公共政策执行的逻辑、困境与优化路径研究——基于史密斯过程模型的分析与“双减”实践考察

The Logic, Dilemmas, and Optimization Paths of Public Policy Implementation—An Analysis Based on Smith’s Process Model and a Case Study of the “Double Reduction” Policy

摘要: “双减”政策是近年来中国公共政策执行领域中极具典型性的案例，其在实践中面临的执行偏差问题集中反映了政策执行的结构性困境。本文以史密斯过程模型为分析框架，从理想化政策、执行机构、目标群体与环境因素四个维度，系统剖析“双减”政策执行的运行逻辑，识别四要素之间的核心张力及其互动机理。研究发现，政策执行困境并非源于某一要素的孤立缺陷，而是根植于四要素之间的结构性失衡：政策目标的模糊性与考核体系的刚性之间形成张力，执行机构面临权责错配与资源匮乏的双重约束，目标群体的利益分化与激励不相容加剧了配合意愿的不足，而应试教育的社会文化惯性则构成了深层环境阻力。四重张力相互关联、彼此强化，形成执行困境的锁定效应。据此，本文提出从政策设计的清晰化与弹性平衡、机构权责的匹配性调整、目标群体激励相容的制度设计以及社会信任生态的系统培育四个方向协同推进，并以“执行–反馈–调适”的闭环机制作为动态平衡的保障。本文的核心贡献在于：通过具体案例的经验分析，将史密斯模型从描述性框架推进为可检验的分析工具，并为“张力”与“动态平衡”提供了操作化的界定与可观测指标。

Abstract: The “Double Reduction” policy serves as a paradigmatic case in the realm of public policy implementation in contemporary China, whose practical deviations epitomize the structural dilemmas inherent in policy execution. Employing Smith’s process model as an analytical framework, this paper systematically examines the operational logic of the “Double Reduction” policy’s implementation across four dimensions—idealized policy, implementing agencies, target groups, and environmental settings—and identifies the core tensions and their interactive mechanisms among these four elements. The findings reveal that implementation dilemmas do not stem from isolated deficiencies in any single element, but are deeply rooted in the structural imbalances among the four: tensions arise between the ambiguity of policy objectives and the rigidity of assessment systems; implementing agencies are constrained by mismatched authority and insufficient resources; target groups exhibit preference divergence and incentive incompatibility, undermining their willingness to comply; and the socio-cultural inertia of examination-oriented education constitutes a profound environmental barrier. These four tensions are mutually reinforcing, creating a lock-in effect that perpetuates implementation failures. Accordingly, this paper advocates a systemic synergy approach encompassing four coordinated directions: enhancing policy clarity while preserving flexibility, realigning agency authority with resources, designing incentive-compatible institutions for target groups, and fostering a social ecology of trust, underpinned by a closed-loop “implementation-feedback-adaptation” mechanism to sustain dynamic balance. The principal contribution of this paper lies in advancing Smith’s model from a descriptive heuristic to a testable analytical tool through case-grounded empirical analysis, and in offering operationalized definitions and observable indicators for the core concepts of “tension” and “dynamic balance.”