京津冀区域协同治理与国外大都市区比较研究

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.01.002

地理科学进展 ›› 2019, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (1): 15-25.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.01.002

• 研究专题：京津冀协同发展 • 上一篇下一篇

京津冀区域协同治理与国外大都市区比较研究

苏黎馨^1,²(), 冯长春^1,^2,^*()

1. 北京大学城市与环境学院,北京 100871
2. 国土资源部国土规划与开发重点实验室,北京100871

收稿日期:2018-02-01 修回日期:2018-08-10 出版日期:2019-01-28 发布日期:2019-01-23
通讯作者: 冯长春
作者简介:
第一作者简介：苏黎馨(1989— ),女,福建泉州人,博士研究生,主要从事区域发展与城镇化、土地优化利用等研究。E-mail: slx8910@163.com
基金资助:
国土资源部公益性行业科研专项(201511010-3A)

A comparative study on the regional governance models of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and several foreign metropolitans

Lixin SU^1,²(), Changchun FENG^1,^2,^*()

1. College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
2. Key Laboratory of Territorial Planning and Development, Ministry of Land and Resources, Beijing 100871, China

Received:2018-02-01 Revised:2018-08-10 Online:2019-01-28 Published:2019-01-23
Contact: Changchun FENG
Supported by:
Special Fund for Public Welfare Research of Ministry of Land and Resources of China, No. 201511010-3A.

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着区域一体化发展不断成熟,良好的区域治理机制愈发重要。京津冀区域协同治理具有重要的战略意义,积累了良好的基础,也面临许多挑战。为了更好地认识京津冀区域协同治理模式的特征,提出优化建议支撑区域规划落实。论文立足比较研究的视角,以治理机制为核心,围绕参与主体、治理手段、协调机制3个维度建立起比较研究框架,概括总结了京津冀地区、德国柏林—勃兰登堡地区、日本东京首都圈、法国巴黎大都市区等首都所在区域的治理模式特征,并开展横向比较。结果表明：①多元主体参与是良好区域治理的基本特征,关键在于建立明晰的主体间权责关系;京津冀相比国外实践,虽主体多元,但权责关系有待进一步厘清;以设立承上启下的区域机构为契机,应加快梳理相关关系。②行政手段、市场手段与法律手段相辅相成,是保障区域治理效率的基础;京津冀相比之下更侧重行政手段,市场手段有限,法律手段相对薄弱;应优先增强立法建设,进而促使市场手段与行政手段相互平衡、良性互动。③多边协商机制是区域治理有序运行的保障;京津冀在决策中已有较好的协调机制,但矛盾仲裁与动态监管方面仍显不足;应加快健全整体协调机制,贯穿治理实践的各个环节。

关键词: 区域治理, 比较研究, 国外大都市区, 京津冀

Abstract:

With regional integration continuously developing, it has become essential to establish good governance mechanism in regional development. Due to the strategic status of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, its collaborative governance has been even more important, but the region is also facing a number of challenges. In order to understand better the characteristics of regional governance in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and to propose some optimization approaches that can support the implement of regional planning, this study conducted a comparative analysis and built a three-dimensional research framework including participants, means of governance, and cooperation mechanisms. On the basis of this, we summed up the characteristics and pattern of change of regional governance in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, the Berlin-Brandenburg region, the Tokyo metropolitan area, and the Paris metropolitan area, especially with regard to their differences. The three conclusions are as follows: 1) Multi-subjects participation has been the essential characteristics of regional governance, whose authority-responsibility relationships must be unambiguous. In practice, multiple players have participated in the regional governance in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, but the relationships among them need to be clarified. Founding a regional institution would be a good chance to straighten these relationships. 2) Only when the administrative means, market mechanisms, and legislation are interrelated and interact positively, can regional governance be effective. However, the governance structure of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, which consists of good administrative means, limited market mechanisms, and inadequate legislation, shows some limitations. To fix the problems, enhancing legislation system shall be the priority and this in turn can promote the interaction between the government and the market. 3) An efficient multilateral consultation mechanism is indispensable, which could support decision making and dispute arbitration. In this respect, the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region has already had a good decision-making mechanism, but there are some inadequacies in dispute arbitration and supervision. It is necessary to speed up and improve the overall coordination mechanism, which can be applied to all aspects of the governance practice.

Key words: regional governance, comparative study, foreign metropolitans, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region

苏黎馨, 冯长春. 京津冀区域协同治理与国外大都市区比较研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 15-25.

