北京高校：“教非所需”将被停办

 

2006年09月11日 《检察日报》（最高人民检察院主管）作者: 谢文英 高涵洁

http://www.jcrb.com/n1/jcrb1052/ca547179.htm

 

  

代表：王建民

提交建议时间：２００６年２月

建议主要内容：关注高校“教非所需”问题，增强毕业生就业能力

答复部门：北京市教育委员会

 

本报讯（记者谢文英 实习生高涵洁） 寒窗苦读十几年后依然找不到工作，这不得不令人反思我们的教育管理制度。北京市教育委员会近日表示，将通过建立高校质量评估机构，定期评估学科专业，凡不符合开办条件的专业要限期整改或停办。

北京市人大代表、北京师范大学管理学院教授王建民先后在国内四所重点大学学习、工作，还有到哈佛大学任研究学者的经历。经过多年的实践与研究，他发现国内高校“教非所需”问题较为普遍，这正是造成高校毕业生就业难的重要原因之一。在今年２月召开的北京市人代会上，他提交了《关注高校“教非所需”问题，增强毕业生就业能力》的建议。建议高等教育主管部门要求所属高校深入调查，建立人才市场需求和毕业生反馈意见数据库。规划专业方向、确定教学内容和选择教学方式时，必须以数据库信息为基础。

北京市教育委员会在办理该建议时，根据北京高校学科专业结构面窄、课程内容陈旧、师资力量不足等问题，明确当前的重要任务是加快对现有专业的归并、调整和改造。另外，还将建立高校质量评估机构，定期评估学科专业，对不符合开办条件的专业，限期整改或停办。

 

 

Harvard to eliminate early admission

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/09.14/99-admissions.html

 

Beginning next year Harvard College will eliminate its early admission program and move to a single application deadline of January 1, the University announced today (September 12). The change in policy, which builds on Harvard's efforts over the past several years to expand financial aid and increase openness in admissions, will take effect for students applying in the fall of 2007 for the freshman class entering in September 2008.

 

"The college admissions process has become too pressured, too complex, and too vulnerable to public cynicism," said Harvard interim President Derek Bok. "We hope that doing away with early admission will improve the process and make it simpler and fairer.

 

"Early admission programs tend to advantage the advantaged," Bok continued. "Students from more sophisticated backgrounds and affluent high schools often apply early to increase their chances of admission, while minority students and students from rural areas, other countries, and high schools with fewer resources miss out. Students needing financial aid are disadvantaged by binding early decision programs that prevent them from comparing aid packages. Others who apply early and gain admission to the college of their choice have less reason to work hard at their studies during their final year of high school."

 

Many leaders in higher education have spoken publicly about their concerns regarding early admission programs. Harvard will thus delay the shift to a single admissions deadline until the fall of 2007, so that other institutions wishing to make a change will have time to adjust their processes in the same admissions cycle. Furthermore, Harvard will commence the unitary system with a two- to three-year trial period so that it can monitor the impact of this change and make sure that it does not have a negative impact on student quality.

 

"I am delighted that President Bok and the Corporation have determined that we are in a position to take this excellent step," said Jeremy R. Knowles, interim Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. "The frenzy that surrounds college admissions threatens important educational values, and early admission programs are part of the problem. These programs distort the high school experience by forcing both students and colleges to commit prematurely, based only upon the record at the end of the student's junior year. Moreover, students who are admitted early receive what often appears to be a 'free pass' for their second semester, sadly encouraging them to disengage from their academic experience.

 

"I hope that our decision to eliminate early action will help to turn down the heat on admissions, allowing students, parents, and teachers to continue to focus their energies on the joys and rigors of education itself," Knowles continued. "The impact will obviously be greater if other institutions join us in moving to a single, later, admissions cycle. I hope they will."

 

For students applying this year (fall 2006), Harvard's admission process, including early action, will be unchanged. Beginning in the fall of 2007, the application deadline for all applicants will be January 1. Harvard will maintain its current April 1 notification to students, and May 1, the national common reply date, as its deadline for receiving responses from students.

