闫帅的博士论文《回应性政治发展——中国从发展型政府到服务型政府的转型观察》即将在修改完善之后出版，作为他的指导教师自是乐见其成，也很愿意谈点对此书的观感，以供读者参考。以我对当前中国政治学的研究环境、知识生产状况的理解，结合这些年指导博士研究生的体会，我感觉一篇比较好的博士论文，首先要有一个好的选题，也就是人们常常说到的，讨论的问题应是个有意义的“真问题”。何谓真问题？我试着将其概括为“三个有”。第一是有“疑问”，就是说，所讨论的问题起码形式上是个待证的假设，在你证明之前它还是个“问题”而非义正词严的结论；或者说，它至少形式上还留有讨论的空间，而不是把对个人信仰的表白、个人情感的表达拿来冒充学术“问题”，让人一看标题就知道结论，而且是一副无须讨论、毋庸置疑也无法讨论的架势。第二是有意义，是说研究的问题不光足够重要，有较大的学术价值和现实意义，还必须追问到别人没有解决的层次或者研究不够的地方，这样才有研究的必要。否则，没有一点新问题、新的预期突破点，盲目出来凑热闹，就只能是拾人牙慧、徒增纷扰。第三是有可能，是说任何一个具有基本学术素养的人一看到他的题目，应能约略看出其中所暗含的大致研究方法、思路与范围，知道他将在什么层次、范围上提问并和学术界形成对话，而且能够想见，他的方法、思路在现有的研究水平下是可行的，其题目中所涉及的核心概念，也是从已有概念系统中推演出来的，因而是可以变量化、操作化的。学术研究贵在创新，也难在创新。现在的问题是，一方面是真有创新的著作不多，低级重复的垃圾不少；另一方面则是把“折腾”当“创新”：某个问题明明有人做过研究，明明用现有的概念体系就可以表达，非要提出一个四六不靠的新概念，制造一个漫无边际的“新问题”，这种无中生有的“创新”，让人看不出它与现有学科语言、概念体系的关系，也不知道他在什么层次、范围上和谁在讨论问题，它只是很辛苦地在折腾，而无关乎创新。当然，一篇博士论文除了好的选题外，最终还是要看写得好不好。好的研究成果，或挑战成说，或补充、完善、深化前人的研究，或对某个问题提出新解释、新概念，而且不论哪方面的进展，都要言之成理，持之有故，符合科学、严谨的学术规范。一句话，总要对所研究的问题提出点有说服力的新见解，对学术研究有点新贡献。从以上这两大方面看，闫帅的这篇博士论文应该说总体上是成功的。众所周知，进入21世纪以来，以科学发展观、和谐社会等新的执政理念的提出为标志，中国政府开始努力调整政府定位、转变政府职能，致力于从发展型政府向服务型政府的历史性转型。中国政府推动这一转型的原因、背景，即“转型的逻辑”何在？迄今为止其效果如何？以及它对中国政治发展的影响如何？对这些问题的探寻、解答、理论总结一方面关系到中国未来政治的实际走向，同时也可以从学理上检验、丰富已有的政治发展理论、民主转型理论与政府理论，其现实意义和学术价值之重大自是不言而喻，因而成为引起国内外学术界高度关注的学术热点问题。不过，也正是由于这些问题非常重大而复杂，尽管学术界已经发表了一批很好的研究论著，但必须承认，对这类问题的探索远未结束，还有很大的讨论空间，还需要更多的新锐加入探索的队伍，形成薪火相传之势。在这个意义上，闫帅博士的这本书紧紧围绕政府转型的背景、过程、逻辑和效果这类问题意识，就中国政府所推动的这次引起普遍关注的转型问题，尝试着和学术界的前辈、大家展开对话，其选题本身就表现出对学术前沿问题的敏锐意识和创新勇气。在研究方法和研究内容方面，作者通过认真分析、比较国内外有关解释模式，并揆诸自己对中国现实情况的了解以及所掌握的数据，尝试着提出了一个新的解释框架或研究范式。作者认为，当前解释中国政府转型与政治发展的各种理论，诸如公民社会、国家建设、分类控制、法团主义等，实质上是一种将国家与社会关系置于强弱对比的二元割裂分析模式，如公民社会理论的“强社会、弱国家”价值取向，国家建设、分类控制、法团主义的“强国家、弱社会”价值取向，它们在对中国实际政治情况的解释力方面都有很大的贡献，也都存在一定的问题。为此，作者跳出这种将国家与社会关系置于强弱对比的二元割裂分析模式，提出了一种“国家与社会互动论”的分析主张，尝试通过“社会需求导向下的国家供给”和“国家供给根据社会需求变化的能动反应”这两个维度展开对“转型”的分析，并将国家与社会互动的过程概括为“社会需求→政治互动→国家供给→政治发展”。循着这一的思路，作者首先通过大量数据、图表，解析当前中国群体性事件的议题指向和基本属性，进而考察当代中国社会需求的变化，认为继经济权利需求之后，对社会权利的需求正成为中国大众的主流需求。不过作者对于中国社会需求的探讨并没有就此止步，而是进一步追寻其背后的权利观念。作者指出，在权利逻辑上，中西存在着很大的不同，西方主流文化注重在“权利”与“自由”之间建立联系，中国则努力将“权利”与“生计”等同，把经济与社会权利置于优先地位。因此，不同于西方对于政治权利的强调，中国则将侧重点放在了社会权利，是一种社会权利优先于政治权利的价值排序，这种权利观念从孟子开始一直延续至今。在深刻揭示中国人社会权利优先这一价值取向的历史和现实背景之后，作者循着“社会需求导向下的国家供给”这一逻辑，指出当前中国的“服务型政府建设”是对“社会公正需求”的一种能动反应。具体来说，在社会抗争的压力机制下，政府为了维持政治稳定，必须回应社会需求。面对民众日益增长的公共服务需求，国家开始转变政府职能、建设服务型政府，表现为在科学发展观、和谐社会等新的执政理念的指导下，中国政府出台了一系列旨在保障社会公正、提供公共服务的社会政策。至此，作者对于中国政府“为什么转型”的问题给出了令人大体信服的回答。那么，应如何评估这一转型对中国政治发展的影响和意义呢？作者继续沿着“社会需求→国家供给→政治发展”的思路展开对这一问题的探讨。通过考察，作者把中国的政治发展归纳为“回应性政治发展”：它是以政治稳定为目的，以“社会需求—国家供给”为过程，国家对社会需求保持较高敏感性，并通过不断的调适、学习、回应来满足社会需求，在国家与社会互动的过程中推动政治发展的一种制度变迁和政治转型模式。这样一种对中国政治发展类型的概括，也回应了学术界经常感到困惑的问题：按照“因选举而负责”的理论预设，只有存在着西方式民主选举的情况下才能形成公民对政府的有效问责，才能保证政府必须对公共事务、对公民利益的关注，而中国没有这种民主选举，怎么会产生对公众负责的服务型政府呢？而作者则从社会抗争的压力、社会需求导向方面（其实还可能包括执政党的宗旨本身要求、构建新形势下政治合法性的需要等方面）给出了言之成理的解释。最后，作者进一步分析了这次中国政府转型的效果，并对其未来发展走向提出了预测和建议。作者一方面充分肯定这次政府转型所表现出的对社会需求的较高敏感性和调适力，以及对于改善民生、社会稳定与政治发展的积极意义，同时也认为当前这种国家与社会的互动并不理想，表现为国家与社会缺乏良性的制度互动平台，容易引发社会抗争，同时政府职能转变困难，服务型政府建设遭遇种种瓶颈。说到底，这种政府转型与回应性政治发展模式还是在“社会矛盾倒逼”情势下引起的，政府的回应与改革相对社会发展和变革的需求而言仍然具有滞后性、被动性、局部性等特点。因此，不断推进民主政治建设以增强政府回应社会需求的能力，就成为今后中国政治发展的核心议题。应该说，全书思路清晰、逻辑严谨、材料充实、持论有据，对中国政府推动的这次政府转型的背景、过程、逻辑和效果的分析在整体上是具有解释力的，达到了预期的研究目标。特别是该书中的一些重点内容和主要结论，如以“社会公正需求”、“社会抗争”为主要解释项，分析政府转型（服务型政府建设）的背景与动因，以“回应性政治发展”概括当代中国政治发展的类型与特点，以及对中国政府所推动的这次政府转型的效果和前景的分析，等等，都是相当精彩和颇见功力的。相信这些研究对于观察当代中国政治发展和政府转型问题，应当具有重要的学术价值和现实借鉴意义。当然，由于作者探讨的是如此复杂而富有挑战性的课题，加上学术大环境和个人能力所限，使得本书难免存在一些瑕疵和值得推敲之处。比如，对于“服务型政府”和“政府转型”的概念似乎需要更加清晰、变量化、可操作化；对于中国向服务型政府转型所涉及的时间、过程因素需要进一步思考和交代，这包括，转型有无阶段性特点？什么才算是转型的完成形态？但无论如何，作者通过这本书所显示的学术激情、学术潜力使我们有理由对他充满期待。希望作者以该书的出版为新起点，在今后的学术道路上越走越远，越走越好。张星久2015年10月

Yan Shuai's doctoral dissertation, "Responsive Political Development: An Observation of China's Transition from Developmental Government to Service-oriented Government", will be published after revision and improvement, and as his instructor, he is happy to see the success of this book, and is willing to talk about his impressions of this book for readers' reference. Based on my understanding of the current research environment and knowledge production of Chinese political science, combined with the experience of supervising doctoral students over the years, I feel that a good doctoral dissertation must first have a good topic, that is, people often say that the problem discussed should be a meaningful "real problem". What is the real problem? I tried to summarize it as "three haves". The first is that there is a "doubt", that is, the issue under discussion is at