| 1,550 | 0 | 101 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
危机学习是遏制生产安全事故发生的关键环节。既有研究虽探讨了政府危机学习的行为类型、影响因素及生成过程，却无法充分回应“相似行政环境、危机情境以及资源局限下，基层政府为何产生危机学习行为差异”这一现实问题。本文聚焦事故发生后区县(市)政府危机学习行为的差异，基于2013—2023年90起生产安全事故，通过扎根理论的质性研究方法，构建出基层政府危机学习行为差异的生成模型。研究发现：事故属性压力、舆论压力与科层压力共同激发了基层政府的危机学习需求；基层政府的危机学习呈现为单环学习还是双环学习取决于“学习之窗”的开启状态；“学习之窗”的开启状态由组织风险集聚程度与行动共识达成程度共同决定；在学习过程中，上级政府施加的过程关注与事故问责共同发挥了催化作用，塑造了危机学习的特征；严厉的问责未必能改善危机学习效果，但上级支持与督导会提升基层政府的危机学习积极性。根据“学习之窗”开启状态与催化水平的匹配关系，本文归纳出四种危机学习样态：双环探索型、双环遵循型、单环执行型及单环展示型。研究表明，要推动基层政府实现双环危机学习，应增强其风险感知能力，并适当发挥上级政府纵向权力介入的作用。
Abstract：Crisis learning, as a specific form of organizational learning triggered by accidents and disasters, is a critical component in preventing production safety accidents. However, influenced by instrumental values, governments display considerable variations in how they learn from crises. This variation is most evident at the district and county levels, where crisis learning is more vulnerable to both endogenous factors, such as resource capacity and consensus building, and exogenous factors, such as bureaucratic pressures and accident accountability. Given that grassroots governments bear direct managerial responsibility for production safety accidents and possess the most intimate understanding of their root causes, their crisis learning is crucial for strengthening the capacity for grassroots emergency management. Thus, exploring the underlying logic of different crisis learning behaviors by grassroots governments is of great practical significance.Existing research has discussed behavioral types, influencing factors, and learning processes. However, it does not clearly explain why grassroots governments display differing crisis learning behaviors under similar administrative settings, crisis situations, and resource limitations. This study looks at the differences in crisis learning behavior among grassroots governments after the occurrence of accidents. Based on 90 major and particularly major production safety accidents from 2013 to 2023, it uses grounded theory to build a model to explain these variations.The study finds that accident-related pressures, public opinion pressures, and bureaucratic pressures stimulate demands for grassroots government crisis learning. Different levels of these factors lead to different learning behaviors. Second, these pressures trigger the need for crisis learning, while the choice between single-loop and double-loop learning depends on the learning window. If the window is closed, learning remains at the single-loop level, but if the window is open, grassroots governments may begin double-loop learning, but the window only opens when both the risk concentration and consensus are high. Third, the focus and accountability of higher-level governments act in concert to shape the features of crisis learning. In “high focus-high accountability” and “high focus-low accountability” situations, the catalytic level is high and learning is proactive. In “low focus-high accountability” situations, the catalytic level is high but learning involves compliance. In “low focus-low accountability” situations, the catalytic level is low and learning is merely crisis learning, but support and guidance from higher-level governments can enhance the willingness to learn. Fourth, by combining the state of learning with the catalytic level, four types of crisis learning can be identified: double-loop exploration, double-loop compliance, single-loop execution, and single-loop demonstration.This study reveals the generative logic underlying variations in crisis learning behavior among grassroots governments and reveals the dynamic shift from single-loop to double-loop learning during periods of crisis. Furthermore, this research makes several recommendations for achieving double-loop learning at the grassroots level: strengthening risk perceptions by grassroots governments and using vertical intervention by higher-level governments in an appropriate way.
