如果从“强制—诱导”“高回应性—低回应性”两个维度审视政策动员模式，可以将其划分为“强制灌输”“政策促销”“回应发布”“政策营销”四种类型。而“政策营销”是一种特殊的“政策动员模式”和“政策管理工具”，它是政府等公共部门为了推动某项政策议程或者保障既定政策的顺利执行,运用类似企业营销的理念和技术了解和回应政策对象的诉求，尽可能使用强制性低的说服性、诱导性政策工具，来获取民众对政策的认同与支持，最终实现公共部门与政策对象需求的互配，提升社会整体福利的方法和过程。

党的十一届三中全会以后，我国政府的政策动员模式发生了转型：传统的“强制灌输”模式开始弱化、“政策营销”模式开始成为新的趋势；特别是中共十六届三中全会提出建设“服务型政府”以来，各级政府在政策动员的实践中对“营销”的应用越来越多，并呈现出转型期的特点。但令人遗憾的是，在当前中国“政策营销”的实践过程中，“营销失灵”的现象十分突出。“政策营销失灵”是指政策制定者和政策对象的需求应当却最终未能通过“营销”这种“价值交换”方式得以互配。在以下几种情况下可能发生“政策营销”失灵：政府和公共部门在政策动员中未能在适当的时机启动“政策营销”；或者尽管启动了“政策营销”但未能按照预期成功地提升政策对象的认同和支持；或者即便是有效提升了政策对象的认同和支持，但这种认同和支持并不持久，未能形成足够的资源以保障政策系统内下一次“政策营销”的成功开展。可以将这些“政策营销”失灵现象划分为：“启动失灵”（“政策营销”未启动、“政策营销”启动滞后）、“产出失灵”（整合性产出失灵、区隔性产出失灵）、“反馈失灵”（路径依赖失灵、溢出效应失灵）。为什么政策推动者未能运用比较成熟的市场营销管理理念来避免“政策营销”的失灵现象？对这个问题的回答是本书的主要任务。

在总结国内外学者早期研究成果的基础上，本书认为，“政策营销”作为一种政策动员模式，其是否被运用以及其运用的效果如何都与政策网络的结构关系密切相关。“政策营销”的应用过程也是政策网络成员对其进行学习的渐进过程，“政策营销”学习与政策网络结构关系相互建构。在这样一个判断的基础上，本书提出了一个“政策营销”失灵现象的“网络结构—政策学习”整合分析模型，力图对“政策营销”失灵的机理进行解释。具体可以表述如下。

政策网络的结构关系特征可以用两个维度来考察：其一是政策倡导联盟各自的“竞争”能力，包括政策网络成员各自拥有资源的多寡，以及由此决定的政策倡导联盟的力量对比和在政策过程中的地位高低；其二是政策网络成员间及倡导联盟间交流互动程度的高低，以及由此决定的政策网络的开放程度。“政策营销”能否被应用以及应用的效果如何与这两个维度密切相关，因为前者决定了“政策营销”双方是否具有进行平等交换的能力和诉求，后者决定了“政策营销”双方是否有进行平等交换的机会和渠道。当政策网络中政策动员方垄断了政策资源，政策网络又高度封闭的情况下“政策营销”根本就不会启动；当政策动员双方竞争实力相对均衡，政策网络开放度高，政策网络成员间既有平等交换的能力和诉求，又有充足的平等交换的机会和渠道，“政策营销”就会成功；而当政策动员方客观上无法垄断政策资源，政策受众的竞争能力开始增强，但政策网络却仍旧相对封闭，“政策营销”双方的价值诉求和交换预期以及由此决定的各自博弈策略往往无法达成一致，“政策营销”就会失灵。

