尺度政治视角下的新安江流域生态补偿政府主体博弈

doi:10.11821/dlxb202008008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

流域生态补偿是中国跨区域生态治理和自然区域保护的一项重要经济、社会、环境政策,涉及区域利益主体权益差异与协调、区域生态协同发展和合作模式构建等方面,是一个典型的地理学研究命题。本文将制度粘性引入到尺度政治理论中,剖析新安江流域生态补偿政府主体的博弈行为,探究不同政府主体的博弈特征和博弈机制。结果表明:中央政府、省级政府、市级政府等不同层级政府主体经历了竞争博弈、合作博弈和竞合博弈3个阶段,构建政府利益共同体能够推进流域生态补偿建设,中央政府的“适度介入”是开展跨省流域生态补偿的关键;流域生态补偿制度从“垂直”模式向“垂直—水平”模式的变迁过程中存在明显的制度粘性,政府主体利用政策革新和社会参与等制度约束稀释制度粘性,重塑流域生态补偿制度;尺度转换是推动新安江流域生态补偿的核心机制,政府主体通过重新分配权力和资本、嵌入非正式约束塑造流域生态补偿话语体系,推动新安江流域生态补偿由“强国家—弱社会”向“强国家—强社会”结构模式的转变。研究结果能够为构建跨区域流域生态补偿机制提供理论支撑,为合理评价和指导流域生态补偿实践、促进流域经济社会协调可持续发展提供科学依据。

关键词: 生态补偿, 尺度转换, 制度粘性, 博弈策略, 新安江流域

Abstract:

Watershed eco-compensation is a significant economic, social and environmental policy for cross-regional ecological governance and natural region protection in China. As a typical geography research proposition, it involves the difference and coordination of the regional stakeholders' rights, regional ecological coordinated development and cooperation model construction. This paper introduced the institutional stickiness into the politics of scale theory, analyzed the game behavior of the government-led eco-compensation in the Xin'an River basin, and explored the game characteristics and game mechanisms of governments at all levels. The results imply that the game among the central government, provincial government, municipal government and other government departments have gone through three stages: competition, cooperation and competition-cooperation. Building a community of government interests can promote the construction of watershed eco-compensation, and the "moderate intervention" of the central government is the key to carry out trans-provincial watershed eco-compensation. There is obvious institutional stickiness in the transition process of watershed eco-compensation system from "vertical" model to "vertical-horizontal" model. Government subjects use institutional constraints such as policy innovation and social participation to dilute the institutional stickiness and reshape the watershed eco-compensation system. Scale transformation is the core mechanism to promote eco-compensation in the Xin'an River basin. Government subjects shape the discourse system of watershed eco-compensation by redistributing power and capital and embedding informal constraints, so as to promote the transition of eco-compensation in the study area from "strong state-weak society" to "strong state-strong society" structural model. The research results can provide the theoretical support for the construction of trans-regional watershed eco-compensation mechanism, and form the scientific basis for the evaluation and guidance of watershed eco-compensation practice in the coordinated and sustainable development of watershed economy and society.

Key words: eco-compensation, scale transformation, institutional stickiness, game strategy, Xin'an River basin

任以胜, 陆林, 虞虎, 朱道才. 尺度政治视角下的新安江流域生态补偿政府主体博弈[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(8): 1667-1679.

REN Yisheng, LU Lin, YU Hu, ZHU Daocai. Game of government subjects of eco-compensation in the Xin'an River basin based on the politics of scale[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2020, 75(8): 1667-1679.

