整体性治理视角下社会救助数字化转型的逻辑与困境——以广州“云助福”平台为例

The Logic and Dilemmas of Digital Transformation of Social Assistance from the Perspective of Holistic Governance—A Case Study of Guangzhou’s “Cloud Aid for Happiness” Platform

摘要: 在数字中国建设与共同富裕战略背景下，社会救助数字化转型正从“技术赋能”向“整体性智治”范式跃迁。本研究以广州市白云区“云助福”平台为单案例，基于整体性治理理论的“协调–整合–信任”三维框架，运用多源数据三角验证法，剖析基层社会救助数字化转型的运行逻辑与结构性困境。研究发现，数字技术通过跨部门数据聚合与流程再造，推动救助模式从“被动申请”向“主动发现”转变，显著提升了识别精准度与响应效率。然而，转型过程面临深层治理张力：协调维度，部门避责逻辑与数据产权博弈形成“物理整合、化学未融”的伪协同；整合维度，算法工具理性引发“数字标签化”与“技术牢笼”效应，对弱势群体造成双重排斥；信任维度，算法黑箱与程序透明度缺失加剧受助者隐私焦虑与信任赤字。为此，研究提出制度协同、价值融合与信任重塑三重优化路径，推动技术效率与人文关怀的有机统一。

Abstract: Against the backdrop of the “Digital China” initiative and the strategy for common prosperity, the digital transformation of social assistance is transitioning from a paradigm of “technological empowerment” to one of “holistic smart governance”. This study conducts a single-case analysis of the “Cloud Aid for Happiness” platform in Baiyun District, Guangzhou. Drawing on the “coordination-integration-trust” framework of holistic governance theory and employing multi-source data triangulation, it dissects the operational logic and structural dilemmas of the digital transformation of grassroots social assistance. The findings indicate that digital technologies, through cross-departmental data aggregation and process reengineering, have shifted the assistance model from “passive application” to “active discovery”, significantly enhancing identification precision and response efficiency. However, the transformation process encounters deep-seated governance tensions: in the dimension of coordination, departmental blame-avoidance logic and games over data property rights result in “pseudo-synergy” characterized by “physical integration without chemical fusion”; in the dimension of integration, algorithmic instrumental rationality triggers effects of “digital labeling” and “technological cages”, causing dual exclusion of vulnerable groups; in the dimension of trust, algorithmic black boxes and a lack of procedural transparency exacerbate recipients’ privacy anxiety and trust deficits. Consequently, the study proposes three optimization paths—institutional coordination, value integration, and trust reshaping—to promote the organic unity of technical efficiency and humanistic care.