least formally a hypothesis to be proved, and it is still a "problem" rather than a well-defined conclusion until you prove it; In other words, it at least formally leaves room for discussion, rather than using the confession of personal beliefs and the expression of personal emotions as academic "questions", so that people can know the conclusion at a glance at the title, and it is a posture that does not need to be discussed and cannot be discussed without doubt. The second is meaningful, that is, the research problem is not only important enough, has greater academic value and practical significance, but also must ask about the level that others have not solved or the place where the research is not enough, so that there is a need for research. Otherwise, without a little new problem and a new expected breakthrough point, blindly coming out to make fun can only be picking up people's teeth and adding to the trouble. The third is possible, that is, any person with basic academic literacy should be able to roughly see the general research methods, ideas and scope implied in his topic, know at what level and scope he will ask questions and form a dialogue with the academic community, and can imagine that his methods and ideas are feasible at the existing research level, and the core concepts involved in the topic are also deduced from the existing conceptual system, so they can be variable and operationalized. Academic research is expensive in innovation, but it is also difficult to innovate. The problem now is that, on the one hand, there are not many really innovative works, and there is a lot of low-level repetitive garbage; On the other hand, it is to treat "tossing" as "innovation": a certain problem has obviously been studied, it is clear that it can be expressed with the existing conceptual system, and it is necessary to put forward a new concept that does not rely on four or six, creating a boundless "new problem", this kind of "innovation" made out of nothing, people cannot see its relationship with the existing disciplinary language and conceptual system, nor do they know who he is discussing the problem with at what level and scope, it is just tossing very hard, and has nothing to do with innovation. Of course, in addition to a good topic selection, a doctoral dissertation ultimately depends on whether it is well written or not. Good research results, or challenge into theory, or supplement, improve, deepen the research of predecessors, or put forward new explanations and concepts for a certain problem, and no matter what kind of progress, it must be reasonable, persistent, and in line with scientific and rigorous academic norms. In a word, it is always necessary to put forward some convincing new insights into the research problem, and make some new contributions to academic research. From the above two aspects, Yan Shuai's doctoral dissertation should be said to be a success on the whole. As we all know, since the beginning of the 21st century, marked by the introduction of new governing concepts such as the Scientific Outlook on Development and a harmonious society, the Chinese government has begun to work hard to adjust the positioning of the government, transform the functions of the government, and strive for the historical transformation from a development-oriented government to a service-oriented government. What is the reason and background of the Chinese government's promotion of this transformation, that is, the "logic of transformation"? How effective has it been so far? And how does it affect China's political development? The exploration, answering and theoretical summary of these questions are related to the actual trend of China's future politics on the one hand, and can also be academically tested and enriched by the existing political development theory, democratic transition theory and government theory, and its practical significance and academic value are self-evident, so it has become a hot academic issue that has attracted great attention from the academic circles at home and abroad. However, it is precisely because these problems are very large and complex, although the academic community has published a number of good research papers, but it must be admitted that the exploration of such problems is far from over, there is still a lot of room for discussion, and more new talents are needed to join the exploration