图/表 7

图1

图2

表1

新安江流域生态补偿机制试点方案主要内容

项目	第一轮	第二轮	第三轮
试点期限	2012—2014年	2015—2017年	2018—2020年
基本原则	保护优先,合理补偿;保持水质,力争改善;地方为主,中央监管;监测为据,以补促治	同第一轮	同第一轮
补偿模式	以财政转移支付为主,纵向横向皆有,由中央财政和皖浙两省共同设立新安江流域水环境补偿基金	同第一轮	以财政转移支付为主,由皖浙两省共同设立新安江流域水环境补偿基金
试点资金	中央财政每年出资3亿元,皖浙两省每年各出资1亿元	中央财政按4亿元、3亿元、2亿元退坡方式补助,皖浙两省每年各出资2亿元	皖浙两省每年各出资2亿元,积极争取中央财政支持
考核依据	两省跨界街口断面水质监测数据	同第一轮	同第一轮
考核指标	以高锰酸盐指数、氨氮、总磷、总氮4项指标常年年平均浓度值(2008—2010年)为基本限值,测算补偿指数P,水质稳定系数K为0.85	以高锰酸盐指数、氨氮、总磷、总氮4项指标常年年平均浓度值(2012—2014年)为基本限值,测算补偿指数P,水质稳定系数K为0.89	氨氮、高锰酸盐指数、总氮和总磷4项指标权重调整为22%、22%、28%、28%,水质稳定系数K为0.90
考核方式	皖浙两省联合监测,中国环境监测总站核定,并向财政部、原环境保护部提供	同第一轮	同第一轮
补偿方式	若P ≤ 1,浙江省补偿安徽省1亿元;若P>1,安徽省补偿浙江省1亿元;中央财政全部拨付给安徽省	若P ≤ 1,浙江省补偿安徽省1亿元;若P>1,安徽省补偿浙江省1亿元;若P ≤ 0.95,浙江省再补偿安徽省1亿元;中央财政全部拨付给安徽省	当年度水质达到考核标准,浙江省补偿安徽省2亿元;水质达不到考核标准,安徽省补偿浙江省2亿元
资金用途	流域产业结构调整和产业布局优化,流域水环境保护和水污染治理,流域生态保护等	皖浙两省各新增1亿元主要用于黄山市垃圾和污水处理,特别是农村垃圾和污水处理	鼓励和支持通过设立绿色基金、政府和社会资本合作模式、融资贴息等方式,引导社会资本加大流域综合治理和绿色产业投入

