北京行政学院学报
北京行政學院學報
북경행정학원학보
Journal of Beijing Administrative College
2015年
2期
19~28
,共null页
治理绩效 绩效评价 公众满意度 县域政府
治理績效 績效評價 公衆滿意度 縣域政府
치리적효 적효평개 공음만의도 현역정부
governance performance; performance evaluation; Public Satisfaction Index; county-levelgovernments
以佛山市A区为个案,对如何测量中国县(区)层级的政府治理绩效进行实证探索。在借鉴世界治理指标(WGI)的基础上,构建了一个本土化的地方政府治理绩效指标体系,对A区政府的治理绩效水平进行量化评估,并且通过构建一个多元回归模型深入挖掘影响其总体治理水平的相关因素。结果表明:公众对于A区政府的总体治理水平处于"一般"到"比较满意"之间;在六个维度的治理绩效中,公众满意度最低的是"腐败控制"和"法治",最高的是"政府稳定和暴力避免"和"政府有效性";除了"管制质量"和"政府稳定与暴力避免"之外,其他四个维度的治理绩效对A区政府的总体治理水平都具有显著影响,其中,"政府有效性"对总体治理水平的影响最大。
以彿山市A區為箇案,對如何測量中國縣(區)層級的政府治理績效進行實證探索。在藉鑒世界治理指標(WGI)的基礎上,構建瞭一箇本土化的地方政府治理績效指標體繫,對A區政府的治理績效水平進行量化評估,併且通過構建一箇多元迴歸模型深入挖掘影響其總體治理水平的相關因素。結果錶明:公衆對于A區政府的總體治理水平處于"一般"到"比較滿意"之間;在六箇維度的治理績效中,公衆滿意度最低的是"腐敗控製"和"法治",最高的是"政府穩定和暴力避免"和"政府有效性";除瞭"管製質量"和"政府穩定與暴力避免"之外,其他四箇維度的治理績效對A區政府的總體治理水平都具有顯著影響,其中,"政府有效性"對總體治理水平的影響最大。
이불산시A구위개안,대여하측량중국현(구)층급적정부치리적효진행실증탐색。재차감세계치리지표(WGI)적기출상,구건료일개본토화적지방정부치리적효지표체계,대A구정부적치리적효수평진행양화평고,병차통과구건일개다원회귀모형심입알굴영향기총체치리수평적상관인소。결과표명:공음대우A구정부적총체치리수평처우"일반"도"비교만의"지간;재륙개유도적치리적효중,공음만의도최저적시"부패공제"화"법치",최고적시"정부은정화폭력피면"화"정부유효성";제료"관제질량"화"정부은정여폭력피면"지외,기타사개유도적치리적효대A구정부적총체치리수평도구유현저영향,기중,"정부유효성"대총체치리수평적영향최대。
TakingDistrict A of Foshan City as a case,this paper conducts anempirical study on how to measure governance performance of China' s county-level governments.On the basis of World Governance Index, it constructs a localized index system of governance performance for local governments and carries out aquantitative evaluation of governance performance of District A of Foshan City.What is more, it constructs a multiple regression model for discussing deeply the influencing facto~ of the overall governance performance. The findings show that public satisfaction of the overall governance performance of District A is between Satisfaction and Quite Satisfied; in the six indicators of governance performance, the lowest satisfaction is corruption control and rule of law, the highest stability of government, avoidance of violence and validity of government.Except for quality regulation, stability of government and avoidance of violence, the other four indicators of governance performance have significant impact on the overall governance performance of District A, in which government effectiveness has the most important impact on it.