过渡治理情境下的中国社会服务困境:基于Z市社会工作服务的研究

Abstract

Abstract:

The development of social work has been an important part of social governance in the last ten years. Since its reintroduction in 1986, social work as a new profession has gone through a comprehensive development and today it is institutionalized in the governance system in China. Researches on social services in China are short of in-depth analysis of the service delivery process by social service organizations and the dilemma they encounter. Based on the case study of social service organizations in Z city, this paper introduces the concept of transitional governance and offers a comparison between the Chinese social work service and its Western counterparts through analyzing the dilemma between social service organizations' professional position and their social position in the communities. Social service is seen in the West as a "Third-Party Government" of government-nonprofit partnership in the face of government, market and voluntary failures. Western nonprofit organizations demonstrate great capacity to meet human needs, and the civil society is independent from the state. In China, social services are experimental, locally managed and risk-prevention focused. This, as the paper argues, caused the negative discretion and semi-professionalism in Chinese social services, leading to the tactics of "community activities" and "quota-filling," and dissatisfaction among providers and recipients. Such a quandary should be dealt with in a cooperative governance environment, under which local professional social workers are strengthened and the efficiency of third party social service delivery is enhanced.

Key words: governance context, the dilemma of social work service, semi-professionalization of social work, discretion power

HUANG Xiaoxing, XIONG Huiling. The Dilemma of Social Service in the Context of Transitional Governance in China: The Case Study of Social Work Service in Z City[J]. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 2018, 38(4): 133-159.

