本文選題：行政問責(zé)制 + 比較分析��； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：黨的十八大召開以來,新一屆中央領(lǐng)導(dǎo)集體對于反腐倡廉的力度不斷加大,許多省部級官員相繼落馬,在人民群眾拍手稱快的同時黨政系統(tǒng)內(nèi)部也對行政責(zé)任有了更加深刻的認(rèn)識,行政問責(zé)制問題再次引起了人們的關(guān)注和思考。行政問責(zé)制自頒布實施之日起就肩負(fù)著人們的期待,但是實施效果卻不是特別顯著。本文首先對行政問責(zé)制的概念、內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行了界定,由于目前學(xué)界對于行政問責(zé)制的界定各執(zhí)一詞,所以本文在結(jié)合了眾多學(xué)者論述的觀點之后給出了自己的解釋,行政問責(zé)制應(yīng)區(qū)別于首長負(fù)責(zé)制、引咎辭職制、行政責(zé)任追究等,是指特定的問責(zé)主體對于各級政府、各政府部門及其行政人員承擔(dān)的職責(zé)和義務(wù)的履行情況進(jìn)行監(jiān)督和審查,對不履行或不正確履行的,依據(jù)法定程序追究其責(zé)任,使其承擔(dān)否定性后果,從而實現(xiàn)政府及其行政公務(wù)人員權(quán)力與責(zé)任。隨后文章重點分析行政問責(zé)制的理論基礎(chǔ)。本文綜合行政問責(zé)制的內(nèi)涵追溯行政問責(zé)制的理論基礎(chǔ),并列舉了跟行政問責(zé)密切相關(guān)的五大理論,分別為人民主權(quán)論、社會契約論、委托——代理論、責(zé)任政府論、法治政府論等。在文章的主體部分,即重點對中西方的行政問責(zé)制度進(jìn)行了縱向的比較。本文比較研究的邏輯主要是從文化大背景的角度出發(fā)對具體的制度進(jìn)行比較,所以本文將比較的維度定為以下兩個,分別為中西方行政問責(zé)制度背景比較：行政問責(zé)文化比較；中西方具體制度內(nèi)容比較。同時在中西方具體制度內(nèi)容里,本文再次分為以下五個維度：行政問責(zé)的主體、行政問責(zé)的事由、行政問責(zé)的機(jī)構(gòu)、行政問責(zé)的程序和責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式、行政問責(zé)的救濟(jì)。最后文章通過以上大篇幅地對中西方行政問責(zé)制的多角度的比較,并且根據(jù)我國的現(xiàn)實的環(huán)境和條件,從而提出本土化的改革思路,分別為：完善行政問責(zé)主體,包括強化同體問責(zé)以及完善異體問責(zé)；完善我國行政問責(zé)的運作程序,包括行政問責(zé)程序的啟動,問責(zé)過程中的程序以及問責(zé)的救濟(jì)程序；完善我國行政問責(zé)的配套機(jī)制,包括完善政府信息公開制度、完善行政文化建設(shè)以及完善法治體系。
[Abstract]:Since the 18th National Congress of the Party, the new central leading collective has continuously intensified its efforts in combating corruption and advocating clean government, and many provincial and ministerial officials have been downgraded one after another. While the people clap their hands, the party and government also have a deeper understanding of administrative responsibility, and the issue of administrative accountability system has once again aroused people's attention and thinking. The administrative accountability system has shouldered people's expectation since the day of promulgation and implementation, but the effect of implementation is not particularly remarkable. This paper first defines the concept and connotation of the administrative accountability system. Because of the different definitions of the administrative accountability system in academic circles at present, this paper gives its own explanation after combining the views discussed by many scholars. The administrative accountability system should be distinguished from the responsibility system of the head, the system of taking the blame and resignation, the investigation of the administrative responsibility, etc., which refers to the supervision and examination of the performance of the duties and obligations undertaken by the government at all levels, the government departments and their administrative personnel by the specific subject of accountability, For those who do not perform or perform incorrectly, they should be investigated for their responsibilities according to the legal procedure, so as to make them bear the negative consequences, thus realizing the power and responsibility of the government and its administrative public servants. Then the article focuses on the theoretical basis of the administrative accountability system. This article synthesizes the connotation of the administrative accountability system and traces the theoretical basis of the administrative accountability system, and enumerates five theories closely related to administrative accountability, namely, the theory of people's sovereignty, the theory of social contract, the theory of principal-generation, and the theory of responsible government. The rule of law government theory, etc. In the main part of the article, the administrative accountability system between China and the West is compared vertically. The logic of this comparative study is mainly from the perspective of the cultural background to compare the specific system, so this paper will compare the dimensions of the comparison as the following two, respectively for the Western and Chinese administrative accountability system background comparison: administrative accountability culture comparison; Comparison of the contents of specific systems between China and the West. At the same time, in the specific system content of China and the West, this paper is divided into the following five dimensions: the subject of administrative accountability, the cause of administrative accountability, the organization of administrative accountability, the procedure of administrative accountability and the way to assume responsibility, and the relief of administrative accountability. Finally, through the comparison of the administrative accountability system between China and the West, and according to the actual environment and conditions of our country, the article puts forward the ideas of localization reform, which are as follows: perfecting the subject of administrative accountability. It includes strengthening homogenous accountability and improving allogeneic accountability; perfecting the operating procedures of administrative accountability in China, including the initiation of administrative accountability procedures, the procedures in the process of accountability and the relief procedures of accountability; perfecting the supporting mechanism of administrative accountability in China. It includes perfecting the system of government information disclosure, perfecting the construction of administrative culture and perfecting the system of rule of law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D035.4;D630.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 王宏偉;;我國行政問責(zé)制的完善[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)師;2006年03期

2 楊中林;論“行政問責(zé)制”的內(nèi)涵、動因及其完善[J];前沿;2005年08期

3 孔祥利;郭春華;;試論異體多元行政問責(zé)制的價值理念及其建構(gòu)[J];陜西師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2008年04期

4 楊海坤,章志遠(yuǎn);公民請愿權(quán)基本問題研究[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2004年04期

5 張創(chuàng)新,趙蕾;從"新制"到"良制":我國行政問責(zé)的制度化[J];中國人民大學(xué)學(xué)報;2005年01期

，

本文編號：1825215