“政策营销”的理念和技术可以划分为“次要层面”“近核心层”“根本核心层”。“政策营销”的应用过程本身也是政策网络成员对“政策营销”模式学习的过程，学习又是渐进的。对政策动员方来说，其对“政策营销”的应用策略往往会经历“在技术—操作层面运用”（借鉴了“政策营销”的具体技术，但不刻意考虑各项技术的“整合性”问题）、“在管理—战术层面运用”（充分考虑“产品”“价格”“渠道”“促销”等多种要素的呼应和配合，考虑“政策营销”各部门之间的整合，以期达至最佳的“政策营销”效果）、在“价值—战略层面运用”（将营销的重点放在构建“政策营销”主客体之间牢固的、充满信任的合作关系和协商机制上）几个阶段；对政策受众方来说，其应对策略也往往会有“冷漠对待”“抵制抗争”“合作参与”几种变化。尽管在实践中由于政策网络环境的复杂性，双方的应对策略并不一定会一一对应，也不一定体现为严格的线性演变，但会呈现由浅入深、逐渐向核心层面靠拢的总体格局。“政策营销”的学习过程也在逐渐改变着政策倡议联盟的竞争能力和政策网络的开放程度，从而也建构着政策网络的结构关系。

本书通过对台北市“垃圾随袋收费”政策、厦门海沧PX项目事件以及深圳垃圾分类减量政策三组“政策营销”的案例进行比较，以证明政策网络结构与“政策营销”策略之间的相关关系。本书还通过对1988年到2014年深圳市垃圾焚烧厂建设政策过程中“政策营销”运用变迁的分析，描述了“政策营销”双方对该政策动员模式渐进的学习过程，以及“政策营销”双方的策略选择与政策网络关系之间的相互建构作用。

提升政策网络成员的参与能力和参与机会，通过制度化的手段提升政策网络的开放程度，并最终促成政策网络的结构变迁是解决“政策营销”失灵现象的关键。具体而言应该分别从技术层面、价值重塑（“公共性与工艺性的双重兼顾”“以顾客为导向理念的树立”“慎议式民主体验”）、制度规范（“绩效评估改革”“伙伴关系的建立”“行政流程的再造”）三个层面进行改进。

