破解广泛的行政碎片化问题是理顺基层治理中的复杂公共事务的关键前提。本研究重点关注城市更新中的行政碎片化问题如何破解，从上海浦东新区规划管理中心的微更新实践经验出发，探索存量更新时代下弥合碎片、高效持续的发展路径。既有应对行政碎片化的两种策略都存在一定不足，本研究在此基础上提出了“枢纽型政府”的分析框架，在此框架下选取了6个包含不同更新要素和行动模式的“缤纷社区”项目，并进一步分析了基层政府、其他政府职能部门、规划管理中心、社会组织、企业、专业力量、社会公众在更新实践过程中的互动。分析结果表明：行动者之间的互动秩序诞生于良好的制度环境，而发挥枢纽作用的规划管理中心，通过协调四方促成了行动者网络的形成。在政策实践中，不同行动者分别扮演着“催化剂”、“主力军”和“连接器”的角色，并在项目形成-建设-维护的过程中，产生了项目指导、诉求反馈、协调联络、共同合作、项目评估和成效反馈6种互动模式。此外，不同行动者在项目演进中的参与阶段、时长不一，共同促成目标的实现。研究最后提出了培育建立枢纽型政府部门、构建行动者网络、社区赋能三方面的政策建议，希望为城市复杂事务的处理提供一种创新视角与可行路径。

In grassroots governance, solving the problem of extensive administrative fragmentation has become the key premise to straighten out the complex public affairs. This study focuses on how to solve the problem of administrative fragmentation in urban regeneration based on Shanghai Pudong Planning and Management Center’s (PMC) micro- regeneration practice. The existing two strategies to deal with administrative fragmentation in academia have shortcomings. On this basis, this study puts forward an analytical framework of “Hub-type government”. Under this framework, we select six “Colorful community” projects containing different regeneration elements and action modes and further analyze the interaction among grassroots government, other functional departments, the PMC, social organizations, enterprises, professional forces and the public in the process of regeneration practice. The results show that: the order of interaction between actors comes from a good institutional environment, and the PMC promotes the formation of actor network by coordinating all four parties. In policy practice, different actors play the roles of “catalyst”, “main force” and “connector” respectively, and the process of project formation, construction and maintenance refers to six interactive modes: project guidance, demand feedback, coordination and liaison, joint cooperation, project evaluation and effectiveness feedback. In addition, different actors participate in different stages of project evolution, contributing to the realization of the goal. Finally, the paper puts forward three policy suggestions, namely, cultivating and establishing pivotal government departments, constructing actor networks and empowering communities, providing an innovative perspective for dealing with complex urban affairs.

Adams, D. , & Hastings, E. M. . (2001). Urban renewal in hong kong: transition from development corporation to renewal authority. Land Use Policy, 18(3), 245-258.

Agranoff, R. (2003). Leveraging networks: A guide for public managers working across organizations. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1998). Multi-network management: Collaboration and the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), 67–91.

Bogdanor, V. (2005). Introduction. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Briassoulis, H. (2004). Policy integration for complex policy problems: What, why and how. In Paper presented at the Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change: Greening of policies—Interlinkages and policy integration.

Carley, M. (2000). Urban partnerships, governance and the regeneration of britain’s cities. International Planning Studies, 5(3):273-297.

Carmon, N. , & Shamir, U. . (1997). Water-sensitive urban planning: Concept and preliminary analysis.

Cejudo, G. M. , & Michel, C. L. . (2017). Addressing fragmented government action: coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 1-23.

Christensen, T., & L?greid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Organization Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.

Couch C .(1990). Urban renewal : theory and practice.

Gregory, B. . Theoretical Faith and Practical Works: De- Autonomizing and Joining-Up in the New Zealand State Sector.

Howlett, M., & Del Rio, P. (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1233–1245.

Hood, C. (2005). The idea of joined-up government: A historical perspective. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hull, A. (2008). Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy, 15(2), 94–103.

Jennings, E. T. (1994). Building bridges in the intergovernmental arena: Coordinating employment and training programs in the American States. Public Administration Review, 54(1), 52–60.

Jordan, G., & Halpin, D. (2006). The political costs of policy coherence? Constructing a rural policy for Scotland. Journal of Public Policy, 26, 21–41.

Keast R. (2011) ‘Joined-Up Governance in Australia: How the Past Can Inform the Future’, International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 2, 221–231.

Koschinsky, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2001). Confronting policy fragmentation: A political approach to the role of housing nonpro?ts. Policy Studies Review, 18(4), 111–127.

Lee, G. K. L. , & Chan, E. H. W. . (2008). A sustainability evaluation of government-led urban renewal projects. Facilities, 26(13/14), 526-541.

Ling, T. (2002). Delivering joined-up government in the UK: Dimensions, issues and problems. Public Administration, 80(4), 615–642.

May, P. J., Jochim, A. E., & Sapotichne, J. (2011). Constructing homeland security: An anemic policy regime. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 285–307.

Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Ambiguity in policy lessons: The agenci?cation experience. Public Administration,84(4), 1029–1050.

NG M K. (1998). Global overview on urban regeneration practices: economic development, governance, planning mode and regeneration concerns in western and Asian contexts. the Continuing Professional Development Workshop.Nilsson, M., & Persson, A. (2003). Framework for analysing environmental policy integration. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5(4), 333–360.

O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52.

OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2005). Modernising government: the way forward. Paris: OECD.

Peters, B. G. (2004). Back to the centre? Rebuilding the state. The Political Quarterly, 75, 130–140.

Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of coordination. Research paper no. 21. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development

Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management. The politics of public sector coordination. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Peters, G., & Savoie, D. J. (1997). Managing incoherence: the coordination and empowerment conundrum. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 281–290.

Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1(1), 34–49.

Professor Perri, Leat, D. , Seltzer, K. , & Stoker, G. . (2002). Towards holistic governance.

Roberts, P. . (2000). Strange, Susan, Roberts, P. W. , & Sykes, H. . (2000). Urban Regeneration. A Handbook. SAGE.

Schumacher, E., & F. (1974). Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered. International Affairs.

Van Bueren, E., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212.

Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., & L?greid, P. (2012). Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349.

Wise, D.(1985). Urban regeneration construction . (52):48-52.

Zheng H W, Shen G Q,& Hao W.(2014). A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat International, 41(1):272-279.

陈家刚. (2015). 基层治理:转型发展的逻辑与路径. 学习与探索, 000(002), 47-55.

陈占祥. (1979). 城市规划设计原理的总结——马丘比丘宪章. 城市规划(6), 10.

董贺轩, 刘乾, & 王芳. (2018). 嵌入·修补·众规:城市微型公共空间规划研究——以武汉市汉阳区为例. 城市规划, 42(4), 11.

董玛力, 陈田, & 王丽艳. (2009). 西方城市更新发展历程和政策演变. 人文地理(5), 5.

董昕. (2022).我国城市更新的现存问题与政策建议. 建筑经济.

侯显成. (2021). 上海市城市更新流程局部优化建议与实践. 规划师, 37(18), 6.

雷爱先, & 王恒. (2021). 城市更新中存量土地开发利用的若干问题思考. 中国土地(12), 4.

刘江德, & 徐磊青. (2020). 基于公众视野的城市街道更新评价研究——以上海为例. 上海城市规划(3), 8.

李国强. (2007). 碎裂型政府架构下的行政事务管理——以美国湿地管理机制为例. 公共管理学报, 4(4), 7.

李劭杰. (2018). "双创"政策引领下的厦门旧工业区微更新探索. 城市规划学刊(A01), 7.

刘易斯?芒福德.(2005) .城市发展史：起源、演变和前景 [M]. 北京：中国建筑工业出版社

李文钊. (2017). 论合作型政府:一个政府改革的新理论. 河南社会科学(1), 9.

仇保兴.(2012). 城市建设需要创新应摒弃迷恋巨型城市做法. 国际城市创新发展大会. From https://finance.ifeng.com/news/special/gjcscxfz/ [2022年4月21日]

沈荣华, & 鹿斌. (2014). 制度建构:枢纽型社会组织的行动逻辑. 中国行政管理.

施芸卿. (2019). 一把尺子如何“量到底”:基层治理中的制度硬化以一个城市更新试点项目为例. 社会, 39(2), 27.

孙淼, & 陈晨. (2019). 工业遗产改造作为城市更新触媒的深层机制研究——基于上海市宜山路街区和场园街区的案例比较. 城市建筑, 16(19), 10.

童明,白雪燕,&任广.(2020). 面向日常生活的社区微更新——以浦东新区“缤纷社区”更新实践为例.上海城市规划.

王佃利, & 吕俊平. (2010). 整体性政府与大部门体制:行政改革的理念辨析. 中国行政管理(1), 5.

王伟. (2016). 十八大以来大部制改革深层问题及未来路径探析. 中国行政管理(10), 5.

魏志贺. (2018). 城市微更新理论研究现状与展望. 低温建筑技术, 40(2), 4.

吴晨. (2005). "城市复兴"理论辨析. 北京规划建设(1), 140-143.

吴良镛. (1994). 北京旧城与菊儿胡同. 中国建筑工业出版社.

徐磊青, 刘宁, & 孙澄宇. (2012). 广场尺度与空间品质——广场面积、高宽比与空间偏好和意象关系的虚拟研究. 建筑学报(2), 5.

阳建强, & 吴明伟. (1999). 现代城市更新. 东南大学出版社.

阳建强. (2000). 中国城市更新的现况,特征及趋向. 城市规划(4), 4.

于今. (2007). 城市更新进入新阶段后的诸多问题. 中国不动产. From https://www.doc88.com/p-2468104101647.html [2022年4月21日]

翟斌庆, & 伍美琴. (2009). 城市更新理念与中国城市现实. 城市规划学刊(2), 8.

曾凡军, & 潘懿. (2021). 基层治理碎片化与整体性治理共同体. 浙江学刊(3), 8.

张帆, & 葛岩. (2019). 治理视角下城市更新相关主体的角色转变探讨——以上海为例. 上海城市规划(5), 5.

张楠迪扬,张子墨 & 丰雷..职能重组与业务流程再造视角下的政府部门协作——以我国“多规合一”改革为例. 公共管理学报.

张平宇. (2004). 城市再生:我国新型城市化的理论与实践问题. 城市规划, 28(4), 6.

赵波. (2018). 多元共治的社区微更新——基于浦东新区缤纷社区建设的实证研究. 上海城市规划, 004(004), 37-42.

赵万民, 李震, & 李云燕. (2021). 当代中国城市更新研究评述与展望-暨制度供给与产权挑战的协同思考. 城市规划学刊(5), 9.

朱轶佳, 李慧, & 王伟. (2015). 城市更新研究的演进特征与趋势. 城市问题(9), 6.

朱新捷文/图, & 刘知依文/图. (2021). 浦东新区缤纷社区公众参与模式与机制创新. 公共艺术(3), 7.