Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)hpmailerpublished in(发表于) 2013/12/1 20:53:39 Management level of 44 Chinese cities ranking
Position by key urban management in China
1 Shenzhen 57.2 per cent
2 Beijing 52.8 per cent
3 Shanghai 47.4 points
4 Guangzhou 44.6 points
Shijiazhuang 5 44 min
The Beijing News (by staff reporter Wang Shu) in 44 cities, comprehensive evaluation, "Administration" and "management," "social management", "environmental management" 7 cities such as management performance indicators Beijing "social management", "environmental management" two indicators respectively, ranked 21st, 25th place.
Yesterday, in Beijing Academy of social sciences hosted of "third session China city management forum cum ' deepening City area reform '" seminar Shang, city management blue book China city management report (2012) under publishing, which by Beijing City Academy of social sciences City problem Institute Deputy researcher Zhao Jimin and the by postdoctoral Yang Bo wrote of China focus city management level evaluation under (Xia said evaluation report under), rendering out above content.
Investigation on "samples" consists of 44 cities
The evaluation report of 4 municipalities, 26 of the country's capital city, Dalian, Xiamen, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Ningbo, as well as 5 cities, Qinhuangdao, Lianyungang, Yantai, Weihai and Zhuhai, Shantou, Zhanjiang, Beihai, Nantong 9 coastal open cities and port cities are classified as research "samples".
Data based on information, such as statistical yearbooks, calculation of the weights of the evaluation reports out of the 44 City urban management level 7 indicators, including indicators of administrative, economic indicators, indicators of community management, environmental management, space management indicators, infrastructure management indicators, indicators of cultural management.
Beijing composite score in second
Results showed that in 44 cities, Shenzhen 7-index scored the highest, 57.2 points, followed by Beijing, 52.8; Shanghai, 47.4 points. But Beijing's "social management" indicators in the 21st, "environmental management" indicators in the 25th.
Shanghai, likewise, "social management" indices ranked 23rd, "environmental management" indices ranked 22nd.
Although the "social management" indicator and the "environmental management indicators", after UN-Habitat, but the "economic" indicators, ranked first in Shanghai, Beijing ranked second.
In this regard, the evaluation report suggested that "economic management and social management are two important aspects in the management of the city, which emphasize efficiency, the latter focusing on fair".
Analysis of the evaluation report, "the Shanghai, Beijing economic development level, economic management has high levels of the city, is close to the average levels of social management. In contrast, cities such as Lanzhou and Nanchang economic development level and management level is not high, but social management is at the forefront. This description to a certain extent, our urban community management depends largely on the city the importance attached to this issue and related management policies, participation in social management resources, rather than economic fundamentals ".
Interpretation
Sector interests affected urban integrated and coordinated
Why did Beijing "social management", "environmental management" is not ranked in the forefront? Blue book research articles as well as experts and scholars attending the Forum yesterday, views and perspectives were proposed separately.
The management of Chinese cities report (2012) set out in the Beijing city management system "reform, Department of urban management specialization management and sector interests have created urban management integration and coordination function; planning, construction and operation management of linkage cannot keep up with urban development, increase follow-up management difficulty", and so on.
With in publishing of China community development report (2012) under is discussion has community construction exists of problem, "(Beijing) community public culture service construction of funding sources main is city, and district, and street, and community (village) of financial, regional between public financial of income has difference, and expenditures also will lost balance"; "part community social organization uses Government purchased public service of system defects for tax evasion, reduced has itself of public letter force and social influence, further restriction citizens participation public culture service construction of enthusiasm At the expense of public interests. "
Beijing University of technology College of architecture and urban planning, City Planning Department head Zhang Jian about effect of urbanization in Beijing policy sustainability reasons. Her village of 50 run up an account in Beijing, for example, "50 charge to the room" upstairs works to ensure that the farmers, farmers ' interests, "taken after the first hard (50 run up an account difficulties, such as relocation of the village village) program, compensation is particularly high, now increasingly high demands of the peasants, the Government bear the cost of the urbanization is growing."
