试论城市规划的政策化趋势

城市规划的改革与发展是一个倍受我国城市规划界关注的问题。除了传统的城市空间组织功能外,近年来城市规划的利益调控功能受到了研究者的广泛关注。通过对传统城市规划理论与实践的反思,城市规划的公共政策属性得到了更多的认可,城市规划的政策化趋势更为明显。本文在比较"以空间组织为中心"和"以利益协调为中心"两种规划视角的基础上,分析了城市规划的政策化发展趋势,阐述了城市规划中的政策输入与输出过程,并针对我国规划研究中的不足,提出了相应的对策。     

WORKER OWNERSHIP AND PUBLIC POLICY

This article examines the development of expanding support for worker ownership in the United States. The authors provide a brief review of the various types of legislation, both at the state and federal levels, drafted on worker ownership. They also provide a discussion of the problems in establishing and maintaining a worker-owned firm such as worker access to the idea of worker ownership, time to evaluate, discuss, and learn about the proposal, and judge if it is applicable to their situation. Other problems include training workers for new skills, such as management, and improving productivity. Finally, the authors present various requirements for implementation of wide-scale workers ownership. The requirements include consulting groups which can help workers design, establish, and evolve participation in worker-owned firms, the development of worker ownership programs in all unions to identify ownership opportunities, and the development of federations of worker-owned firms to identify common problems, work to loosen credit sources and even evolve their own banks for capital.     

CRITICAL THEORY AND PUBLIC POLICY

In the confines of the study of politics, public policy analysis involves a shift from pure to applied research, a shift which intensifies the problem of the fact-value split inherited from positivist behavioralism. While early public policy literature concentrated on empirical policy-making processes bypassing moral criteria, some recent writings have elaborated on policymaking and policy evaluation as a type of normative inquiry; significant steps in this direction have been undertaken by Duncan MacRae and especially by Jurgen Habermas in the context of “critical theory.” According to Habermas, policy evaluation requires a critically reflective “practical discourse” open not only to experts or policy analysts but to the public at large. The paper argues that such discourse is a valuable remedy against the technical-instrumental bent of applied science, but that recovery of a fully non-instrumental “practical” judgement presupposes an evaluation not only of concrete policies but of the status of “policy” itself.