From Hierarchy Management To Network Governance

With the accelerated process of Urbanization, the public demand of citizens for public services has also increased. In order to meet these demands, government has built a large number of public facilities throughout the country, including some facilities with negative externality. They are also called "NIMBY Facilities" and "NIMBY Conflicts" is a kind of confrontation phenomenon in our country in recent years. Usually, it has a huge influence and destructive power when the conflict happens in the Internet Age. It may leads to social protest even violent conflicts and shakes the legitimacy of the government.Because of its great influence, NIMBY Conflicts has become an important research topic in the field of public management. What’s the origin and core for it? What’s the process of evolution? How can we avoid and govern it? These are all the questions we need to answer. Through literature review and case analysis, this paper regards NIMBY Conflicts as the against actions of residents to safeguard their own interests and oppose to the NIMBY facilities built in their own neighborhood, due to the uneven distribution of cost-income of NIMBY facilities. The core of NIMBY Conflicts is the difference of interest claim between different organizations (mainly the government and the surrounding residents).It is found that the evolution of conflict often go through three stages:risk, event and subsidence. Each organization has different interest demands at different stages and the differences between them lead to the behavior choice of the organizations and the occurrence of conflicts. The author believes that in order to avoid conflicts, we need to construct a sound mechanism of interest negotiation. According to the structural-functionalism theory, a sound mechanism needs to have the appropriate structure. The mainstream hierarchy management structure has the problems of low efficiency, instability and inequality. It should transfer to network governance structure with multiple subjects, diversified means and interactive mode. Through the comparison of classic cases, we can draw the conclusion that network governance structure is better to form interest negotiation mechanism, better to deal with the complexity of the situation and better to achieve the utility of public facilities.On the basis of the conclusion, this paper puts forward the path to the transformation of network governance structure. Firstly, creating a diversified governance body, including the transformation of the concept of governance, training the main bodies’governance capacity, implementing cooperation governance. Secondly, enriching the means of governance, including the improvement of legal means and comprehensive use of a variety of means. Thirdly, consolidating the basis of governance, achieving mutual trust and cooperation, including the construction of the system of government integrity and information disclosure by means of information technology. Fourthly, improving the governance process, including regulating the interests of the demands of the mechanism and improving the mechanism of interest negotiation.