在当代中国社会，随着市场经济体制的确立、单位制的解体，各类公众参与在社会中逐渐活跃。然而在实践中，也遇到不少的矛盾和困境。因此本书从普特南的公众参与和相关社会资本理论出发，在中国的转型背景下，对公众参与的现状和困境的深层原因进行了分析和阐释。

本书首先回顾了学术界对市场经济和公众参与之间关系的研究中存在“市场推进论”和“市场制约论”两种意见。市场推进论的主要观点是：市场经济的发展，使得个人拥有更多的自主能力和资源，带来了公众参与的繁荣。而市场制约派认为市场经济的发展制约了人们的发展合作精神，从而影响了公众参与。本书的经验研究发现市场经济的两种效应都是存在的，一方面，它的确提高了个体的能力和资源在公众参与中的效用；另一方面，它也存在着对公众参与的抑制作用。对此，本书做了进一步的推论：如果市场经济的确降低了人们的合作意愿，人们不愿在参与中与他人建立新的社会合作和联系，那么由公众参与网络生成内部（网络成员间的信任和互惠）和外部社会资本（普遍信任）的能力，也应该是降低的。经验资料的结果也支持了本书的推论。

那么我们应该如何去研究宏观社会组织制度模式对公众参与行为产生的影响呢？普特南强调了社会组织对社会发展的积极作用，然而公众参与研究中也存在着奥尔森关于社会利益组织将有害于社会发展的相反论断。但实际上二者的理论并不存在绝对的对立。普特南将社会资本划分为团结型社会资本和桥接型社会资本，奥尔森则提出排他性团体（利益）和相容性团体（利益）的分析工具。本书认为这两者之间存在着内在联系，即排他性团体创造了团结型社会资本，相容性团体则生成了桥接型社会资本，换言之，相容性团体是普特南所强调的公众参与网络的组织形式，而团结型社会资本的狭隘性则正是奥尔森分析的利益团体分利化倾向的社会产品。不过奥尔森强调的各类利益团体和普特南分析的大众性社会组织所依赖的社会背景，与当代中国的社会组织制度和管理规则完全不同。因此，本书首先从组织的整合效应、社会组织的专业化和经济性、参与的非政治化以及参与的合法性问题四个方面阐释了这种差异。本书的实证研究发现，在中国社会，奥尔森组织也能实现从团结型社会资本到桥接型社会资本的跨越，从而促进社会的整合；但另一方面，普特南组织却在某种程度上导致了网络的封闭性。这种现象的内在原因是：在特定制度和管理方式的作用下，市场经济发展中的公众参与网络也会成为小而分化的利益团体，进而无法承担起在更大社会范围内促进整合的责任。其次，本书使用各国公众参与的资料，从横向比较方式进行了分析，研究结果显示：在相似制度结构的国家或地区中，两类团体的社会影响具有内在趋同性。因此，无论是奥尔森还是普特南的研究，其适用性都需要考虑国家或地区的组织制度和政治整合模式对公众参与或社会组织的形塑关系。

本书最后考察了在中国文化背景下，公众参与和社会资本构建之间独特的关系路径。基于相关分析，中国信任的构建包含了一个基本命题：中国人的信任和关系具有同构性，因此，亲属信任对不同类别人群信任的影响就取决于关系的远近亲疏。也就是说，中国的社会资本有很强的不依赖公众参与构建的内生属性。通过对该命题的推演，本书立足于以下两个假设展开分析：首先，特殊信任与普遍信任之间可能是一个此消彼长的关系，当公众参与依赖着关系路线形成时，其所建立的信任仍然是一种无法普遍化的信任。其次，在市场化中存在着两种力量，其在推进普遍信任的同时，也增强了特殊信任和普遍信任之间的矛盾，在这一背景下，依赖关系路线的公众参与和普遍信任之间的矛盾也被增强了。根据实证结果，我们可以得到以下三个启示：第一，在当代中国社会，特殊信任与普遍信任之间的内在矛盾仍然存在，无论是对不同信任之间关系的分析，还是根据网络结构对信任程度的影响，都证明了这一点。第二，市场经济发展降低了人际关系中生成的特殊信任，然而由于缺乏公共协商制度，不平等效应对封闭性的作用也增强了，因此特殊信任和普遍信任之间的矛盾进一步加强了。第三，公众参与中信任的建立方式仍然遵循差序性人际关系路径，这意味着在中国社会的公众参与中，尚未形成基于制度和共识等规则力量建立社会资本的方式。