Lixin SU, Changchun FENG. A comparative study on the regional governance models of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and several foreign metropolitans[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(1): 15-25.

图/表 6

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表1

参考文献 41

[1]	安树伟. 2017. 京津冀协同发展战略实施效果与展望[J]. 区域经济评论, (6): 48-53.
	[An S W.2017. The implementation effect and prospects of the strategic synergetic development of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei. Regional Economic Review, (6): 48-53. ]
[2]	白易彬. 2017. 京津冀区域政府协作治理模式研究 [M]. 北京: 中国经济出版社: 91-104.
	[Bai Y B.2017. Studies on cooperative governance models in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Beijing, China: China Economic Publishing House: 91-104. ]
[3]	白智立. 2017. 日本广域行政的理论与实践: 以东京“首都圈”发展为例[J]. 日本研究, (1): 10-26.
	[Bai Z L.2017. The theory and practice of Japan's wide-area administration: An example from capital circle of Tokyo. Japan Studies, (1): 10-26. ]
[4]	方创琳. 2017. 京津冀城市群协同发展的理论基础与规律性分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 36(1): 15-24.
	[Fang C L.2017. Theoretical foundation and patterns of coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration. Progress in Geography, 36(1): 15-24. ]
[5]	洪世键. 2009. 大都市区治理: 理论演进与运作模式 [M]. 南京: 东南大学出版社: 52-59.
	[Hong S J.2009. Metropolitan area governance: Theory evolution and operational model. Nanjing, China: Southeast University Press: 52-59. ]
[6]	梁晓林, 谢俊英. 2009. 京津冀区域经济一体化的演变、现状及发展对策[J]. 河北经贸大学学报, 30(6): 66-69.
	[Liang X L, Xie J Y.2009. Integration of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei: Evolution, current status, and development. Journal of Hebei University of Economics and Trade, 30(6): 66-69. ]
[7]	刘瑞, 伍琴. 2015. 首都经济圈八大经济形态的比较与启示: 伦敦、巴黎、东京、首尔与北京[J]. 经济理论与经济管理, (1): 79-94.
	[Liu R, Wu Q.Comparison and inspiration of capital economic circle: Beijing, London, Paris, Seoul and Tokyo. Economic Theory and Business Management, (1): 79-94. ]
[8]	毛汉英. 2017. 京津冀协同发展的机制创新与区域政策研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 36(1): 2-14.
	[Mao H Y.2017. Innovation of mechanism and regional policy for promoting coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei. Progress in Geography, 36(1): 2-14. ]
[9]	孙久文, 原倩. 2014. 京津冀协同发展战略的比较和演进重点[J]. 经济社会体制比较, (5): 1-11.
	[Sun J W, Yuan Q.2014. Strategic comparison of joint development of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, (5): 1-11. ]
[10]	孙莹炜. 2015. 德国首都区域协同治理及对京津冀的启示[J]. 经济研究参考, (31): 62-70.
	[Sun Y W.2015. Regional cooperative governance in German capital and its enlightenment to Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei. Review of Economic Research, (31): 62-70. ]
[11]	唐燕. 2009. 柏林-勃兰登堡都市区: 跨区域规划合作及协调机制[J]. 城市发展研究, 16(1): 49-54.
	[Tang Y.2009. Inter-regional cooperation and planning coordination mechanism in metropolitan region of Berlin-Brandenburg. Urban Studies, 16(1): 49-54. ]
[12]	王燕, 李想, 吕程. 2015. 基于分形模型的京津冀铁路网络协同发展: 与长江三角洲、珠江三角洲的比较分析[J]. 中国流通经济, (8): 47-54.
	[Wang Y, Li X, Lv C.2015. Study on the coordinated development of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei railway network based on fractal model: The comparative analysis with the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta. China Business and Market, (8): 47-54. ]
[13]	严涵, 聂梦遥, 沈璐. 2014. 巴黎区域规划和空间治理研究[J]. 上海城市规划, (5): 65-69.
	[Yan H, Nie M Y, Shen L.2014. Research on regional planning and metropolitan paradigm of Paris region area. Shanghai Urban Planning Review, (5): 65-69. ]
[14]	尹来盛, 冯邦彦. 2014. 中美大都市区治理的比较研究[J]. 城市发展研究, 21(1): 102-107, 121.
	[Yin L S, Feng B Y.2014. Comparative study of Sino-US metropolitan governance. Urban Development Studies, 21(1): 102-107, 121. ]
[15]	游宁龙, 沈振江, 马妍, 等. 2017. 日本首都圈整备开发和规划制度的变迁及其影响: 以广域规划为例[J]. 城乡规划, (2): 15-29.
	[You N L, Shen Z J, Ma Y, et al.2017. Changes in spatial development and planning system of capital-circle in Japan and its impacts: A case study of the wide- area planning. Urban and Rural Planning, (2): 15-29. ]
[16]	张成福, 李昊城, 边晓慧. 2012. 跨域治理: 模式、机制与困境[J]. 中国行政管理, (3): 102-109.
	[Zhang F C, Li H C, Bian X H.2012. Inter-regional governance: Model, mechanism and dilemma. Chinese Public Administration, (3): 102-109. ]
[17]	张衔春, 胡映洁, 单卓然, 等. 2015. 焦点地域·创新机制·历时动因: 法国复合区域治理模式转型及启示[J]. 经济地理, 35(4): 9-18.
	[Zhang X C, Hu Y J, Shan X R, et al.2015. Core area·innovation mechanism·diachronic motivation: The transformation enlightenment of French compound regional governance pattern. Economic Geography, 35(4): 9-18. ]
[18]	张衔春, 赵勇健, 单卓然, 等. 2015. 比较视野下的大都市区治理: 概念辨析、理论演进与进展[J]. 经济地理, 35(7): 6-13.
	[Zhang X C, Zhao Y J, Shan Z R, et al.2015. City-regional governance from the perspective of comparison: Conception clarification, theory development and research progress. Economic Geography, 35(7): 6-13. ]