(Original title: 44 city management of Beijing is second)
中国重点城市管理水平排名
1 深圳 57.2分
2 北京 52.8分
3 上海 47.4分
4 广州 44.6分
5 石家庄 44分
新京报讯 （记者王姝）44个城市，综合测评“行政管理”、“经济管理”、“社会管理”、“环境管理”等7项城市管理水平指标，北京“社会管理”、“环境管理”两指标分别排在第21名、第25名。
昨日，在北京市社科院主办的“第三届中国城市管理论坛暨‘深化城市领域改革’”研讨会上，城市管理蓝皮书《中国城市管理报告（2012）》发布，其中由北京市社科院城市问题研究所副研究员赵继敏和该所博士后杨波撰写的《中国重点城市管理水平评价》（下称《评价报告》），呈现出上述内容。
调研“样本”包括44个城市
《评价报告》将全国的4个直辖市、26个省会城市，以及大连、厦门、青岛、深圳、宁波等5个计划单列市，秦皇岛、连云港、烟台、威海、汕头、湛江、珠海、北海、南通等9个沿海开放城市和港口城市列为调研“样本”。
以统计年鉴等资料为数据依据，《评价报告》加权测算出了上述44个城市的城市管理水平7大指标，包括行政管理指标，经济管理指标，社会管理指标，环境管理指标、空间管理指标，基础设施管理指标，文化管理指标。
北京综合得分排在第二
结果表明，44个城市中，深圳的7大指标综合得分最高，57.2分，其次是北京，52.8分；上海，47.4分。但北京的“社会管理”指标排在了第21位，“环境管理”指标排在了第25位。
上海同样如此，“社会管理”指标排名第23位，“环境管理”指标排名第22位。
虽然“社会管理”指标和“环境管理指标”居后，但是“经济管理”指标，上海排名第一，北京排名第二。
对此，《评价报告》提出，“经济管理和社会管理是城市管理中的两个重要方面，前者强调效率，后者注重公平”。
《评价报告》分析，“上海、北京这样经济发展水平、经济管理水平都很高的城市，社会管理水平却接近平均值。相反，兰州、南昌等城市经济发展水平和管理水平都不高，但是社会管理水平却排在前列。这在一定程度上说明，我国城市社会管理水平主要取决于各城市对这一问题的重视程度和制定的相关管理政策，而不是经济基础等参与社会管理的资源情况”。
■ 解读
部门利益影响城市统筹协调
北京为何“社会管理”、“环境管理”未排在前列？蓝皮书其他调研文章以及出席昨日论坛的专家学者，分别提出了观点和看法。
《中国城市管理报告（2012）》中提出，北京城市管理体制存在“城市管理专业化改革、部门管理和部门利益造成了城市管理统筹协调功能缺失；规划、建设和运行管理联动跟不上城市发展，加大后续管理难度”等问题。
同在发布的《中国社区发展报告（2012）》则讨论了社区建设存在的问题，“（北京）社区公共文化服务建设的经费来源主要是市、区、街道、社区（村）的财政，区域间公共财政的收入有差别、支出也会失去平衡”；“部分社区社会组织利用政府购买公共服务的制度缺陷进行偷税漏税，降低了自身的公信力和社会影响力，进一步制约公民参与公共文化服务建设的积极性，损害了社会公共利益”。
北京工业大学建筑与城市规划学院城市规划系主任张建谈到影响北京城镇化政策可持续性的原因。她以北京50个挂账村为例，“50个挂账村”工程确保了农民上楼、农民利益，但“采取了先难后易（50个挂账村为迁建等难点村）的程序，补偿标准特别高，造成现在农民的诉求越来越高，政府承担城市化的成本也越来越高”。
（原标题：44个城市 北京管理水平排第二）
赞