 

'Early action' versus 'early decision'

Harvard's existing early admission program, adopted over 30 years ago, takes the form of nonbinding "early action," rather than the binding "early decision" used by many colleges with early admission programs. Under Harvard's current early action policy, students who apply by November 1 are notified by December 15 as to whether they are admitted, denied, or deferred to the regular pool. They are not, however, bound to accept an offer of admission, and they have until May 1 - the deadline for regular admissions - to make their decision.

 

Harvard's early action program differs from so-called "binding" early decision programs, whereby a student makes a commitment at the time of application to attend if admitted. Harvard has always had early action rather than early decision because it preserves the ability of students to apply to other colleges during the regular admissions cycle, to compare financial aid packages, and to make a much more informed choice in May, rather than October, of their senior year.

 

"We have always felt that early action avoids the most troublesome aspects of binding early decision while preserving the original aim of early admission - providing students with early notification of admission without binding those who change their minds later in the process," said William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions at Harvard College. "If after several years with a single admissions deadline, we find ourselves needing to reinstate early admission to preserve the quality of our student body, we will return to early action.

 

"We are concerned, however, that even our non-binding program contributes to the pressures and inequities of the college admissions process," Fitzsimmons continued. "Only the more sophisticated students and families look behind the label of 'early admission' and distinguish early action from binding early decision programs. Thus students from less advantaged backgrounds either fail to take advantage of early admission because they are less well-advised overall, or they consciously avoid our program on the mistaken assumption that they will be unable to compare financial aid packages.

 

"Under the leadership of Larry Summers, we have worked aggressively over the past several years to expand financial aid, and families with incomes under $60,000 are no longer required to contribute to the cost of a Harvard education," Fitzsimmons added. "An early admission program that is less accessible to students from modest economic backgrounds operates at cross-purposes with our goal of finding and admitting the most talented students from across the economic spectrum."

 

Expanded outreach and recruiting

Harvard intends to use the time and capacity freed up by the move to a single admissions cycle to focus more energetically on outreach and recruiting. Fitzsimmons and his admissions staff will travel more widely to make presentations in key cities and other areas to educate students, families, and college counselors about Harvard and the college admissions process more generally. The University will also work with secondary schools in a renewed effort to make applying to college less complicated and less stressful than it is today.

 

According to Fitzsimmons, this effort is particularly important in light of disparities in access to, and the quality of, college counseling. The average ratio of students to college counselors in the United States is 500/1. In some states, such as California, the ratio is 1000/1, and many high schools have eliminated college counseling altogether.

 

Some affluent schools, however, have student to counselor ratios as low as 50/1, in addition to parents who are more knowledgeable about college admissions and more likely to be able to supplement school counseling with outside help.

 

"As a person who has worked in college admissions for over 30 years, I am particularly grateful to Dean Knowles, President Bok, and the Harvard Corporation for supporting this move away from early admission," said Fitzsimmons. "I hope and expect that this change will sharpen the focus of the admissions process on its most important goal - helping students find the right college match."

 

 

 

美国哈佛取消提前录取制度 录取程序更简单公平

2006年09月13日【来源：解放网-新闻晚报】

http://news.sohu.com/20060913/n245320124.shtml

 

 

　　美国知名学府哈佛大学12日宣布将废除提前录取制度，给不同家境、背景和能力的考生创造公平竞争机会，成为美国第一个完全取消这一制度的名校。

　　“这肯定会撼动美国高校录取制度，”美联社评价说。

　　“听到这个消息，我的眼睛湿润了，”美国“教育管理”组织官员说。

 

　　程序更加简单公平

　　哈佛大学代理校长德里克·博克当天发表声明说：“提前录取会使有优势者更有优势。我们希望，取消提前录取能改善录取程序，使它更加简单和公平。”