阿金·伯恩，保罗·特哈特，埃瑞克·斯特恩，等.2010.危机管理政治学：压力之下的公共领导能力[M].赵凤萍，胡杨，樊红敏，译.郑州：河南人民出版社，152-178.Boin A,Hart P,Stern E,et al.2010.The politics of crisis management:Public leadership under pressure[M].Zhao F P,Hu Y,Fan M H,trans.Zhengzhou:Henan People's Publishing House,152-178.(translated into Chinese)
陈家建.2017.政府会议与科层动员——基于一个民政项目的案例研究[J].甘肃行政学院学报，(5):26-34.Chen J J.2017.Governmental conference and bureaucratic mobilization:Based on the case study of a civil affairs project[J].Journal of Gansu Administration Institute,(5):26-34.(in Chinese)
陈向明.2000.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社：333.Chen X M.2000 Qualitative research in social sciences[M].Beijing:Educational Science Publishing House:333.(in Chinese)
何兰萍，曹婧怡.2022.危机学习推动风险治理制度演进的逻辑——以2003—2020年重大突发公共事件为例[J].上海行政学院学报，23(3):26-38.He L P,Cao J Y.2022.The logic of crisis learning to promote the evolution of the risk governance institutions based on the cases of major public emergencies in 2003—2020[J].The Journal of Shanghai Administration Institute,23(3):26-38.(in Chinese)
贾旭东，衡量.2020.扎根理论的“丛林”、过往与进路[J].科研管理，41(5):151-163.Jia X D,Heng L.2020.The “jungle”,history,and approach road of the grounded theory[J].Science Research Management,41(5):151-163.(in Chinese)
姜雅婷，柴国荣.2017.安全生产问责制度的发展脉络与演进逻辑——基于169份政策文本的内容分析(2001—2015)[J].中国行政管理，(5):126-133.Jiang Y T,Chai G R.2017.Development and evolution of safe production accountability—A content analysis based on 169 policy texts (2001—2015)[J].Chinese Public Administration,(5):126-133.(in Chinese)
李娉，杨宏山.2022.危机演化与应急学习：城市风险管理的运作逻辑[J].城市发展研究，29(7):74-80.Li P,Yang H S.2022.Crisis evolution and emergency learning:Framework and logic of urban risk management[J].Urban Development Studies,29(7):74-80.(in Chinese)
李瑞昌，唐雲.2024.纵向干预下政府公共安全学习论[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),66(1):182-191.Li R C,Tang Y.2024.The “Well Loop” learning theory of government public safety under hierarchical intervention[J].Fudan Journal (Social Sciences Edition),66(1):182-191.(in Chinese)
李伟权，曹嘉婧.2020.危机学习效果影响因素研究——以四川木里县森林火灾的灾后学习为例[J].贵州社会科学，(10):70-78.Li W Q,Cao J J.2020.Research on the factors influencing crisis Learning effectiveness:A case study of post-disaster Jearning from the Muli county forest fire in Sichuan[J].Guizhou Social Sciences,(10):70-78.(in Chinese)
李宇环，文佳媛，于鹏.2024.事件属性、组织特征与环境压力：政府危机学习路径的组态分析[J].管理评论，36(6):266-276.Li Y H,Wen J Y,Yu P.2024.An analysis of government crisis learning paths through event attributes,organizational characteristics and environmental stressors[J].Management Review,36(6):266-276.(in Chinese)
刘一弘，田昊玮.2022.从常态到应急态过程中的学习机制——基于口岸海关疫情防控政策的案例分析[J].中国行政管理，(3):115-125.Liu Y H,Tian H W.2022.Learning mechanism in the transferring from normal to emergency state—Case analysis based on epidemic prevention and control policies of customs at ports[J].Chinese Public Administration,(3):115-125.(in Chinese)
马奔，程海漫.2017.危机学习的困境：基于特别重大事故调查报告的分析[J].公共行政评论，10(2):118-139.Ma B,Cheng H M.2017.The dilemma of learning from crisis:An analysis based on extraordinarily serious accident investigation reports[J].Journal of Public Administration,10(2):118-139.(in Chinese)
唐钧.2015.论政府风险管理——基于国内外政府风险管理实践的评述[J].中国行政管理，(4):6-11.Tang J.2015.On the government risk management—Based on the review of the government risk management practice at home and abroad[J].Chinese Public Administration,(4):6-11.(in Chinese)
唐雲，王英.2022.“吃一堑”能“长一智”吗?——重特大事故中地方政府危机学习的溢出效应研究[J].暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),44(10):56-71.Tang Y,Wang Y.2022.Can “Learning from Mistakes” lead to “Growing Wiser”?—A study of the spillover effect of crisis learning by local governments in major accidents[J].Jinan Journal (Philosophy & Social Sciences),44(10):56-71.(in Chinese)
陶鹏.2016.灾害批示与公共组织学习演进机制：以安全生产管理制度为例[J].公共行政评论，9(01):39-54.Tao P.2016.Disaster Politics and Public Organizational Learning after a Crisis:Based on the Case of Safety Management[J].Journal of Public Administration,9(01):39-54.
