论中国政治市场开放进程中宪政民主与基层民主的协调发展

建构一个有效的政治市场，是中国民主政治发展固有之义，关系到社会主义体制改革的成败，中国最高决策层有意识地选择上下互动的民主政治发展路径，这同苏东原社会主义国家体制改革有别，但这条路径选择并没有消除民主政治发展战略中基层民主优先和宪政民主滞后的矛盾。当务之急是在民主政治实践中高度注重宪政民主与基层民主的协调发展。     

试析新中国民主政治建设的成就与历史经验

改革开放以来，我国在发展民主政治、基层民主建设和社会主义法制建设等方面取得了较大成就。发展社会主义民主政治，必须坚持四项基本原则，把握民主政治的发展方向；推进市场化改革，夯实民主建设的基础；发展民主与健全法制紧密结合；在党的领导下，有步骤、有秩序地推进民主政治建设；处理好政治体制改革与经济发展、社会稳定的关系；发展党内民主，推进民主政治建设。     

论新时期中国社区基层民主发展的动力机制

实现社区基层民主是新时期建设中国特色社会主义社会的内在要求。社会多元化的形成,自主化程度的提高,公民享有充分的政治权利等均已成为新时期社区基层民主发展的内在动力;政府体制改革,社会政治稳定,政府权威合法性基础的增强亦均成为政府大力推进社区基层民主发展的现实动因。     

对基层民主与监督的探讨

党的十六大指出:"扩大基层民主,是发展社会主义民主的基础性工作."因此,充分发挥基层群众当家作主的作用,让其参与管理基层事务,既是国家法律赋予基层群众的权利,也是"三个代表"重要思想和解决基层民主监督问题的具体体现;既是基层政治建设的前提,也是保证政治稳定、社会进步、经济发展的基础,对于构建社会主义和谐社会具有重大现实意义和作用.     

创新村级治理机制 破解“半拉子民主”难题——基于武义“村务监督委员会”六年探索的经验与启示

武义县创建的"村务监督委员会"制度历经六年多的实践与探索,逐渐成为一个极富生命力的基层民主形式,为基层民主政治建设提供了一个可借鉴的案例。文章通过对武义县六年多来实践与探索的村务监督委员会制度进行详细的考察分析,从制度创新缘起、发展、运行及成效入手,揭示其对中国基层民主政治建设与发展的现实价值和重要借鉴意义。     

基层民主的增量式发展与制度创新

扩大基层民主是大势所趋。在当前,发展基层民主的限制性条件决定了我国基层民主建设必须走增量式发展之路。基层民主的增量式发展是在基层民主已有发展水平和制度框架的基础上,渐进地、稳妥地发展基层民主。增量式的基层民主发展既要充分、有效地利用基层民主的存量,培育民主发展的社会基础,也要不断创新基层民主发展的制度体系,探索可能的扩展空间。     

以“四个覆盖”为抓手促进村民自治

党的十八大报告提出了完善基层民主制度的重大任务。基层群众自治制度是基层民主制度的重要内容,是我国的一项基本政治制度,完善基层民主制度是社会主义民主政治的基础性工程。认真贯彻落实党的十八大精神,用法治思维探析正在河北省农村推广的基层党组织、群众性自治组织、经济合作组织、综治维稳组织全覆盖（简称“四个覆盖”）,对于健全村党组织领导的充满活力的村民自治机制,创新农村社会管理,加快发展现代农业,有着十分重要的意义。     

社会主义民主政治的优势

江泽民同志在“5&;#183;31”重要讲话中谈到发展社会主义民主政治时指出：党的领导、人民当家作主和依法治国的统一性，是社会主义民主政治的重要优势。江泽民同志的这一论述，深刻地揭示了中国社会主义民主政治发展的主要特点和客观规律。也就是说，在社会主义民主政治中，党的领导是保证，人民当家作主是本质，依法治国是途径。三者的统一，构成了社会主义民主政治的优势。     

河南省党内基层民主建设的成效、问题及对策思考

河南省党内基层民主建设,在保障党员选举权、知情权、参与权、监督权等方面取得了很大成效。但河南党内基层民主建设仍存在一些薄弱环节和亟待解决的问题。要从坚持正确政治方向、提高党员干部的民主意识和民主素质、尊重基层首创精神、完善党内基层民主的体制机制、坚持以党内民主带动人民民主等方面加强河南党内基层民主建设。     

参与式民主对中国基层民主建设的启示

参与式民主是20世纪六七十年代在美国等西方国家兴起的一种民主理论范式。参与式民主通过倡导基层民主,主张公众参与,培育公众精神,在沟通、协商、妥协中实现公共利益。通过公众的讨论,倾听他人的观点,完成了民主内涵,这无疑体现了现代社会的公众精神。它的这些精神对当今中国正在构建中国特色社会主义民主政治具有重大实践意义。     

Toward Subnational Democracies of Scale: Tensions between Democratic Legitimacy,Legality, and Effective Governance

Although democracy is often discussed as a universally applicable ideology, the liberal democratic state tends to assess democracy on the basis of government institutions. This paper argues that democratic institutionalism favours national governments and makes it difficult for subnational governments to expand their governance capacity and exercise additional powers. Greenland, Shetland, and Tresco (Isles of Scilly) serve as case studies of different subnational strategies for exercising greater governance capacity: 1) Actual adherence to democratic form (Greenland), 2) Symbolic adherence to democratic form (Shetland), and 3) Operating external to democratic form (Tresco). Despite the efforts of local governance actors, governance in these three island communities has proved problematic in terms of democratic legitimacy, legality, and/or effectiveness. It is argued that pressure toward the development of liberal democratic government institutions can in fact decrease the quality of subnational democracy. This requires a reassessment of definitions of democracy and authoritarianism. It is necessary to pursue place-specific and community-sensitive democracies of scale if we wish to democratically empower local communities.     

