)、天津市(1)、河北省(1)、山西省(1)、内蒙古自治区(1)、辽宁省(4)、黑龙江省(1)、上海市(1)、江苏省(8)、浙江省(3)、安徽省(7)、福建省(6)、江西省(1)、山东省(8)、河南省(1)、湖北省(1)、广东省(2)、广西壮族自治区(2)、贵州省(1)、云南省(2)、西藏自治区(1)、陕西省(4)、青海省(1)、海南省(3)。需要注意的是,在2021年现行有效的10份文件中,系统将辽宁省发布的政府公文进行了重复计算,故排除,详见:https://pkulaw.com/law/chl?Keywords=行政负担&SearchKeywordType=Fulltext&MatchType=Exact;宁夏回族自治区显示的2015年命中的行政负担的政府公文,事实上未命中,故排除。详见:https://pkulaw.com/lar/88a5cfb30902c1465802d4a19d4e08ecbdfb.html?keyword=行政负担%20&way=listView;浙江省一份于2019年发布的政府公文并未显示时间但纳入了系统时间分类的统计,经查证,时间为2019年,故纳入。
(9)习近平在中央党校(国家行政学院)中青年干部培训班开班式上发表重要讲话,详见:https://jhsjk.people.cn/article/32039744 isindex=1。
(10)习近平在纪念马克思诞辰200周年发表的讲话《辩证唯物主义是中国共产党人的世界观和方法论》,详见:http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2018-12/31/c_1123923896.htm。
(11)习近平在中央党校(国家行政学院)中青年干部培训班开班式上发表重要讲话,详见:https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/01/content_5589536.htm。
(1)中国政府网.(2022-10-25).习近平.高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜为全面建设社会主义现代化国家而团结奋斗——在中国共产党第二十次全国代表大会上的报告.详见:https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2022-10/25content_5721585.htm。
基本信息:
中图分类号:D630
引用信息:
[1]彭珮文,杨一.削减繁文缛节与行政负担:学理探究与实务运用的分野[J].公共管理评论,2025,7(03):29-50.
基金信息:
北京大学公共治理研究所项目(项目批准号:YBXM202207)的资助