　　哈佛大学的改革措施将于明年开始，也就是说，打算2008年秋季入学的高中生全部参加常规录取。

　　博克在声明中说，提前录取制度有利于来自家庭背景较好的考生和师资雄厚的学校获得更多录取机会，而来自底层和劳工、中等收入家庭、其他国家和实力较弱学校的学生将丧失更多机会。

　　因此，哈佛认为，取消提前录取制度，可以给有才华但家境普通的考生更多时间考虑奖学金等问题，不必害怕因提前录取后被学校绑定而失去获得其他学校更高奖学金的机会。尽管此前不少大学已经意识到这一制度造成的不平等，但教育学家认为，也只有哈佛这样声名显赫的学府才能迈出第一步，因为就算没有提前录取，它仍是优等生的第一选择。

 

　　赢得同行热情喝彩

　　博克呼吁其他高校也能效仿此法，“越多学校放弃这一制度，录取程序就会更健全合理”。

　　哈佛的决定得到教育界热烈欢迎。“哇，太棒了，”麻省理工学院招生部主任玛丽莉·琼斯说。麻省理工一直实行提前行动制度。

　　琼斯说，哈佛的作法可以在很大程度上改变大学录取制度，“足够大胆，以至于其他学校都应该重新考虑他们正在做的事情”。

　　游说对录取程序实施监督的“教育管理”组织执行理事劳埃德·撒克说，他听到这一消息后非常高兴，眼含泪水，“不敢相信”。

　　“终于，美国最有威望的教育机构异乎寻常地说：‘是，这个制度确实有问题，我们将会基于公众利益行动，’”他说。

　　普林斯顿大学招生部主任珍妮特·拉文·拉佩耶也为哈佛的决定喝彩，但她无法猜测普林斯顿是否也会效仿。该校目前实施提前决定制度，他们也质疑，目前这种做法是否会限制学生的多样化。

 

　　新闻背景

　　提前录取不受家长欢迎

　　在美国，高中生5月毕业，8月底或9月初进入大学。但大学录取并非在高中毕业前夕完成，而是从高中最后一年的第一学期即可开始。学生可以自主选择是否参加第一轮提前录取。

　　提前录取分为提前决定和提前行动两种，如果申请前者，学生被录取后，必须与大学签订具有法律效力的文件，以保证报到入学。如果申请后者，学生只能申请一所大学，但无需马上签约，可以在常规录取阶段申请其他大学，然后“货比三家”，在第二年5月1日前作出决定。哈佛就采用第二种录取制度。

　　提前录取有利于大学锁定更有经济实力、学术能力和“忠心耿耿”的优等生，也有助于确保入学率，因此在美国高等教育界十分普遍，但在学生、高中学校和家长中不受欢迎，因为对于家境并不殷实的学生来说，必须比较申请学校的奖学金数额才能作出最终选择，而对于师资力量不雄厚、教学水平不高的高中来说，自己的毕业生进入名校的几率会更打折扣。

 

 

 

美国哈佛大学宣布明秋将取消大学提前录取政策

2006年09月13日  中国新闻网

http://www.chinanews.com.cn/edu/zkzq/news/2006/09-13/789073.shtml

 

　　中新网纽约九月十二日电 (邓悦)据《纽约时报》报道，美国哈佛大学十二日宣布从明年秋季开始取消大学提前录取政策，这被视为美国著名高等学府录取制度的革新之举。

　　哈佛大学校方高层表示，大学提前录取政策使少数族裔以及工薪阶层、低收入家庭的学生在申请名校时处于明显劣势，不利于这类优秀学生进入一流大学深造。

　　美国大学提前录取政策允许高中毕业生在头年秋季就开始向自己心仪的名校递交入学申请，并在同年的12月份获知是否被录取的决定。而一般高中毕业生要等到第二年初才开始递交大学入学申请。