team and form a trend of passing on the torch. In this sense, Dr. Yan Shuai's book closely focuses on the background, process, logic and effect of government transformation, and tries to have a dialogue with the seniors and everyone in the academic community on the transformation issues promoted by the Chinese government that have attracted widespread attention, and its topic selection itself shows a keen awareness and innovative courage for cutting-edge academic issues. In terms of research methods and research content, the author tries to propose a new explanatory framework or research paradigm by carefully analyzing and comparing relevant interpretation models at home and abroad, and using his understanding of China's actual situation and the data he has mastered. The author believes that the current theories explaining the transformation and political development of the Chinese government, such as civil society, state building, categorical control, corporatism, etc., are essentially a binary separation analysis model that puts the relationship between the state and society in the contrast between strong and weak, such as the value orientation of "strong society, weak state" of civil society theory, and the value orientation of "strong country and weak society" of state construction, categorical control, and corporatism, which all have great contributions to the explanatory power of China's actual political situation, and there are also certain problems. To this end, the author jumps out of this binary separation analysis mode that puts the relationship between the state and society in the contrast between strength and weakness, puts forward an analysis proposition of "state-society interaction theory", tries to analyze "transformation" through the two dimensions of "state supply guided by social demand" and "dynamic response of state supply according to changes in social demand", and summarizes the process of state-society interaction as "social demand→ political interaction→ state supply→ political development". Following this line of thought, the author first analyzes the topic orientation and basic attributes of current mass events in China through a large number of data and charts, and then examines the changes in contemporary Chinese social needs, arguing that after the demand for economic rights, the demand for social rights is becoming the mainstream demand of the Chinese public. However, the author's discussion of the needs of Chinese society does not stop there, but further pursues the concept of rights behind it. The author points out that there are great differences between China and the West in the logic of rights, with mainstream Western culture focusing on establishing links between "rights" and "freedoms", while China strives to equate "rights" with "livelihoods" and prioritizes economic and social rights. Therefore, unlike the Western emphasis on political rights, China focuses on social rights, a value ranking of social rights over political rights, which has continued since Mencius. After profoundly revealing the historical and practical background of the value orientation of Chinese social rights first, the author follows the logic of "state supply guided by social demand" and points out that the current "service-oriented government construction" in China is a dynamic response to the "need for social justice". Specifically, under the pressure mechanism of social protest, the government must respond to social needs in order to maintain political stability. In the face of the growing demand for public services, the state began to transform government functions and build a service-oriented government, which is manifested in the guidance of new governing concepts such as the Scientific Outlook on Development and a harmonious society, the Chinese government has issued a series of social policies aimed at ensuring social justice and providing public services. So far, the author gives a generally convincing answer to the question of "why the Chinese government transformed". So, how should we assess the impact and significance of this transition on China's political development? The author continues to explore this issue along the lines of "social demand→ national supply→ political development". Through investigation, the author summarizes China's political development as "responsive political development": it is an institutional