[19]	赵国钦, 宁静. 2015. 京津冀协同发展的财政体制: 一个框架设计[J]. 改革, (8): 77-83.
	[Zhao G Q, Ning J.2015. The financial system of the collaborative development of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei: A framework design. Reform, (8): 77-83. ]
[20]	Albrechts L, Healey P, Kunzmann K R.2003. Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2): 113-129. doi: 10.1080/01944360308976301
[21]	Alden J D.1984. Metropolitan planning in Japan[J]. The Town Planning Review, 55(1): 55-74. doi: 10.3828/tpr.55.1.j425426w42h47lr5
[22]	Allen J, Cochrane A.2010. Assemblages of state power: Topological shifts in the organization of government and politics[J]. Antipode, 42(5): 1071-1089. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00794.x
[23]	Amin A.2004. Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place[J]. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography, 86(1): 33-44. doi: 10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00152.x
[24]	Ancien D.2005. Local and regional development policy in France: Of changing conditions and forms, and enduring state centrality[J]. Space and Policy, 9(3): 217-236. doi: 10.1080/13562570500509877
[25]	Brenner N.2009. Open questions on state rescaling[J]. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society, 2(1): 123-139. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsp002
[26]	Castells M.2000. The rise of the network society[M]. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
[27]	Cole A, John P.1995. Local policy networks in France and Britain: Policy co-ordination in fragmented political sub-systems[J]. Western European Politics, 18(4): 89-109. doi: 10.1080/01402389508425108
[28]	Cowell R, Murdoch J.1999. Land use and the limits to (regional) governance: Some lessons from planning for housing and minerals in England[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(4): 654-669. doi: 10.1111/ijur.1999.23.issue-4
[29]	Elinbaum P, Galland D.2016. Analysing contemporary metropolitan spatial plans in Europe through their institutional context, instrumental content and planning process[J]. European Planning Studies, 24(1): 181-206. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1036843
[30]	Evers D, Vries J.2013. Explaining governance in five mega-city regions: Rethinking the role of hierarchy and government[J]. European Planning Studies, 21(4): 536-555. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722944
[31]	Fricke C.2015. Spatial governance across borders revisited: Organizational forms and spatial planning in metropolitan cross-border regions[J]. European Planning Studies, 23(5): 849-870. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.887661
[32]	Harrison J, Growe A.2012. From places to flows? Planning for the new 'regional world' in Germany[J]. European Urban & Regional Studies, 21(1): 21-41.
[33]	Hauswirth I, Herrschel T, Newman P.2003. Incentives and disincentives to city-regional cooperation in the Berlin-Brandenburg conurbation[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2): 119-134. doi: 10.1177/0969776403010002002
[34]	Kwon S W, Park S C.2014. Metropolitan governance: How regional organization influence interlocal land use coordination[J]. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(5): 925-940. doi: 10.1111/juaf.12093
[35]	Lackowska M, Zimmermann K.2011. New forms of territorial governance in metropolitan regions? A Polish-German comparison[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(2): 156-169. doi: 10.1177/0969776410390746
[36]	Nelles J, Durand F.2014. Political rescaling and metropolitan governance in cross-border regions: Comparing the cross-border metropolitan areas of Lille and Luxembourg[J]. European Urban & Regional Studies, 21(1): 104-122.
[37]	Nicholls W J.2005. Power and governance: Metropolitan governance in France[J]. Urban Studies, 42(4): 783-800. doi: 10.1080/00420980500060426
[38]	Vega H L, Penne L.2008. Governance and institutions of transportation investments in US mega-regions[J]. Transport, 23(3): 279-286. doi: 10.3846/1648-4142.2008.23.279-286
[39]	Watanabe K, Takeuchi Y.2010. Peripheries and future urban spatial structures of the Tokyo metropolitan area: Correspondence of regional planning[J]. DISP, 46: 60-68.
[40]	Wear A.2012. Collaborative approaches to regional governance: Lessons from Victoria[J]. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(4): 469-474. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12002
[41]	Westerink J, Kempenaar A, Lierop M, et al.2017. The participating government: Shifting boundaries in collaborative spatial planning of urban regions[J]. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(1): 147-168. doi: 10.1177/0263774X16646770