　　一些美国大学在提前录取中招收的学生占到其新生人数的一半以上，同时还有不少大学要求录取学生不能毁约，以作为提前录取的交换条件。

　　教育专家认为，哈佛大学的该变革将给美国其它院校带来无形压力。很多美国高校也曾有过类似考虑，但顾及到可能因此失去优秀生源而迟迟没有付诸行动。

　　哈佛大学代理校长德瑞克在接受采访时说：“我们认为该政策将提供更为公平的招生流程，因为现行的提前录取政策使一部分处于有利态势的学生占据了入学先机。”

　　去年哈佛大学录取的2124名新生中，有813人为提前录取新生，占38%。(完)

Harvard fundraising reaches $595M

in fiscal year '06

Results were the second best in Harvard's history

 

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/09.14/99-fundraising.html

 

Harvard University finished the year with strong fundraising results, according to Vice President for Alumni Affairs and Development Donella M. Rapier. Gift receipts to the University totaled nearly $595 million in fiscal year 2006 - a $5 million increase over fiscal year 2005 and a $55 million increase over fiscal year 2004. Total giving over the past five years amounted to $2.7 billion.

 

More than 89,000 donors contributed to Harvard in 2006, up from 88,000 last year. "Our fundraising remained strong throughout the year," Rapier said. "We are enormously grateful to our alumni and friends for their generosity and continued dedication to Harvard."

 

Fiscal year 2006 fundraising results were the second best in Harvard's history, ranking behind fiscal year 2001, when the University raised $658 million. In that extraordinary year, Harvard received a one-time gift from the Ford Foundation of $50 million, as well as four other gift payments of $25 million or more.

 

This year's totals are particularly remarkable when compared with last year because Harvard Business School (HBS) peaked in fiscal year 2005, the final full year of its campaign, at $125 million, contributing substantially to the large increase for the University from 2004 to 2005. HBS gift receipts declined this year by $68 million to $57 million, an impressive level still considerably higher than pre-campaign years. Increases in other parts of the University in fiscal year 2006 more than offset this decline.

 

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), which includes Harvard College and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, received $193 million this year - $25 million (15 percent) higher than the previous year and $21 million (12 percent) higher than fiscal year 2004. This total represents the generosity of tens of thousands of donors, who have provided critical funds for the FAS to address core and emerging needs such as financial aid and fellowship programs, faculty expansion, undergraduate experience initiatives, research, and construction projects. Of particular note is the record-breaking Harvard College Fund Class of 1981 25th reunion gift, which garnered gifts and pledges totaling $41 million, the highest ever for a 25th reunion and the second highest ever overall. More than 75 percent of the class participated in this drive.

 

Harvard Law School launched one of the most ambitious campaigns in the history of legal education in 2003. The campaign has already raised nearly $300 million and, with two years remaining, is on target to reach its $400 million objective.

 

Among the many generous new commitments to Harvard announced in fiscal year 2006 were a $100 million gift from Eli and Edythe Broad to support the Broad Institute; $26 million in grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support work in global health; $20 million to create the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Program for Islamic Studies; a $15 million endowment from Sharmin and Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani MPA '82, GSAS '88 to the Kennedy School of Government's Center for Business and Government; $15 million from the Victor [Ph.D. '71] and William [M.B.A. '72] Fung Foundation to the Harvard University Asia Center; a $14 million contribution from H.H. Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum to support the Dubai Harvard Foundation for Medical Research; a $12 million bequest receipt from Horace Chapin A.B. 1871, LL.B. 1875 for the Harvard University Art Museums; a $12 million donation from Jerome Rappaport A.B. '47, LL.B. '49, M.P.A. '63 and the Jerome Lyle Rappaport Charitable Foundation to endow Harvard's Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston; a $10 million contribution from David Rockefeller A.B. '36, LL.D. '69 to support Harvard's Latin American Studies Center, bringing his total commitment to the center to $25 million; and $10 million from Jerry A.B. '61, M.B.A. '67 and Darlene Jordan to support the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and to enrich the Harvard College student experience. In addition, six generous alumni established a $50 million University Professorship Challenge - a matching fund intended to encourage alumni and friends to endow named professorships across the University and provide other critically needed faculty support.