文宏，李风山.2022.中国地方政府危机学习模式及其逻辑——基于“央地关系-议题属性”框架的多案例研究[J].吉林大学社会科学学报，62(4):81-92,235.Wen H,Li F S.2022.Different models of learning from crises and their logic:A multi-case study based on the “Central-Local Relations and Issue Attribution” framework[J].Jilin University Journal Social Sciences Edition,62(4):81-92,235.(in Chinese)
文宏，李风山.2023.吃一堑长一智：事后危机学习何以促进事前风险防范?——基于事故调查报告的程序化扎根分析[J].上海行政学院学报，24(3):18-32.Wen H,Li F S.2023.A fall into the pit,a gain in your wit:How does crisis learning contribute to risk prevention?—An analysis of procedural grounded theory based on accident investigation reports[J].The Journal of Shanghai Administration Institute,24(3):18-32.(in Chinese)
武永超.2021.挂牌督办何以有效?——基于38起安全生产事故的fsQCA研究[J].中国行政管理，(11):100-107.Wu Y C.2021.How is listing supervision effective?—Based on 38 safety production accidents through fsQCA[J].Chinese Public Administration,(11):100-107.(in Chinese)
徐明.2021.公共安全治理中地方政府行为失范及其治理策略——以新冠肺炎疫情为例[J].暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),43(1):39-63.Xu M.2021.Local government behavior anomie and governance strategy in public safety governance:Taking the epidemic of COVID-19 as an example[J].Jinan Journal (Philosophy & Social Sciences),43(1):39-63.(in Chinese)
许玉镇，刘滨.2020.事件属性、科层压力与“关键少数”领导干部决策问责的影响因素——基于60起安全生产事故的定性比较研究[J].中国行政管理，(6):144-151.Xu Y Z,Liu B.2020.Event attribute,bureaucratic pressure and influencing factors of decision-making accountability of “Key Minority” leading cadres—Based on 60 safety production accidents through QCA[J].Chinese Public Administration,(6):144-151.(in Chinese)
杨秋月，邱实.2025.职责泛化下的弹性治理：基层政府“编外扩张”的一个解释框架[J].南京社会科学，(1):70-81.Yang Q Y,Qiu S.2025.Elastic governance under the generalization of responsibilities:An explanatory framework for the “Extra-Bianzhi Expansion” of grassroots government[J].Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences,(1):70-81.(in Chinese)
杨志军，支广东.2020.完全还是有限：政策议程建立的型构条件与耦合机理——基于“关键个人”变量的新多源流模型解释[J].中国行政管理，(12):104-111.Yang Z J,Zhi G D.2020.Full or limited:The formational condition and coupling mechanism of the policy agenda establishment—The explanation of new multiple streams model based on “Key Individual” variable[J].Chinese Public Administration,(12):104-111.(in Chinese)
于文轩.2020.突发危机事件与组织学习：新加坡新冠肺炎疫情应对策略的启示[J].城市治理研究，5(1):76-96,4-5.Yu W X.2020.Crisis and organization learning:Lessons from Singapore's strategies for COVID-19 outbreak[J].Urban Governance Studies,5(1):76-96,4-5.(in Chinese)
张海波.2021.作为应急管理学独特方法论的突发事件快速响应研究[J].公共管理与政策评论，10(3):42-53.Zhang H B.2021.Quick response study to emergencies (QRSE) as the unique methodology of emergency management discipline[J].Public Administration and Policy Review,10(3):42-53.(in Chinese)
张美莲，郑薇.2022.政府如何从危机中学习：基本模式及形成机理[J].中国行政管理，(1):128-137.Zhang M L,Zheng W.2022.How do governments learn from crises:Basic patterns and formation mechanism[J].Chinese Public Administration,(1):128-137.(in Chinese)
周雪光，练宏.2011.政府内部上下级部门间谈判的一个分析模型——以环境政策实施为例[J].中国社会科学，(5):80-96,221.Zhou X G,Lian H.2011.Bureaucratic bargaining in the Chinese government:The case of environmental policy implementation[J].Social Sciences in China,(5):80-96,221.(in Chinese)
