Why Is the Response Speed of Local Governments to Waste Classification Policies Different? Based on the Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 46 Pilot Cities

doi:10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2022.05.010

Abstract

Abstract: Rapid response to the central government's decision-making is the primary link of local governments' policy implementation. In the new era， eco-environmental governance is becoming more and more important. In the face of the waste classification policy issued by the central government， why do local governments have different policy response speeds? A qualitative comparative analysis of 46 pilot cities of waste classification is made with the help of QCA software. There are two necessary conditions for policy response: one is to establish an official organization and set up an assessment mechanism at the organizational level， and the other is to promote policy alternatives， policy piloting and authority promotion at the behavioral level. In addition， ensuring adequate capital supply at the resource level is its sufficient condition. The rapid policy response of local governments' waste classification results from the coupling of organizations， actions and resource elements. In the future， China's local governments' waste classification policy response should move towards cross-sectoral cooperation. This model is based on the initial conditions such as environment， experience and consensus， with efficient and smooth action design as the key. At the same time， it needs adaptive management and evaluation accountability as the guarantee， aiming to realize the rapid response and effective implementation of the policy.

Key words: local government; waste classification; policy response speed; qualitative comparative analysis

CLC Number:

D035.5

GAO Denghui， SUN Feng. Why Is the Response Speed of Local Governments to Waste Classification Policies Different? Based on the Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 46 Pilot Cities[J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2022, 24(5): 76-85.

References

[1]陈振明. 政策科学［M］. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社， 2003:261.
[2]Beigl P，Salhofer S. Comparison of Ecological Effects and Costs of Communal Waste Management Systems［J］. Resources，Conservation and Recycling， 2004，41(2):83-102.
[3]张梦玥. 日本《废弃物处理法》对我国城市生活垃圾分类立法的启示［J］. 再生资源与循环经济， 2020，13(3):40-44.
[4]吴晓林，邓聪慧. 城市垃圾分类何以成功?——来自台北市的案例研究［J］. 中国地质大学学报(社会科学版)， 2017，17(6):117-126.
[5]姜建生，刘学民，葛姣菊. 深圳市垃圾分类减量计划实践模式探究［J］. 生态经济， 2018，34(5):126-131.
[6]孙岩，胡茗，张备. 政策工具视角下上海生活垃圾分类政策文本量化［J］. 资源科学， 2021，43(11):2224-2235.
[7]Asensio O I，Delmas M A. Nonprice Incentives and Energy Conservation［J］. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America， 2015，112(6):510-515.
[8]辛自强. 垃圾分类的心理学问题探究［J］. 人民论坛， 2019(22):65-67.
[9]王晓楠. 阶层认同、环境价值观对垃圾分类行为的影响机制［J］. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版)， 2019，21(3):57-66.
[10]Reschovsky J D，Stone S E. Market Incentives to Encourage Household Waste Recycling: Paying for What You Throw Away［J］. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management， 1994，13(1):121-139.
[11]陈那波，蔡荣. “试点”何以失败?——A市生活垃圾“计量收费”政策试行过程研究［J］. 社会学研究， 2017，32(2):174-198.
[12]杜春林，黄涛珍. 从政府主导到多元共治:城市生活垃圾分类的治理困境与创新路径［J］. 行政论坛， 2019，26(4):116-121.
[13]Birchall S J，Bonnett N. Thinning Sea Ice and Thawing Permafrost: Climate Change Adaptation Planning in Nome， Alaska［J］. Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions， 2020，19(2):152-170.
[14]周洪建，孙业红. 气候变化背景下灾害移民的政策响应——从“亚太气候(灾害)移民政策响应地区会议”看灾害移民政策的调整［J］. 地球科学进展， 2012，27(5):573-580.
[15]李旭，熊勇清. 新能源汽车“双积分”政策影响的阶段性特征——经营与环境双重绩效视角［J］. 资源科学， 2021，43(1):1-11.
[16]沈强，柯水发，王庭秦，等. 后退耕时代农户对退耕还林政策的响应分析［J］. 林业经济， 2014，36(6):59-63.
[17]冯贵霞. 大气污染防治政策变迁与解释框架构建——基于政策网络的视角［J］. 中国行政管理， 2014(9):16-20.
[18]刘琼，梁凤波. 基于注意力竞争理论的地方政府“政策响应差异”分析——以医疗保险支付方式改革为例［J］. 甘肃行政学院学报， 2019(3):39-49.
[19]Krause R M. An Assessment of the Impact that Participation in Local Climate Networks Has on Cities' Implementation of Climate，Energy，and Transportation Policies［J］. Review of Policy Research， 2012，29(5):585-604.
[20]周济南，朱治錡. 全面二孩政策响应区域差异的原因与对策探析［J］. 四川行政学院学报， 2017(3):15-19.
[21]Ngoasong M Z. The Emergence of Global Health Partnerships as Facilitators of Access to Medication in Africa: a Narrative Policy Analysis［J］. Social Science & Medicine， 2009，68(5):949-956.
[22]刘悦美，田明. 嵌入与转换:环境政策执行过程中环保社会组织的行动策略研究［J］. 中国行政管理， 2020(7):49-55.
[23]Colombini M，Mayhew S H，Lund R，et al. Factors Shaping Political Priorities for Violence Against Women-mitigation Policies in Sri Lanka［J］. BMC International Health and Human Rights， 2018，18(1):22.
[24]Smith S D. The Global Workforce Shortages and the Migration of Medical Professions: the Australian Policy Response［J］. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy， 2008，5(1):1-9.
[25]李晨光，张永安. 企业对政府创新科技政策的响应机理研究: 基于回声模型［J］. 科技进步与对策， 2013(14):81-87.
[26]王丽霞，陈新国，姚西龙，等. 我国工业企业对环境规制政策的响应度研究［J］. 中国软科学， 2017(10):143-152.
[27]Helgesen M K，Fosse E，Hagen S. Capacity to Reduce Inequities in Health in Norwegian Municipalities［J］. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health， 2017，45:77-82.
[28]江永清. 我国宏观调控政策执行模式研究——以我国应对国际金融危机为例［J］. 江西社会科学， 2012，32(3):40-43.
[29]杨宏山，周昕宇. 中国特色政策试验的制度发展与运作模式［J］. 甘肃社会科学， 2021(2):24-31.
[30]陈宇，孙枭坤. 政策模糊视阈下试点政策执行机制研究——基于低碳城市试点政策的案例分析［J］. 求实， 2020(2):46-64.［31］马新彬. 最优宏观审慎政策治理安排研究: 响应时间与政策路径［J］. 上海金融， 2015(1):16-22.［32］伯努瓦·里豪克斯，查尔斯·拉金. QCA设计原理与应用［M］. 杜运周，李永发，译. 北京: 机械工业出版社， 2019:96.［33］Bryson J M，Crosby B C，Stone M M. The Design and Implementation of Cross-sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature［J］. Public Administration Review， 2006，66(1):44-55.［34］孙峰. 网络时代政策议题建构的信息把关过程研究［J］. 东北大学学报(社会科学版)， 2018，20(5):490-497.