 

For Immediate Release

July 2, 2006

Kennedy School Professor Named “Chang Jiang Scholar”

Prestigious designation by the Chinese Ministry of Education

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/asia/Chang%20Jiang%20scholar%20press%20release.pdf

 

 

Daewoo Professor of International Relations Anthony Saich was recently appointed as a prestigious Chang Jiang Scholar in recognition of his contributions in the field of public administration. The Chang Jiang (Cheung Kong) Scholars Program was jointly established by China's Ministry of Education and the Li Kashing Foundation in 1998. Its main objective is to further improve China's standard of education and intellectual competitiveness by rapidly developing Chinese research institutions through the engagement of Chang Jiang Scholars.

 

Chinese Minister of Education Zhou Ji regards the Chang Jiang Scholars Program as a historic change in China's higher education system in terms of personnel. “It will introduce the best scholars with advanced research subjects and thus create an innovation-oriented atmosphere.” Awardees must have a doctoral degree, an outstanding record in research, be internationally recognized in his or her field and be capable of developing a first-class research program. The 727 Chang Jiang scholars from 1998 to 2004 were at an average of 42-year-old, and 98 of them had Ph.D. degrees, and 140 people were of foreign nationality, though mostly ethnic Chinese. Statistics from the Ministry of Education showed that by 2005, 24 Chang Jiang scholars were selected as academicians of Chinese Academy of Sciences or Chinese Academy of Engineering. Forty-six scholars became chief scientists heading national projects. And the research results of 87

scholars have won national awards.

 

Established in 1980, the Li Ka Shing Foundation offers a majority of its donations to education and medical programs as Mr. Li believes that education and medical care are pillars of China's development. In the field of education, the Foundation has sponsored many large scale projects. Besides the Cheung Kong Scholars Program, other well-known initiatives of the Foundation include the founding of Shantou University and its medical school, the new Peking University library, the establishment of Rural Primary Schools for the poverty stricken children as well as research funds for universities in Hong Kong.

 

 

 

【新华网－北大向丘成桐索赔3000万如何？】

2006年09月04日 　来源：红网  [作者：徐迅雷]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/comments/2006-09/04/content_5043831.htm

 

     巍巍乎北大，戚戚兮今天。因为著名数学家丘成桐的批评，深感委屈的北大近日连连出招，先是北大党委书记闵维方说丘成桐的批评不公道（9月2日《21世纪经济报道》）；继而北大数学研究所所长丁伟岳新开博客撰写文章，质疑丘成桐“庞加莱猜想由中国科学家彻底破解”之说（9月3日《京华时报》）。看起来这是双管齐下，其实这两根管子形同软管，效果恐怕大大的不理想。

    似乎是因为准备很不充分，所以闵书记的回答有太多的漏洞。报道里他的第一句话就是一个大漏洞：“对北大的炒作是不够公平的”——这是对北大的“炒作”？什么是“炒作”？媒体报道这么一个严肃的事情，怎么能说成是“炒作”？   

    而最大的漏洞是，与此前他们的新闻发言人回应一样，竟然到现在都还没有搞清丘成桐说的是“假引进”还是“引进假的”。丘成桐是说“虚假引进人才”而不是说“引进假的人才”；是说“‘假’拿大”不好，不是说你“大拿‘假’”；是说引进人才的手段方式作假（比如明明人家在国外是全职教授，北大却说已经把他引进进来了，是自己的全职教授了），而不是指对方整个是个“假人才”。闵书记的回答竟然是：“这几年，我们从海外引进很多人才，我觉得都很优秀。”这真是王顾左右般的答非所问。   

    我在揣测北大为什么总是作如此“错误”的回应，原因不外乎两条：一是真傻，行政工作做久了智商原本蛮高的人也会傻下去的，包括北大党委书记闵维方在内的北大党政工作者实在傻得不行，就是无法读懂丘成桐教授的意思；一是装傻，因为“虚假引进人才”有事实在，即使不说从海外引进人才大多是“真挂名、假引进”，但也确实有此等情况，“漏洞”在自己这边里，那么只好偷换概念、模糊焦点、混淆视听，把丘教授的话歪曲成“北大这几年从海外引进的人才大部分是没有真才实学的假人才”，这样，“漏洞”显然就跑到丘教授那边去了。   

