| 摘要: |
| 开发区托管行政区作为一种过渡性
的制度设计，一度成为我国高速城镇化过程
中的普遍现象，对开发区主体整合资源和推
动产业发展起到了重要的助力作用。但当这
种机制固化和泛化时，则会出现开发区主体
和所在行政区在空间治理方面的矛盾，进而
影响整个城市的空间布局优化和治理水平提
升。本研究以西安为例，归纳了开发区托管
行政区的各类典型模式，从市级政府和开发
区管理机构层面解析了开发区行政托管机制
形成和扩散的动因，并从产业空间布局、社
会空间治理、规划编制审批等方面总结了开
发区与行政区板块的空间治理矛盾。研究也
尝试从行政托管的空间规模、开发区发展阶
段、开发区区位和功能类型等方面解析托管
机制带来的治理成本和制度收益，以期能为
我国开发区体制机制优化和开发区—行政区
空间协同治理提供参考。 |
| 关键词: 开发区 托管机制 空间治理 制
度收益 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest. 20231110001 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家社会科学基金重点项目（22AZD052） |
|
| Typical model of administrative trusteeship of development zone and reflection on itsspatial governance: Based on observations from Xi’an |
|
XU Wen bo,WANG Xing ping,ZHU Kai
|
| Abstract: |
| Development zones are special functional areas oriented towards economic development
efficiency that were established after China’s reform and opening up. Serving as phased policy
objectives, China’s development zones have largely adopted the governance structure of management
committees, coexisting and intertwining with administrative divisions organized according to
administrative principles, forming a unique “dual-track” spatial governance model. Against this
backdrop, the mechanism of administrative districts entrusted to development zones has emerged,
which delegating the economic and social management authorities of specific regions originally
belonging to different administrative districts to a management committee of a development zone
without altering the administrative divisions. It serves as a transitional and informal institutional
arrangement. This governance model has largely addressed the issue of insufficient development
space in development zones, expanded their authority to allocate spatial resources, and consequently
enhanced the efficiency of industrial development. However, as this model has become more
widespread and entrenched, conflicts between development zones and administrative districts in
spatial governance have gradually emerged, affecting the optimization of the overall urban spatial
layout and the improvement of governance performance. Studying the typical spatial types,
mechanisms and motivations, spatial governance conflicts, institutional costs and benefits of the
administrative trusteeship model in development zones is of significant importance for enhancing the
institutional optimization of development zones and the spatial collaborative governance effectiveness
between development zones and administrative districts.Firstly, based on observations from the case
of Xi’an, the study identifies two main modes of administrative trusteeship in development zones.
One is the complete trusteeship model, where certain administrative districts are stripped from their
original administrative divisions and fully entrusted to the development zone for comprehensive
management. The other is the incomplete trusteeship model, where administrative districts delegate
their economic and industrial development functions to the development zone, while retaining social
governance functions within the administrative district government.Secondly, the study analyzes the
inherent motivations for administrative trusteeship in development zones. From the perspective of
prefecture-level governments, the trusteeship model can promote local economic development in
terms of industrial development planning, investment attraction, and service enterprises. From the
perspective of the management entities of development zones, getting more administrative space is
conducive to obtaining greater land development rights and achieving a new round of spatial growth.
Thirdly, this study analyzes the spatial governance conflicts arising from administrative trusteeship in
development zones, mainly including three aspects. 1) From the perspective of local economic
development, the large-scale administrative trusteeship will strengthen the plate boundary between the
development zone and the administrative district due to the large difference in the level of industrial
development between the development zone and the administrative district, the siphon effect of the
development zone on the unmanaged areas of the administrative region will be intensified. 2) Fromthe perspective of overall spatial governance, the strengths of development zone administrative committees lie in planning, construction, and industrial
development, but they have shortcomings in terms of capacity building and experience in social space governance. Limited by institutional and personnel
configurations, administrative committees of development zones lack the necessary governance capabilities for ecological and agricultural spaces within the
entrusted areas, leading to the emergence of governance blind spots. 3) From the perspective of planning formulation and approval, the lack of territorial spatial
planning and compilation authority in development zones may result in insufficient planning coordination in boundary areas, insufficient overall planning
among functional platforms, and an increasing trend of fragmented land use.Finally, the study explores the evolutionary trends of the trusteeship mechanism in
development zones from the perspectives of governance costs and institutional benefits. 1) From the perspective of trusteeship scale, the benefits of trusteeship
during the incremental expansion period can generally cover its governance costs. Conversely, blindly expanding the scale of trusteeship in the stock era will
significantly increase the governance costs of newly added spaces, making it difficult to cover their benefits. 2) The trusteeship mechanism can effectively
promote the development efficiency of growing development zones; however, mature development zones should consider promoting the “administrativization
of development zones” and shifting the focus of spatial governance from industrial development to the integrated development and fine-grained governance of
overall production, living, and ecological spaces. 3) From the perspective of the location and functional types of development zones, those that have been
highly integrated with cities and transformed into comprehensive urban areas should abolish the trusteeship mechanism. Specialized development zones located
on the outskirts of cities and focused on industrial production still need to retain the trusteeship mechanism for a certain period. |
| Key words: development zone trusteeship mechanism space governance institutional benefits |