此外本书也尝试对互联网公众参与行为的特点进行了分析。研究从数字不平等的视角出发，考察了互联网使用差异与在线公众参与之间的内在联系，即试图分析不同社会经济地位人群由于各自偏好的网络使用类型，是否进一步强化了“参与鸿沟”。本书利用2011—2012年对10个城市在职网民的调查数据，结合对社会经济地位和使用心理以及行为变量的分析，结果表明：虽然互联网使用鸿沟显著存在，但是以娱乐互动为中介的互联网使用能够促进低教育人群的政治表达，而且独立于社会阶层影响的娱乐互动效能也能够促进互联网使用者进一步去获取政治信息的行为。同时研究也发现，高社会阶层在网络公众参与中信息和互动的双重优势，可能潜在地给予了他们在公共议题上的引导性权力。

最后，本书从当代中国经济、政治、文化三个方面的转型背景出发，对公众参与和社会资本之间的关系进行了阐释。对于公众参与困境的内在原因，本书的结论是：由于制度系统的特殊性和文化传统的滞后作用，使得中国的社会资本构建处在一个传统型社会资本尚未消失，而现代型社会资本尚未形成的过渡阶段。因此当重新思考普特南的社会资本理论时，本书认为对处于转型期的国家或地区来说，国家建设和制度建设在公众参与和社会资本构建中扮演了十分重要的角色。推动鼓励性的社会组织制度建设和发展跨人际的社会网络，会更利于公众参与发挥出构建社会资本的效果。在实践中，这也需要通过相关制度保障和公众素养教育来助其实现。