表1

图3

表2

图4

图5

参考文献 44

[1]	Zhao Xueyan. Sustainable livelihoods research from the perspective of geography: The present status, questions and priority areas. Geographical Research, 2017,36(10):1859-1872.
	[ 赵雪雁. 地理学视角的可持续生计研究: 现状、问题与领域. 地理研究, 2017,36(10):1859-1872.]
[2]	Peng Jian, Hu Xiaoxu, Zhao Mingyue, et al. Research progress on ecosystem service trade-offs: From cognition to decision-making. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017,72(6):960-973. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201706002
	[ 彭建, 胡晓旭, 赵明月, 等. 生态系统服务权衡研究进展: 从认知到决策. 地理学报, 2017,72(6):960-973.]
[3]	Zhang Wei, Zhang Hongye, Zhang Yifeng. The determination of social ecological compensation standard based on "equivalent value of geographical factor endowment". Acta Geographica Sinica, 2010,65(10):1253-1265. doi: 10.11821/xb201010010
	[ 张伟, 张宏业, 张义丰. 基于“地理要素禀赋当量”的社会生态补偿标准测算. 地理学报, 2010,65(10):1253-1265.]
[4]	Liu Chunla, Liu Weidong, Lu Dadao, et al. China's provincial eco-compensation difference in 2004-2011. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015,70(12):1897-1910. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201512004
	[ 刘春腊, 刘卫东, 陆大道, 等. 2004—2011年中国省域生态补偿差异分析. 地理学报, 2015,70(12):1897-1910.]
[5]	Bennett D E, Gosnell H. Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social-ecological systems framework. Ecological Economics, 2015,116:172-181. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.019
[6]	Zhang Y, Min Q, Bai Y, et al. Practices of Cooperation for Eco-environmental Conservation (CEC) in China and theoretic framework of CEC: A new perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018,179:515-526. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.112
[7]	Qiao Xuning, Yang Yongju, Yang Degang. Review of payments for ecosystem services and the key issues in a watershed. Progress in Geography, 2012,31(4):395-402. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.04.001
	[ 乔旭宁, 杨永菊, 杨德刚. 流域生态补偿研究现状及关键问题剖析. 地理科学进展, 2012,31(4):395-402.]
[8]	Shang W, Gong Y, Wang Z, et al. Eco-compensation in China: Theory, practices and suggestions for the future. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018,210:162-170. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.077 pmid: 29339334
[9]	Liu Chunla, Liu Weidong, Lu Dadao. A study of the geographical features and implications of eco-compensation. Geographical Research, 2014,33(5):803-816.
	[ 刘春腊, 刘卫东, 陆大道. 生态补偿的地理学特征及内涵研究. 地理研究, 2014,33(5):803-816.]
[10]	Li F, Pan B, Wu Y, et al. Application of game model for stakeholder management in construction of ecological corridors: A case study on Yangtze River Basin in China. Habitat International, 2017,63:113-121. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.011
[11]	He J. Spatial heterogeneity and transboundary pollution: A contingent valuation (CV) study on the Xijiang River drainage basin in south China. China Economic Review, 2015,36:101-130. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2015.08.011
[12]	Xu X C, Gu X W, Wang Q, et al. Production scheduling optimization considering ecological costs for open pit metal mines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018,180:210-221. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.135
[13]	Wang Yiqi, Li Guoping. The evaluation of the watershed ecological compensation standard of ecosystem service value: A case of Weihe watershed upstream. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(1):108-116.
	[ 王奕淇, 李国平. 流域生态服务价值供给的补偿标准评估: 以渭河流域上游为例. 生态学报, 2019,39(1):108-116.]
[14]	Cao Liping, Zhou Fengqi, Wu Meng. Study on the ecological compensation mechanism of a watershed based on an urban agglomeration by using the Yangtze River basin as an example. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(1):85-96.
	[ 曹莉萍, 周冯琦, 吴蒙. 基于城市群的流域生态补偿机制研究: 以长江流域为例. 生态学报, 2019,39(1):85-96.]
[15]	Wang Fenglong, Liu Yungang. An analytical framework of scale based on second abstraction. Human Geography, 2015,30(1):9-15.
	[ 王丰龙, 刘云刚. 尺度概念的演化与尺度的本质: 基于二次抽象的尺度认识论. 人文地理, 2015,30(1):9-15.]
[16]	Wang Fenglong, Liu Yungang. Towards a theoretical framework of "politics of scale". Progress in Geography, 2017,36(12):1500-1509. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.12.005
	[ 王丰龙, 刘云刚. 尺度政治理论框架. 地理科学进展, 2017,36(12):1500-1509.]
[17]	Lu Lin, Zhang Qingyuan, Xu Yan, et al. Rescaling of tourism destination under the glocalization perspective: A case study of Wuzhen, Zhejiang province. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2020,75(2):410-425.
	[ 陆林, 张清源, 许艳, 等. 全球地方化视角下旅游地尺度重组: 以浙江乌镇为例. 地理学报, 2020,75(2):410-425.]
[18]	Sarah M, Catherine W. Brands of youth citizenship and the politics of scale: National citizen service in the United Kingdom. Political Geography, 2017,56:66-76. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.11.007
[19]	Crow Miller B, Webber M. Of maps and eating bitterness: The politics of scaling in China's South-North Water Transfer Project. Political Geography, 2017,61:19-30. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.06.002
[20]	Harrison J L. "Accidents" and invisibilities: Scaled discourse and the naturalization of regulatory neglect in California's pesticide drift conflict. Political Geography, 2006,25(5):506-529. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.003
[21]	Beery Jason. Unearthing global natures: Outer space and scalar politics. Political Geography, 2016,55:92-101. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.04.003