    同样的概念歪曲还出在“经费”问题上。我们理解北大这些年来上上下下时时刻刻在叫穷，中国对教育投入严重不足也是不争的事实，而会叫的孩子多吃奶，北大叫穷有叫穷的理由；但是，闵维方书记这样的话就匪夷所思了：“他们不了解情况，却对北大提出了无根据的指责，说什么引进人才大部分都是假的，一个人就骗取国家几千万甚至上亿的经费。”“一个人就骗取国家几千万甚至上亿的经费”，你的“对手”说的是这个意思吗？如果是“一个人”“骗上亿”，那还不早该“进去”了，不枪毙也该判个无期了。这大抵已不是闵维方书记歪曲概念，而是在捏造事实，真让人看了只直喊“晕倒”。   

    还有不少似是而非的回应，比如关于北大清华“二流”说，当时论者薛涌在评论里说的是“将来式”，是有种种前提下的“北大清华将被扫为二流”，如今闵书记却驴唇不对马嘴地说：“我不认为北大、清华因此就被扫为二流。”这是哪跟哪啊。   

    作为北大数学研究所所长的丁伟岳教授，其对丘成桐的批评与质疑，作风与做派同他的书记如出一辙。丁所长为此专门弄了个BLOG，发出首席文章《庞加莱的困惑》，称丘成桐教授宣布中国科学家朱熹平与曹怀东破解百年数学难题庞加莱猜想，“似乎是在与众多的同行背道而驰”。我原来以为这位“博主”，会以北大数学所长、数学教授、亦应是数学家的身份，用数学论证来驳倒丘成桐之说、驳倒朱熹平曹怀东之论呢，没想到上BLOG一看，压根就不是那么回事。在他的第二篇题为《答网友》的博文里，他倒很坦白，说“我没有研读他们的文章，所以没有资格对他们的工作加以评价”。呵呵，原来如彼！   

    知己知彼是“论争”中的重要前提，现在看来还真不是这么一回事。丁伟岳所长“知彼”了吗？显然没有。闵维方书记“知己”了吗？他说：我觉得北大有一种精神，有一种独特的精神魅力，北大有“爱国、进步、民主、科学”的光荣传统和“勤奋、严谨、求实、创新”的优良学风。这是现在的北大吗？这是过去的北大，是蔡元培时代的北大，可惜，如今世上已无蔡元培。闵维方书记和丁伟岳所长的“回击”，就是不严谨、不科学、非民主、非求实的典例。   

    “到底谁在说谎？丘成桐回应北大”，这是8月21日出版的《南方人物周刊》封面大标题，里头的文章主标题是“群众的眼睛是雪亮的”，丘成桐的说法倒很求实：“北大随便讲他们没有问题，那他们可以将名单发表嘛。名单发表我们一个个对就是了。北大讲没有问题，为什么不公布名单呢？”如今，许多网友也跟帖“强烈要求北大公布全部引进人才的名单”。“真引进”还是“假引进”，对名单就是最简单明了的求证。   

    人才的拿来主义是好的，但对于海外人才的“假拿来主义”是可恶的。政府与公众，都应该擦亮眼睛，提防“假拿来主义”。“假拿来主义”是一种不良制度，不良制度必定催生学术垃圾和学术腐败，而学术腐败必定成为国家耻辱。如今，在多少貌似神圣的地方有多少无耻，公众似乎都不感到吃惊了。在反学术腐败的大背景下，丘成桐对北大进行的是“一个人的战争”，他的“打假”是否精准，当然有待时间的检验；但他的态度是否“公道”，百姓心里自有一杆秤。