关键词：公众参与 社会网络 社会资本 社会转型

In contemporary Chinese society, with the establishment of the market economy system and the disintegration of the unit system, various types of public participation have gradually become active in society. However, in practice, it has also encountered many contradictions and difficulties. Therefore, starting from Putnam's public participation and related social capital theory, this book analyzes and explains the current situation of public participation and the deep reasons for the dilemma in the context of China's transformation. This book first reviews the academic research on the relationship between market economy and public participation, and there are two opinions: "market promotion theory" and "market constraint theory". The main point of market promotion theory is that the development of the market economy has enabled individuals to have more autonomy and resources, which has brought about the prosperity of public participation. The market constraint faction believes that the development of the market economy restricts people's spirit of development and cooperation, thus affecting public participation. The empirical findings in this book show that both effects of the market economy exist: on the one hand, it does increase the utility of individual capacities and resources in public participation; On the other hand, it also has a disincentive effect on public participation. This book makes a further inference: if the market economy does reduce people's willingness to cooperate and people are reluctant to establish new social cooperation and connections with others in participation, then the ability of public participation networks to generate internal (trust and reciprocity among network members) and external social capital (general trust) should also be reduced. The results of empirical data also support the inferences of this book. So how should we study the impact of the macro social organization system model on public participation behavior? Putnam emphasized the positive role of social organization in social development, but there is also Olsen's contrary statement in public participation research that social interest organizations will be harmful to social development. But in fact, there is no absolute opposition between the two theories. Putnam divides social capital into solidarity social capital and bridging social capital, while Olson proposes analytical tools for exclusive groups (interests) and compatible groups (interests). This book argues that there is an intrinsic relationship between the two, that is, exclusive groups create solidarity social capital, and compatible groups generate bridging social capital, in other words, compatible groups are the organizational form of public participation networks emphasized by Putnam, and the narrowness of solidarity social capital is the social product of Olson's tendency to divide interest groups. However, the various interest groups highlighted by Olson and the social background on which Putnam's analysis of mass social organizations depend, are completely different from the social organization system and management rules in contemporary China. Therefore, this book first explains this difference from four aspects: the integration effect of organizations, the specialization and economy of social organizations, the depoliticization of participation, and the legitimacy of participation. The empirical research in this book finds that in Chinese society, Olsen organizations can also realize the leap from solidarity social capital to bridging social capital, thereby promoting social integration; On the other hand, Putnam has somehow led to the closed nature of the network. The internal reason for this phenomenon is that, under the influence of certain systems and management methods, the public participation network in the development of the market economy will also become a small and differentiated interest group, and thus cannot assume the responsibility of promoting integration in the larger society. Second, the book analyzes the cross-sectional comparison using data on public participation in various countries, and the results show that the social influences of the two groups are inherently similar in countries or regions with similar institutional structures. Therefore, the applicability of both Olsen's or Putnam's research needs to consider the relationship between national or regional organizational systems and political integration models on public participation or social organization. The book concludes by examining the unique relationship between public participation and the construction of social capital in the context of Chinese culture. Based on the correlation analysis, the construction of trust in China contains a basic proposition: Chinese trust and relationship are isomorphic, so the impact of kinship trust on the trust of different types of people depends on the distance of the relationship. In other words, China's social capital has a strong endogenous attribute that does not rely on public participation. By deriving this proposition, this book bases its analysis on the following two assumptions: First, the relationship between special trust and universal trust may be a trade-off relationship, and when public participation depends on the formation of relationship routes, the trust it establishes is still a trust that cannot be universalized. Second, there are two forces in marketization, which promote universal trust while also strengthening the contradiction between special trust and universal trust, and in this context, the contradiction between public participation and universal trust in the dependency route is also strengthened. According to the empirical results, we can get the following three enlightenments: First, in contemporary Chinese society, the inherent contradiction between special trust and universal trust still exists, which is proved by the analysis of the relationship between different trusts and the impact of network structure on the degree of trust. Second, the development of the market economy reduces the special trust generated in interpersonal relations, but due to the lack of a public consultation system, the effect of inequality on the closure is also enhanced, so the contradiction between special trust and universal trust is further strengthened. Third, the way trust is built in public participation still follows the differential interpersonal relationship path, which means that in public participation in Chinese society, the way to build social capital based on the power of rules such as institutions and consensus has not yet been formed. In addition, this book also attempts to analyze the characteristics of Internet public participation behavior. From the perspective of digital inequality, the study examines the intrinsic link between differences in Internet use and online public participation, i.e. attempts to analyze whether people of different socioeconomic status further reinforce the "participation gap" due to their preferred types of Internet use. Using the survey data of working Internet users in 10 cities from 2011 to 2012, combined with the analysis of socioeconomic status and use psychology and behavioral variables, the results show that although the Internet use gap exists significantly, Internet use mediated by entertainment interaction can promote the political expression of low-educated people, and the effectiveness of entertainment interaction independent of social class can also promote the behavior of Internet users to further obtain political information. At the same time, the research also found that the dual advantages of information and interaction in online public participation by higher social classes may potentially give them guiding power on public issues. Finally, this book explains the relationship between public participation and social capital from the background of the transformation of the economy, politics and culture of contemporary China. As for the internal reasons for the dilemma of public participation, this book concludes that due to the particularity of the institutional system and the lagging role of cultural traditions, the construction of social capital in China is in a transitional stage where traditional social capital has not disappeared and modern social capital has not yet formed. Therefore, when rethinking Putnam's theory of social capital, this book argues that for countries or regions in transition, state-building and institution-building play a very important role in public participation and social capital construction. Promoting the construction of encouraging social organization systems and developing cross-interpersonal social networks will be more conducive to public participation and play the effect of building social capital. In practice, this also needs to be achieved through relevant institutional guarantees and public literacy education. Keywords: public participation, social networks, social capital, social transformation（AI翻译）