If the policy mobilization model is examined from the two dimensions of "coercion-inducement" and "high responsiveness-low responsiveness", it can be divided into four types: "forced indoctrination", "policy promotion", "response release" and "policy marketing". "Policy marketing" is a special "policy mobilization model" and "policy management tool", which is the method and process of the government and other public departments in order to promote a certain policy agenda or ensure the smooth implementation of established policies, using concepts and technologies similar to corporate marketing to understand and respond to the demands of policy objects, and using persuasive and inducing policy tools with low mandatory force as much as possible to obtain people's recognition and support for policies, and ultimately realize the mutual matching of the needs of public sectors and policy objects and improve the overall welfare of society. After the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, the policy mobilization model of the Chinese government has undergone transformation: the traditional "forced indoctrination" model has begun to weaken, and the "policy marketing" model has begun to become a new trend; Especially since the Third Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China proposed the construction of a "service-oriented government", governments at all levels have increasingly applied "marketing" in the practice of policy mobilization, and have shown the characteristics of a transition period. However, it is regrettable that in the current practice of "policy marketing" in China, the phenomenon of "marketing failure" is very prominent. "Policy marketing failure" means that the needs of policy makers and policy targets should not be matched through the "value exchange" method of "marketing". "Policy marketing" failures can occur when: governments and the public sector fail to initiate "policy marketing" at the right time in policy mobilization; or failing to successfully increase the buy-in and support of policy targets as expected despite initiating "policy marketing"; Or even if it effectively enhances the recognition and support of the policy target, this recognition and support is not lasting, and it does not generate enough resources to ensure the success of the next "policy marketing" within the policy system. These "policy marketing" failures can be divided into: "initiation failure" ("policy marketing" not started, "policy marketing" lagging start), "output failure" (integrated output failure, discriminating output failure), and "feedback failure" (path dependence failure, spillover effect failure). Why have policy promoters failed to use more mature marketing management concepts to avoid the failure of "policy marketing"? The answer to this question is the main task of this book. On the basis of summarizing the early research results of domestic and foreign scholars, this book argues that whether "policy marketing" as a policy mobilization mode is used and how effective it is is closely related to the structural relationship of policy networks. The application process of "policy marketing" is also a gradual process of learning from policy network members, and the learning of "policy marketing" and the structural relationship of policy network are mutually constructed. Based on this judgment, this book proposes an integrated analysis model of "network structure-policy learning" for the failure of "policy marketing", and tries to explain the mechanism of "policy marketing" failure. Specifically, it can be expressed as follows. The structural relationship characteristics of policy networks can be examined from two dimensions: one is the "competitive" ability of policy advocacy alliances, including the amount of resources owned by policy network members, and the power comparison and status of policy advocacy alliances in the policy process determined by this; The second is the level of interaction between members of the policy network and the advocacy alliance, and the degree of openness of the policy network determined by this. Whether "policy marketing" can be applied and how effective it is applied are closely related to these two dimensions, because the former determines whether the two parties of "policy marketing" have the ability and demand to exchange equally, and the latter determines whether the two parties of "policy marketing" have the opportunity and channels for equal exchange. When the policy mobilizer in the policy network monopolizes the policy resources and the policy network is highly closed, the "policy marketing" will not start at all; When the competitive strength of the policy mobilization parties is relatively balanced, the policy network is highly open, and the members of the policy network have both the ability and demand for equal exchange, and there are sufficient opportunities and channels for equal exchange, "policy marketing" will be successful. However, when the policy mobilizer objectively cannot monopolize policy resources, the competitiveness of the policy audience begins to increase, but the policy network is still relatively closed, and the value appeal and exchange expectations of both parties to "policy marketing" and the respective game strategies determined by this often cannot be agreed, and "policy marketing" will fail. The concept and technology of "policy marketing" can be divided into "secondary level", "near-core layer" and "fundamental core layer". The application process of "policy marketing" itself is also the process of learning the "policy marketing" model by the members of the policy network, and the learning is gradual. For policy mobilizers, their application strategies of "policy marketing" often experience "application at the technical-operational level" (borrowing the specific techniques of "policy marketing", but not deliberately considering the "integration" of various technologies), "application at the management-tactical level" (fully considering the echo and cooperation of various elements such as "product", "price", "channel" and "promotion", and considering the integration between various departments of "policy marketing" in order to achieve the best "policy marketing" effect), and "applying at the value-strategic level" (focusing on building a strong and trusting cooperative relationship and consultation mechanism between the subject and object of "policy marketing") several stages; For policy audiences, their coping strategies often have several changes: "indifferent treatment", "resistance to resistance" and "cooperative participation". Although in practice, due to the complexity of the policy network environment, the coping strategies of the two sides may not necessarily correspond one-to-one, nor may they be reflected in a strict linear evolution, but they will present an overall pattern from shallow to deep and gradually move closer to the core level. The learning process of "policy marketing" is also gradually changing the competitiveness of policy initiative alliances and the openness of policy networks, thereby constructing the structural relationship of policy networks. This book compares the cases of "policy marketing" in Taipei City's "garbage with bag" policy, the Xiamen Haicang PX project incident, and the Shenzhen garbage classification and reduction policy to prove the correlation between the policy network structure and the "policy marketing" strategy. This book also analyzes the changes in the use of "policy marketing" in the construction policy process of Shenzhen waste incineration plant from 1988 to 2014, describes the gradual learning process of the policy mobilization model between the two sides of "policy marketing", and the mutual construction effect between the strategic choices of the two sides and the policy network relationship between the two sides of "policy marketing". Improving the participation capacity and participation opportunities of policy network members, improving the openness of policy networks through institutionalized means, and ultimately promoting structural changes in policy networks are the keys to solving the failure of "policy marketing". Specifically, improvements should be made from the technical level, value reshaping ("dual balance of publicity and craftsmanship", "establishment of customer-oriented concepts", "prudent democratic experience"), and institutional norms ("performance evaluation reform", "partnership establishment", and "administrative process reengineering").（AI翻译）