[22]	Liu Yungang, Wang Fenglong. Politics of scale in "Sanlu-Milkpowder Scandal". Acta Geographica Sinica, 2011,66(10):1368-1378. doi: 10.11821/xb201110007
	[ 刘云刚, 王丰龙. 三鹿奶粉事件的尺度政治分析. 地理学报, 2011,66(10):1368-1378.]
[23]	Xu Zhihua, Liu Kaizhi. State rescaling of the urban development in Hong Kong after the reunification: A case study of the planning process of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(2):253-265. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201902004
	[ 许志桦, 刘开智. 回归后香港城市发展的尺度重组: 以广深港高速铁路香港段项目的规划过程为例. 地理学报, 2019,74(2):253-265.]
[24]	Zhang Zhengsheng, Liu Xuanyu, Niu Shuya. Huangyan Island dispute between China and the Philippines based on politics of scale. Geographical Research, 2017,36(10):1915-1924.
	[ 张争胜, 刘玄宇, 牛姝雅. 尺度政治视角下中菲黄岩岛争端. 地理研究, 2017,36(10):1915-1924.]
[25]	Wang Fenglong, Liu Yungang. "Politics of scale" in Chinese administrative division adjustment. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(10):2136-2146. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201910013
	[ 王丰龙, 刘云刚. 中国行政区划调整的尺度政治. 地理学报, 2019,74(10):2136-2146.]
[26]	Coase R H. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 1960,3(1):1-44. doi: 10.1086/466560
[27]	Sun Bindong. Impact of institutions on regional industry: A comparative study on high-tech industries in Shanghai and Shenzhen. Human Geography, 2009,24(4):62-67.
	[ 孙斌栋. 制度对于区域产业发展的影响研究: 上海与深圳高科技产业发展比较. 人文地理, 2009,24(4):62-67.]
[28]	Lu Xianxiang. Four principal issues of China's institutional economics study. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2002(1):3-9.
	[ 卢现祥. 我国制度经济学研究中的四大问题. 中南财经政法大学学报, 2002(1):3-9.]
[29]	Jones B D, Baumgartner F R. A model of choice for public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2005,15(3): 325-351. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui018
[30]	Wang Yanhong. From dual management to classified management: Institutional changes and path creation of social organization management in China. Jiangsu Social Sciences, 2018(6):76-85.
	[ 王雁红. 从双重管理到分类管理: 我国社会组织管理的制度变迁与路径创造. 江苏社会科学, 2018(6):76-85.]
[31]	Zhu Huayou, Zhu Zhixi, Zhang Lin. Theoretical framework of the primary features of industrial agglomeration and regional development. Economic Geography, 2018,38(10):111-117.
	[ 朱华友, 朱之熹, 张林. 集聚的原生性特征与地区转型发展的理论分析框架. 经济地理, 2018,38(10):111-117.]
[32]	Wang Fenglong, Zhang Xianchun, Yang Linchuan, et al. Rescaling and scalar politics in the "One Belt, One Road" strategy. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2016,36(4):502-511.
	[ 王丰龙, 张衔春, 杨林川, 等. 尺度理论视角下的“一带一路”战略解读. 地理科学, 2016,36(4):502-511.]
[33]	Smith N. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2010.
[34]	Liu Yungang, Wang Fenglong. Concept of scale in human geography and politics of scale: Based on Anglophone human geography since 1980s. Human Geography, 2011,26(3):1-6.
	[ 刘云刚, 王丰龙. 尺度的人文地理内涵与尺度政治: 基于1980年代以来英语圈人文地理学的尺度研究. 人文地理, 2011,26(3):1-6.]
[35]	Wang Jianfeng. Why the transformation of the economic growth mode has been delayed again and the game in the "black box" of institutional obstacles. Exploration and Free Views, 2015(7):93-97.
	[ 王剑锋. 经济增长方式转型为何一再延缓: 体制性障碍“黑箱”中的博弈. 探索与争鸣, 2015(7):93-97.]
[36]	Wang Boyi, Li Xun. Rescaling process in border regions within Hong Kong and Shenzhen: A case study of Qianhai area. Human Geography, 2016,31(3):88-93.
	[ 王博祎, 李郇. 深港边界地区的尺度重组研究: 以前海地区为例. 人文地理, 2016,31(3):88-93.]
[37]	Yuan Liang, He Weijun, Shen Juqin, et al. A study on the mechanism of trans-regional ecological environmental protection cooperation in the context of promotion tournament. East China Economic Management, 2016,30(8):52-59.
	[ 袁亮, 何伟军, 沈菊琴, 等. 晋升锦标赛下的跨区域生态环保合作机理及机制研究. 华东经济管理, 2016,30(8):52-59.]
[38]	Wang Yurong, Chen Ligen, Chen Xin, et al. Rules-in-use in payments for watershed services under IAD framework: A case study based on Xin'an River's practices. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2020,30(1):41-48.
	[ 王雨蓉, 陈利根, 陈歆, 等. 制度分析与发展框架下流域生态补偿的应用规则: 基于新安江的实践. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2020,30(1):41-48.]
[39]	Zhou Li'an. Governing China's local officials: An analysis of promotion tournament model. Economic Research Journal, 2007(7):36-50.
	[ 周黎安. 中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究. 经济研究, 2007(7):36-50.]
[40]	Shi Qipeng. Time and structure in institutional changes: The evolution of the household registration system in China. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, 2019(1):181-191.
	[ 释启鹏. 制度变迁中的时间与结构: 新中国户籍制度的演化. 经济社会体制比较, 2019(1):181-191.]
[41]	Zhao Jun. International and domestic rule of law from the perspective of global governance. Social Sciences in China, 2014(10):79-99.
	[ 赵骏. 全球治理视野下的国际法治与国内法治. 中国社会科学, 2014(10):79-99.]
[42]	Pan Jia. Nature of basin ecological protection compensation: Civil property rights relationship. Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Sciences Edition), 2017,17(3):34-44.
	[ 潘佳. 流域生态保护补偿的本质: 民事财产权关系. 中国地质大学学报(社会科学版), 2017,17(3):34-44.]
[43]	Ma Xueguang, Li Luqi. Study on rescaling and its territorial regulatory practices within global restructuring. Areal Research and Development, 2017,36(2):1-6.
	[ 马学广, 李鲁奇. 全球重构中尺度重组及其地域性管制实践研究. 地域研究与开发, 2017,36(2):1-6.]
[44]	Zhang Qin. Ecological governance of online public opinions and reconstruction of government trust. Chinese Public Administration, 2014(4):42-46.
	[ 张勤. 网络舆情的生态治理与政府信任重塑. 中国行政管理, 2014(4):42-46.]

类别	项目数(个)	项目投资(万元)	完成投资(万元)	安排试点资金(万元)
农村面源污染治理	110	339629	66133	47846
工业点源污染治理	18	784150	251210	136747
城镇污水和垃圾处理	43	145514	52010	38879
生态修复工程	36	1617524	830726	127776
环保能力建设	18	13326	6595	6830
总计	225	2900143	1206674	358078