    看来，丘成桐对北大进行的是“深度撞击”，确实把北大给撞痛了；但北大这种出来说话却说得漏洞百出的“反撞击”，是没有什么效用的。我看最好的办法是通过法律手段来解决问题、求得清白。所以，我建议北大学学状告记者的名牌企业“富士康”，就请堂堂学府屈就一下，学一把巨富企业，也不是不可以。希望北大也向丘成桐个人提起3000万元的天价索赔，一起诉就立马冻结丘成桐的所有个人资产，这样就会有“北有北大南有富士康”之说，多好。否则，北大还不如富士康。起诉之后请见机行事，有望赔得3000万元，则坚决把官司打下去，把3000万拿到手后，可用以弥补办学经费之不足；无望赔来3000万，那也可以像富士康那样来个“奇峰突起”，将诉讼标的由3000万降为象征性的1元。

盲人摸象：中国地方政府分析

 

托尼·塞奇（Tony Saich）

 

2006年08月26日  原载《经济社会体制比较》2006年第4期

 

人民网  http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/49150/49152/4744431.html

 

 

            作者简介：托尼·塞奇（Tony Saich），现为哈佛大学亚洲中心主任，国际事务的讲席教授，在肯尼迪政府管理学院担任亚洲项目和中国公共政策项目的主任。

 

 

             内容摘要：中国的经济改革以深远的方式改变了政治体制，最重要的后果是国家的结构化和国家内部权力的重新分配。这对地方政府的性质产生了重大影响。本文从直接描述财政状况开篇，回顾了对地方政府性质的不同分析，并引入政治契约制和地方社会结构两个变量，以解释此种变化及其产生的后果。

 

            关键词：经济改革；政治体制；地方政府；政治契约

 

        中国共产党于二十世纪七十年代末期发起的经济改革以深远的方式改变了中国的政治体制，产生了一系列不可预见的后果。随着政府向企业放权，政府对经济的直接控制逐渐减弱，指令性计划机制的使用日益减少，利用市场力量进行配置以及生产的选择性则日益增加。地方政府被授予更多控制本地经济活动及分配经济成果的权力。

    经济转变重塑了社会结构，它正在改变地方政府与上级，以及与社会之间的权力分配。

    它改变了社会赖以组织的规则，以及社会与国家机构之间相互影响的方式。结果，就结构和心态而言，自1950年代以来，中国社会变得比以往任何时候都更加复杂，更具流动性、更具活力。与垂直的相互影响和整合一样，水平的相互影响和整合亦得以发展，传统的列宁式体制的基本边界已经被打破。中国的统治方式已经发生了重大的改变，这在地方层面最为明显。

    ......

统战部：中国将加强对非中共人士的培养任用

2006年08月31日 14:18:10 　来源：新华网

http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2006-08/31/content_5030787.htm

 

      新华网北京８月３１日电（记者陈键兴 茆雷磊）中共中央统战部负责人日前在接受新华社记者专访时表示，中共中央７月召开全国统战工作会议，在深入分析和准确把握党外代表人士成长规律的基础上，从实现统一战线持续发展的高度，对加强党外代表人士队伍建设作了全面阐述和部署。

    负责人具体阐释指出，一是明确了加强党外代表人士队伍建设工作的原则和总体要求，提出要努力培养造就一支自觉接受中国共产党领导、坚定不移地走中国特色社会主义道路、具有较强代表性和参政议政能力的党外代表人士队伍。

    二是要把思想政治建设作为党外代表人士队伍建设的首要任务，通过多种形式和途径，努力提高他们的政治把握能力、组织协调能力、参政议政能力和合作共事能力。

    三是要加强党外代表人士后备队伍建设，把党外代表人士后备队伍建设工作纳入人才和干部队伍建设的总体规划，形成科学合理的后备队伍结构。

    四是要建立健全党外代表人士的培养选拔任用机制和监督管理机制，不断推进党外代表人士的新老交替和政治交接。这些都将对党外代表人士培养选拔工作起到极大的推动作用。（完）