Democracy and Education in twentieth‐century Latin America

Do democratic electoral systems strengthen a country's outcomes in education? Does the degree of inclusiveness of a democratic system matter? This article offers evidence that political competition and the inclusion of marginalized populations in electoral systems transformed education over an 80‐year period in Latin America. It finds that democracy has a positive effect on education enrollment and illustrates how current work on democracy and development has overlooked important democratic subcomponents, specifically, who votes and how. Our results deepen current work on democracy, operationalizing the impact of electoral expansion in comparative analysis and showing how democracies respond to specific education demands.     

制度主义分析的缺陷及其超越——关于中国村民自治建设和研究的反思

自20世纪80年代中期以来推行的中国乡村民主自治政治建设基本上建基于制度主义的后设理论。它强调制度建设、行政推动和制度归因。制度主义理论家族包括两大类成员：一类是结构制度主义;另一类是理性选择制度主义。结构制度主义假设了传统一现代的二元对分,套用现代理想类型,来分析乡村发展诸问题,却难以提供制度变迁的具体的路径和方式。理性制度主义虽然指出了,作为一种公共物品的基层民主政治建设,需要通过自上而下的行政推动来克服搭便车问题,但是自身却难逃制度理性和行政代理人利益理性的悖论。实践取向的能力建设方向,建基于当地村民的地方性知识和实践智慧基础上,围绕着实践中的问题,在外部专业人员协助下,通过行动反思,来融合传统资源和现代制度,寻找乡村发展和民主自治的出路,或许这才是跳出制度主义困境的希望所在。     

公民参与在公共政策制定中的意义

公民参与在公共政策的整个运行过程中,充分保障广大人民群众的主人翁地位,真正贯彻公共政策的民主化原则,制定出科学、合理、公正的公共政策,以实现公共政策的有效性中的意义是极其重大而深远的。公民参与也是民主程序的核心概念,“真正的民主,需要通过‘公民不断的参与’,方能领略什么是民主,在心理上融会和建立民主作风,在行为上获取民主办事的技巧和方法,这样才可以保证社会运作是真正由人民主宰。”     

Democracy and Development: Cruel Dilemma or Symbiotic Relationship?

The paper dissects the hypothesis that democracy is inimical to economic development. The historical origin of this perspective is presented and its key theoretical and empirical assumptions are examined and assessed. The chief conclusion is that there is no necessary tradeoff between democracy and development. When compared to authoritarian regimes, democracy is more likely to foster an environment that facilitates the innovative and entrepreneurial process so essential for sustained development. On the other hand, democracy is better for development only when accompanied by an expansion of markets and competition. Democracy without markets is unlikely to deliver significant growth. In this context, liberalized international trade can act in a productive symbiosis with democratic institutions to promote development by facilitating bilateral flows of ideas, knowledge, goods, services, and technology.     

参与机制对党内民主建设的价值考量

党内民主作为一种民主形式,与广大党员积极参与是不可分割的。党的代表大会制度是党内民主的根本制度,其本质就是一种党内参与机制;完善党内选举制度的方式就是让广大党员行使参与权利;保障党员民主权利是党内民主的最终归宿,其实现途径就是党内参与机制;扩大党务公开透明是党内民主的表现形式,其目的就是通畅党内参与渠道;党内监督制度是党内民主的重要功能,其制约作用需要通过参与机制来发挥。     

Level of economic development and political democracy revisited

This article reassesses a democracy-economic development linkage for the period 1972 to 1990. The results show that economic development has a significant effect on democratic performance in the semiperiphery and periphery, yet in an opposite direction. For the core, there is no linkage from economic development to political performance. Moreover, the finding also suggests that democracy enhances economic development only in the core and semiperiphery. This finding thus contradicts Barro's [1996] contention that more democracy enhances economic growth at low levels of political freedom, but it depresses economic growth when a moderate level of freedom has already been attained.     

When do neoliberal economic reforms cause democratic decline? Evidence from the post-communist Southeast Europe

Do neoliberal reforms (notably, austerity policy) facilitate democratic decline and the gradual deconstruction of democratic institutions? I examine the democratic development of the Western Balkan countries since 2008 by focusing on the two most recent cases of democratic rollback in Macedonia and Serbia. Neoliberal reforms may create a preference to shut down democratic institutions, because such reforms are socially costly and politically risky. However, democratic backsliding is not possible without opportunity. I illustrate this with reference to the examples of Hungary and Croatia. Croatia implemented some neoliberal policies after 2015, but did not see a drop in its democracy score. By contrast, Hungary moved towards centrally planned capitalism, nationalisation and state interventionism (all opposed to the neoliberal concept of reform), and yet saw a significant democratic decline after 2010. The opportunity to dismantle democratic institutions was a consequence of an electoral gap (a difference in vote share between former and new incumbents), which enabled the rise of authoritarian leaders in Macedonia, Hungary and Serbia.     

Democracy and climate change policies: Is history important?

This paper argues that it is countries' historical experience with democracy, the democratic capital stock, rather than current levels of democracy that determines current climate change policies. Empirical evidence using data starting as far back as year 1800 for 87 countries, which together are responsible for 93.7% of global carbon emissions, suggests that the democratic capital stock has an important and robust effect on climate change policies. A history of executive constraints is particularly important. The current level of democracy does not play a role once democratic capital has been accounted for.     

Comparing the spread of capitalism and democracy

We apply Leeson and Dean’s (2009) method for studying democratic dominoes to capitalist spillovers to compare the rates at which capitalism and democracy spread between countries. We find that capitalism and democracy spread at approximately the same modest rate.