change and political transformation model that aims at political stability and takes "social demand - state supply" as the process, the state maintains a high sensitivity to social needs, and meets social needs through continuous adaptation, learning and response, and promotes political development in the process of interaction between the state and society. Such a generalization of the types of political development in China also responds to the question that often puzzles the academic community: according to the theoretical premise of "responsibility for elections", only in the presence of Western-style democratic elections can citizens form effective accountability for the government, and can ensure that the government must pay attention to public affairs and citizens' interests. The author gives a reasonable explanation from the pressure of social resistance, the orientation of social needs (in fact, it may also include the requirements of the purpose of the ruling party itself, the need to build political legitimacy in the new situation, etc.). Finally, the author further analyzes the effect of the Chinese government's transformation and puts forward predictions and suggestions for its future development. On the one hand, the author fully affirms the high sensitivity and adaptability to social needs shown by this government transformation, as well as the positive significance for improving people's livelihood, social stability and political development, but also believes that the current interaction between the state and society is not ideal, which is manifested in the lack of a benign institutional interaction platform between the state and society, which is easy to trigger social protests, and at the same time the transformation of government functions is difficult, and the construction of service-oriented government encounters various bottlenecks. In the final analysis, this mode of government transformation and responsive political development is still caused by the situation of "social contradictions and reversal", and the government's response and reform are still lagging, passive and partial compared with the needs of social development and change. Therefore, continuously promoting the construction of democratic politics to enhance the government's ability to respond to social needs has become the core issue of China's political development in the future. It should be said that the whole book has clear ideas, rigorous logic, rich materials, and well-grounded arguments, and the analysis of the background, process, logic and effect of this government transformation promoted by the Chinese government is explanatory on the whole, and has achieved the expected research goals. In particular, some of the key contents and main conclusions of the book, such as taking "social justice needs" and "social resistance" as the main explanations, analyzing the background and motivation of government transformation (service-oriented government construction), summarizing the types and characteristics of contemporary China's political development with "responsive political development", and analyzing the effects and prospects of this government transformation promoted by the Chinese government, etc., are quite wonderful and powerful. It is believed that these studies should have important academic value and practical reference significance for observing the political development and government transformation in contemporary China. Of course, because the author discusses such a complex and challenging topic, coupled with the academic environment and personal ability, it is inevitable that this book will have some flaws and worthy of scrutiny. For example, the concepts of "service-oriented government" and "government transformation" seem to need to be clearer, variable, and operational; Further consideration and explanation of the time and process factors involved in China's transformation to a service-oriented government are required, including, are there any phased characteristics of the transformation? What is the completion of transformation? But in any case, the author's academic passion and academic potential through this book give us reason to look forward to him. It is hoped that the author will take the publication of this book as a new starting point and go further and better on the future academic road. Zhang Xingjiu, October 2015（AI翻译）