邹伟，李娉.2021.技术嵌入与危机学习：大数据技术如何推进城市应急管理创新?——基于健康码扩散的实证分析[J].城市发展研究，28(2):90-96.Zou W,Li P.2021.Technology-embedded and learning from crisis:How big data technology promotes innovation in urban emergency management?An empirical analysis based on Health QR Code diffusion[J].Urban Development Studies,28(2):90-96.(in Chinese)
Birkland T A.2009.Disasters,lessons learned,and fantasy documents[J].Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,17(3):146-156.
Boin A,Hart P.2003.Public leadership in times of crisis:Mission impossible?[J].Public Administration Review,63(5):544-553.
Broekema W,Van Kleef D,Steen T.2017.What factors drive organizational learning from crisis?Insights from the Dutch food safety services' response to four veterinary crises[J].Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,25(4):326-340.
Broekema W,Jong W,Perlstein S.2025.From crisis to inquiry:A framework for designing and assessing crisis inquiries from a learning perspective[J].International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,123:105355.
Cabrerizo F J,Chiclana F,Al-Hmouz R,et al.2015.Fuzzy decision making and consensus:Challenges[J].Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,29(3):1109-1118.
Cai W J,Cai X N,Wang Z H,et al.2023.The spillover effect of penalty against peer firm leaders—Evidence from earnings management[J].Finance Research Letters,54:103701.
Comfort L K,?elik S,Erkan B B B.2023.Learning from stress:Transforming trauma into sustainable risk reduction[J].Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning,4(Special Issue):25-38.
Dekker S,Hansén D.2004.Learning under pressure:The effects of politicization on organizational learning in public bureaucracies[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,14(2):211-230.
Deverell E.2010.Flexibility and rigidity in crisis management and learning at Swedish public organizations[J].Public Management Review,12(5):679-700.
Elliott D.2009.The failure of organizational learning from crisis—A matter of life and death?[J].Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,17(3):157-168.
Glaser B,Strauss A.1999.Discovery of grounded theory:Strategies for qualitative research[M].New York:Routledge:161-185.
Glaser B G.2002.Conceptualization:On theory and theorizing using grounded theory[J].International Journal of Qualitative Methods,1(2):23-38.
Lindberg A K,Hansson S O,Rollenhagen C.2010.Learning from accidents—What more do we need to know?[J].Safety Science,48(6):714-721.
Lumineau F,Kong D,Dries N.2024.A Roadmap for navigating Phenomenon—Based research in management[J].Journal of Management,51:505-517.
Lund-T?nnesen J,Christensen T.2023.Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic:Implications from governance capacity and legitimacy[J].Public Organization Review,23(2):431-449.
Nava L.2022.Rise from ashes:A dynamic framework of organizational learning and resilience in disaster response[J].Business and Society Review,127(S1):299-318.
Olejarski A M,Potter M,Morrison R L.2019.Organizational learning in the public sector:Culture,politics,and performance[J].Public Integrity,21(1):69-85.