比较内容		京津冀地区(现阶段)	德国柏林—勃兰登堡地区	日本东京首都圈	法国巴黎大都市区
参与主体		中央政府主导,地方政府参与	地方政权、地方部门代表、各类社会志愿者等	中央政府、都县政府、指定城市、市町村政府和团体、经济团体等	中央政府、各大区政府、各市镇政府、非政府组织等
治理手段		行政手段为主	行政手段、经济手段、法律手段相辅相成	行政手段、经济手段、法律手段相辅相成	行政手段、经济手段、法律手段相辅相成
协调机制	协调者	不固定(松散议事制)	柏林—勃兰登堡联合规划部	首都圈广域地方计划协议会	巴黎大都市区(设固定行政层级)
	矛盾处理	不明确	分歧台阶制度	广域行政体内部相互监督	类似市场机制
	动态监管	缺乏	合署办公,相互监督与约束	PDCA政策循环反馈模式	中央政府下放部门直接参与区域治理日常工作

京津冀区域协同治理与国外大都市区比较研究

A comparative study on the regional governance models of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and several foreign metropolitans

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 41

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	张凤, 陈彦光, 刘鹏. 京津冀城镇体系与水系结构的时空关系研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(3): 377-388.
[2]	卢明华, 周悦颜, 刘汉初, 许欣. 北京企业对河北直接投资的时空动态特征及影响因素[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(3): 389-401.
[3]	罗奎, 李广东, 劳昕. 京津冀城市群产业空间重构与优化调控[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(2): 179-194.
[4]	刘骁啸, 吴康. 功能疏解背景下京津冀中部核心区产业投资网络演化研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(12): 1972-1984.
[5]	付慧, 刘艳军, 孙宏日, 周国磊. 京津冀地区耕地利用转型时空分异及驱动机制[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(12): 1985-1998.
[6]	牛强, 沈英杰, 周燚, 黄经南, 王盼. 基于滞后变量模型的城市群建设用地增长对经济增长的滞后期和效应分析——以京津冀城市群为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(10): 1656-1666.
[7]	石晓雪, 龚道溢, 胡毅鸿. 1979—2017年冬半年京津冀区域大风的变化及其环流背景分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(7): 1069-1079.
[8]	张凤, 陈彦光, 李晓松. 京津冀城市生长和形态的径向维数分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 65-76.
[9]	崔丹, 吴昊, 吴殿廷. 京津冀协同治理的回顾与前瞻[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 1-14.
[10]	马冰滢, 黄姣, 李双成. 基于生态-经济权衡的京津冀城市群土地利用优化配置[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 26-37.
[11]	黄琳珊, 陈彦光, 李双成. 京津冀城镇用地空间结构的多分维谱分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 50-64.
[12]	赵静湉, 陈彦光, 李双成. 京津冀城市用地形态的双分形特征及其演化[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 77-87.
[13]	龙玉清, 陈彦光. 基于灯光数据的京津冀城市多标度异速分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 88-100.
[14]	王晓梦, 王锦, 吴殿廷. “交通—产业”耦合背景下的京津冀城市群空间发育特征[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(9): 1231-1244.
[15]	李倩, 俞海洋, 李婷, 龙爽, 邵威, 王瑛, 许映军. 京津冀地区台风危险性评估——基于Gumbel分布的分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(7): 933-945.