References

褚松燕. 2008. 中外非政府组织管理体制比较[M]. 北京:国家行政学院出版社.
黑尧,米切尔. 2004. 现代国家的政策过程[M].赵成根,译. 北京:中国青年出版社.
黄晓春. 2015. 当代中国社会组织的制度环境与发展[J]. 中国社会科学(9):146-164.
黄晓春.2017. 中国社会组织成长条件的再思考——一个总体性理论视角[J].社会学研究(1):101-124.
黄晓星、杨杰. 2014. 社区治理体系重构与社区工作的行动策略——以广州C街道社区建设为研究对象[J]. 学术研究(7):42-51.
黄晓星、杨杰. 2015. 社会服务组织的边界生产——基于Z市家庭综合服务中心的研究[J]. 社会学研究(6):99-121.
黄宗智. 2009. 改革中的国家体制:经济奇迹和社会危机的同一根源[J]. 开放时代(4):99-121.
劳顿,艾伦. 2008. 公共服务伦理管理[M].北京: 清华大学出版社.
雷杰. 2014. "专业化",还是"去专业化"?——论我国社会工作发展的两种话语论述[J]. 中国社会工作研究(11):99-121.
雷杰、黄婉怡. 2017. 实用专业主义:广州市家庭综合服务中心社会工作者"专业能力"的界定及其逻辑[J]. 社会37(1):211-241.
刘承水、胡雅芬. 2012. 政府与社会工作机构互动关系研究[J]. 北京城市学院学报(4):99-121.
刘培伟. 2010. 基于中央选择性控制的试验——中国改革"实践"机制的一种新解释[J]. 开放时代(4)(1):211-241.
罗希,彼得、马克·李普希、霍华德·弗里曼.2007.评估:方法与技术[M].邱泽奇,等,译.重庆大学出版社.
陆素菊. 2005. 社会工作者职业化和专业化的现状及对策[J]. 教育发展研究19(1):211-241.
吕方. 2013. 治理情境分析:风险约束下的地方政府行为——基于武陵市扶贫办"申诉"个案的研究[J]. 社会学研究(2):98-124.
唐德龙.2014. 资源依赖、合作治理与公共服务递送——以深圳市阳光家庭综合服务中心项目运作为例[J].华东理工大学学报(社会科学版)29 (3):88-97.
王浦劬、莱斯特·M·萨拉蒙. 2010. 政府向社会组织购买公共服务研究[M]. 北京大学出版社.
王思斌. 2011. 中国社会工作的嵌入性发展[J]. 社会科学战线(2):206-222.
王思斌. 2014. 社会工作在创新社会治理体系中的地位和作用——一种基础—服务型社会治理[J]. 社会工作1(1):3-10.
王思斌.2014. 社会工作参与社会治理创新研究[J]. 社会建设(1):8-15.
王思斌. 2015. 社会工作参与社会治理的特点及其贡献——对服务型治理的再理解[J]. 社会治理(1):49-57.
卫小将. 2015.专业是如何打造的?——英美社会工作发展路径与挑战[J]. 学习与实践(4):118-124.
文军.2016. 社会工作"选择性服务"现象极其反思[J].学习与探索(7):38-45.
熊跃根. 2006. 论中国社会工作本土化发展过程中的实践逻辑与体制嵌入[G]//王思斌. 社会工作专业化及本土化实践. 北京:社会科学文献出版社:204-207.
徐盈艳、黄晓星.2015.促成与约制:制度嵌入性视角下的社会组织发展——基于广东五市政府购买社会工作服务的实践[J].新视野(5):74-78.
杨薇. 2014. 挣扎与反思:一线社工建立职业自主性的限制与可能[J]. 社会福利(理论版)(4):13-17.
尹振东. 2011. 垂直管理与属地管理:行政管理体制的选择[J]. 经济研究(4):41-54.
张纯瑜, 2015. 合作治理视角下家庭综合服务中心运营困境及对策研究[J].改革与开放(11):62-64
周黎安. 2014. 行政发包制[J]. 社会34(6):1-38.
周小华、付平.2009. 社会组织发展与建设和谐社会[M].北京:中国社会出版社
朱眉华.2004. 政府购买服务——一项社会福利制度的创新[J].社会工作(8):8-11.
朱健刚、陈安娜. 2013. 嵌入中的专业社会工作与街区权力关系——对一个政府购买服务项目的个案分析[J]. 社会学研究(1):43-64.
Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Laor. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 1997."Inside the Welfare Contract: Discretion and Accountability in State Welfare Administration." Social Service Review 71 (1):1-33.
Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 2008."Accountability in Street-Level Organizations." International Journal of Public Administration 31 (3):317-336.
Durose, Catherine. 2007. "Beyond ‘Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Re-interpreting the Role of Front Line Public Sector Workers." Critical Policy Analysis 1 (2):217-234.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Ellis, Kathryn. 2007."Direct Payments and Social Work Practice: The Significance of ‘Street-Level Bureaucracy' in Determining Eligibility." British Journal of Social Work 37 (3):405-422.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1969. The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers. New York: Free Press.
Evans, Tony. 2011. "Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy." The British Journal of Social Work 40 (2):368-386.
Evans, Tony and John Harris. 2004."Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion." The British Journal of Social Work 34 (6):871-895.
Finch, Wilbur A. 1976. "Social Workers Versus Bureaucracy." Social Work 21 (5):370-375.
Goode, William Josiah. 1969. The Theoretical Limits of Professionalization. New York: Free Press.
Goodsell, Charles T.1981. "Looking Once Again at Human Service Bureaucracy." Journal of Politics 43(3):763-778.
Halliday, Simon, Nicola Burns, Neil Hutton, Fergus McNeill, and Cyrus Tata. 2009."Street-Level Bureaucracy,InterprofessionalRelations, and Coping Mechanisms: A Study ofCriminal Justice Social Workers in theSentencing Process." Law & Polity 31 (4):405-428.
Harris, John. 1998."Scientific Management, Bureau-Professionalism, New Managerialism: The Labor Process of State Social Work." The British Journal of Social Work 28 (6):839-862.
Heilmann, Sebastian. 2008."From Local Experiments to National Policy: The Origins of China's Distinctive Policy Process." The China Journal 59 (59):1-30.
Howe, David. 1991."Knowledge Power and the Shape of Social Work Practice." In David Howe, (eds.),The Sociology of Social Work. London: Routledge: 202-220.
Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. New York:Sage.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980.Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.New York:New Republic.
Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann. 2006. "Are Street-Level Bureaucrats Compelled or Enticed to Cope?" Public Administration 84 (4):861-889.
Scott, Patrick G.1997. "Assessing Determinants of Bureaucratic Discretion: An Experiment in Street-Level Decision Making." Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 7 (1):35-58.
Scott, W. Richard. 1969. "Professional Employees in a Bureaucratic Structure: Social Work." In Amitai Etzioni,(eds.), The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers,Nurses, Social Workers. New York:The Free Press.
Toren,Nina.1969. "Semi-Professionalism and Social Work: A Theoretical Perspective." In Amitai Etzioni,(eds.), The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers. New York: Free Press:141-149.

The Dilemma of Social Service in the Context of Transitional Governance in China: The Case Study of Social Work Service in Z City

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 0

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments