How Can Subject Function Embedding Improve the Effect of Government Procurement of Community Services from Social Organizations? Based on the Configuration Analysis of 22 Cases

doi:10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2024.06.011

Abstract

Abstract: Based on the embedding theory， an analysis model is constructed from the four dimensions of institutional embedding， relationship embedding， cognitive embedding and resource embedding， and the effects of government procurement of community services from social organizations in the 22 pilot cases of S City are analyzed with the fsQCA method. The results show that the embedding of a single subject function does not constitute the necessary conditions for the good effect of government procurement of community services from social organizations. There are four paths that constitute the good effect of government procurement of community services from social organizations: resident cultivation type， government and social organization leading type， multi-subject linkage type， and community and social organization collaboration type. Among them， the two variables of the cooperation intensity between government and social organizations and the management level of resident service demand in the relationship embedding dimension constitute the core conditions. Multi-subject functional linkage is essential for the effect of government procurement of community services. In the future， it is necessary to focus on precise policy implementation from the perspectives of community service relationship network， government procurement of services system and organization construction， social organization cultivation and development， and multi-subject consensus on serving the people， so as to form an overall joint force to optimize the effect of government procurement of community services from social organizations.

Key words: government procurement of services; social organization; community governance; qualitative comparative analysis

CLC Number:

D630

ZHOU Qian， ZHANG Ping， ZHANG Lei. How Can Subject Function Embedding Improve the Effect of Government Procurement of Community Services from Social Organizations? Based on the Configuration Analysis of 22 Cases[J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2024, 26(6): 95-104.

References

[1]叶继红，陆梦怡. 社区“微自治”的两种逻辑及其优化路径——基于苏州市S街道的案例分析［J］. 中州学刊， 2022(3):67-72.
[2]段灵，刘宏达，李抒，等. 云南省男男性行为者社会组织执行省防治艾滋病政府购买服务项目效果分析［J］. 中国艾滋病性病， 2021，27(6):638-640.
[3]刘江，顾东辉，肖梦希. 满意度能作为社会服务效果评价指标吗?——基于一项政府购买社会服务项目的量化分析［J］. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版)， 2022，37(1):1-14.
[4]吉鹏，李放. 政府购买居家养老服务的绩效评价:实践探索与指标体系建构［J］. 理论与改革， 2013(3):104-107.
[5]王春婷，李帆，林志刚. 政府购买公共服务绩效结构模型建构与实证检测——基于深圳市与南京市的问卷调查与分析［J］. 江苏师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)， 2013，39(1):109-115.
[6]徐家良，许源. 合法性理论下政府购买社会组织服务的绩效评估研究［J］. 经济社会体制比较， 2015(6):187-195.
[7]吉鹏，李放. 政府购买养老服务绩效内涵界定与评价模型构建［J］. 广西社会科学， 2017(11):130-135.
[8]徐金燕. 政府购买社区养老服务运行绩效影响因素的实证研究——以长沙市为例［J］. 湖南社会科学， 2020(2):157-165.
[9]杨倩文，杨硕，王家合. 政府购买机构养老服务绩效评价指标体系构建与实证应用［J］. 社会保障研究， 2021(5):60-71.
[10]方国阳，邵建树，靳晓. 公众参与如何影响政府购买公共服务的有效性?——基于政府购买服务项目的案例分析［J］. 中国行政管理， 2022(4):36-46.
[11]林民望，姚娇美. 政府购买社会组织服务何以有效?——新制度主义视角的组态比较［J］. 华侨大学学报(哲学社会科学版)， 2022(5):81-93.
[12]张岩鸿. 地方政府绩效评估的系统反思与未来进路［J］. 甘肃行政学院学报， 2017(1):13-21.
[13]姜晓萍，康健. 官僚式外包: 政府购买公共服务中利益相关者的行动逻辑及其对绩效的影响［J］. 行政论坛， 2019，26(4):63-68.
[14]曾丽敏，刘春湘. 社会组织参与城市社区治理的正式制度嵌入性分析［J］. 城市发展研究， 2022，29(3):124-132.
[15]储亚萍，何云飞. 政府购买居家养老服务绩效的影响因素研究［J］. 云南民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)， 2018，35(4):129-136.
[16]王达梅，张文礼. 政府购买社会组织服务的“三层次条件合作共强关系理论”［J］. 兰州学刊， 2021(12):92-103.
[17]韩清颖，孙涛. 政府购买公共服务有效性及其影响因素研究——基于153个政府购买公共服务案例的探索［J］. 公共管理学报， 2019，16(3):62-72.
[18]Santos T，Silva R，Oliveira M，et al. The influence of financial management and governance in the provision of social services in non-profit organizations［J］. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences， 2021，24(S2):1-10.
[19]萨瓦斯E S. 民营化与公私部门的伙伴关系［M］. 周志忍，译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社， 2018.
[20]Zaidi S，Mayhew S H，Palmer N. Bureaucrats as purchasers of health services: limitations of the public sector for contracting［J］. Public Administration & Development， 2011，31(3):135-148.
[21]刘舒杨，王浦劬. 政府购买公共服务中的风险与防范［J］. 四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版)， 2016(5):5-13.
[22]Collins T，Gerlach J D. Bridging the gaps: local government and nonprofit collaborations［J］. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs， 2019，5(2):118-133.
[23]张汝立，祝阳. 适度合作与中国政府购买公共服务中的政社关系——一个公众视角的分析［J］. 河南社会科学， 2017，25(9):113-118.
[24]Smith S R. Nonprofits and public administration reconciling performance management and citizen engagement［J］. The American Review of Public Administration， 2010，40(2):129-152.
[25]胡薇. 政府购买社会组织服务的理论逻辑与制度现实［J］. 经济社会体制比较， 2012(6):129-136.
[26]Granovetter M. Economicaction and social structure: the problem of embeddedness［J］. American Journal of Sociology， 1985，91(3):481-510.
[27]Zukin S，DiMaggio P J. Structures of capital: the social organization of the economy［M］. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press， 1990:15.
[28]Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties［J］. American Journal of Sociology， 1973，78(6):1360-1380.
[29]朱健刚，陈安娜. 嵌入中的专业社会工作与街区权力关系——对一个政府购买服务项目的个案分析［J］. 社会学研究， 2013，28(1):43-64.
[30]Greckhamer T. CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries: the configurational impact of country-level institutions［J］. Strategic Management Journal， 2016，37(4):793-815.