Parrado S.2020.The culture of risk regulation:Responses to environmental disasters[J].Regulation & Governance,14(3):599-615.
Pidgeon N,O'Leary M.2000.Man-made disasters:Why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail[J].Safety science,34(1/3):15-30.
Robin E,Chazal C,Acuto M,et al.2019.(Un)learning the city through crisis:Lessons from Cape Town[J].Oxford Review of Education,45(2):242-257.
Sagan S D.1993.The limits of safety:Organizations,accidents,and nuclear weapons[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,204-249.
Verwaeren B,Nijstad B A.2022.What I do or how I do it-the effect of accountability focus on individual exploration[J].European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,31(3):421-439.
Vince R,Saleem T.2004.The impact of caution and blame on organizational learning[J].Management Learning,35(2):133-154.
(1)2019年5月,X市C区发生重大坍塌事故,12人死亡,13人受伤,当地区政府在事故发生后迅速响应,召开紧急会议,启动安全检查,并成立了区房管局安全生产委员会。信息整理自该区内部资料及官方公众号。2020年3月,C省B市C区发生重大坍塌事故,造成29人死亡,42人受伤,当地政府学习行动主要集中在安全生产整治;信息整理自该区官方公众号。2020年8月,V省B市C县发生重大坍塌事故,造成29人死亡,28人受伤,该县政府主要开展了会议学习;信息整理自该县官方公众号。
(2)遵照相关学术规定,本文建立了分层级的地区匿名化编码体系,具体规则如下。针对省级政府,使用26个英文字母以随机排列的形式编号,鉴于我国省级政府的数量超过英文字母数目,因此对剩余省份采取两位字母组合(如AA、AB…)的形式编号;针对市级政府,从字母B开始依照顺序编码,若同属于一个省份,则案例出现的第一个地级市编号为B,第二个为C,依此类推;针对区县(市)级政府,依照同样原则从字母C起顺延编号。
(3)收录2013—2023年期间重大及特别重大生产安全事故的原因:为防止因数据衰减带来的研究结论偏差,以党的十八大召开时间(2012 年)作为起始时间节点,仅收集近十年发生的重大及特别重大生产安全事故。
(4)收集这一时间段内的资料基于两个原因:第一,问责结果通常在事故调查报告中公布,调查报告发布后,基层政府危机学习可能进一步深化;第二,部分生产安全事故发生后,官方会开展一周年的警示活动。
(5)近年来,各级政府愈发重视通过官方渠道发布学习动态,公开展示危机学习的措施和成果。特别是在发生重大及特别重大事故后,涉事省级及市级政府通常会发布文件或通知,要求各级政府吸取事故教训、开展安全整治,提供资源支持,并通过一系列监管手段(如督察暗访、事故整改“回头看”“回马枪”)督促基层政府落实学习行动。在这种背景下,基层政府不仅会在内部开展相应的学习,还会通过官方网站等渠道发布学习活动及成果,对学习过程留痕。本文收集危机学习工作动态记录的原因有二。第一,基层政府在学习过程中的留痕记录为研究提供了具体的学习活动案例,这些数据可以与上级政府学习动态进行对比,从而验证上级推动、上级支持等因素是否对基层政府的危机学习产生了实质性影响。第二,工作动态记录能够助力深入分析危机学习行为的生成过程及其动态变化。
(6)资料参考自官方公布的事故调查报告。
(7)资料参考自该起事故的新闻报道。
基本信息:
中图分类号:X928;D63
引用信息:
[1]张桂蓉,张颖,文颖.基层政府危机学习行为差异何以生成?——基于扎根理论的研究[J].公共管理评论,2025,7(04):24-48.
基金信息:
2025年度湖南省自然科学基金面上项目“城市极端暴雨灾害系统性风险的演化机理与韧性治理策略研究”(项目批准号:2025JJ50414); 2025年度国家社会科学基金后期资助项目“应急协同的数智驱动机制研究”(项目批准号:24FGLB140)的资助