党的二十大报告指出，全面建设社会主义现代化国家，最艰巨最繁重的任务仍然在农村，因此必须全面推进乡村振兴，统筹乡村基础设施和公共服务布局，建设宜居宜业和美乡村，坚持山水林田湖草沙一体化保护和系统治理，深入推进环境污染防治，坚持精准治污、科学治污、依法治污。乡村生活垃圾治理，是改善农村人居环境、建设生态宜居的美丽乡村、打好乡村振兴战略的一场硬仗。随着乡村振兴战略实施、中国式现代化的推进，乡村生活垃圾治理成为各级政府的重要工作之一，各地政府因地制宜出台了乡村生活垃圾治理的相关政策措施，乡村生活垃圾治理的基础设施得到改善，治理工作取得了一定的成效。
但是长期以来生活垃圾治理只关注城市而忽视乡村，截至2021年底，中国仍然拥有69万多个行政村、250多万个自然村、2亿多个农村家庭、近5亿常住农村人口。庞大的农村人口每年产生庞大数量的生活垃圾，如果得不到及时治理，将直接威胁到乡村振兴战略实施和现代化国家建设。而传统的市场、层级、网络等治理模式，一方面忽视乡村生活垃圾治理的公共性，导致“政府缺位”这一“元问题”，引发政府失灵；另一方面又忽视社会组织、居民和市场的积极性，引发“搭便车”“公地悲剧”等“市场失灵”。乡村生活垃圾治理成为“被遗忘的角落”。因此，针对乡村振兴战略实施中乡村生活垃圾存在的“元问题”，引入“元治理”这一“治理的治理”模式，以矫正乡村生活垃圾治理中的“政府失灵”和“市场失灵”，改变乡村生活垃圾治理“群龙无首”的局面。本文以乡村振兴战略实施为背景，研究乡村生活垃圾“元治理”问题，并得出“政府天然是乡村生活垃圾‘元治理’的‘主主体’，乡村生活垃圾‘元治理’的‘主主体’天然是政府”的结论。对于解决乡村生活垃圾治理这一世界性难题，具有重要的理论和实践意义。
本文内容由八章组成，以马克思辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义作为根本指导思想，以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指引，运用马克思主义生态文明理论、乡村建设理论和治理理论作为理论基础，从理论与实证相结合的角度，指出乡村生活垃圾治理是关系到乡村振兴战略实施的重要环节，但长期以来由于政府缺位，导致“政府失灵”和“市场失灵”的产生，乡村生活垃圾对乡村环境带来一系列污染，引入被称之为“治理的治理”的“元治理”，以矫正“政府失灵”和“市场失灵”。政府作为乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的“主主体”，主要发挥宏观上的引导和监督作用，市场、社会、居民作为乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的“次主体”，主要在微观上发力。因此，政府的决策、居民的合作，是关系到乡村生活垃圾“元治理”能否成功的关键。本文围绕政府决策、居民合作两个主要层面，运用相关模型进行了实证研究，最后分析如何运用“元治理”工具，保障乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的成功实施。文章按照提出问题、分析问题、解决问题的基本思路和逻辑，清晰地回答了是什么、为什么、怎么办这些基本问题。
一是梳理了乡村生活垃圾的发生和演变经历了三个阶段，即原始化处理阶段、工业化处理阶段、循环化治理阶段。文章认为，工业革命以前的人类大部分时间都处于原始化处理阶段，是一种原始的“自然”消化方式，乡村生活垃圾不是问题，处于自然消化阶段；工业革命以后的几百年来，物质财富极大地丰富，大量的工业产品进入消费领域，生活垃圾带来了严重的空气、水、土壤和地表环境的污染，生活垃圾是个大问题，处于污染阶段；21世纪开始，人们越来越认识到生活垃圾的危害性，生活垃圾进入循环化治理阶段，即由政府、社会、市场、居民多元主体，协同应对，资源化、循环化治理，生活垃圾成为资源，成为财富阶段。
二是梳理了乡村生活垃圾产生的特点、原因及其危害性。本文认为，乡村生活垃圾增长是中国社会经济繁荣、人民生活水平提高的一个必然结果，它的产生具有垃圾数量庞大、成分复杂、无机成分比重提高的特点。其原因在于：乡村生产生活方式改变，乡村人口结构变化和流动性增加，乡村居民收入水平提高、消费结构变化，人民对生活垃圾的认知程度变化等。乡村生活垃圾大量产生导致严重的土壤、水质、空气和农作物污染，危害十分严重，包括：侵占土地、污染地表；倾倒填埋，污染水系；腐烂发臭、污染大气；传播疾病、危害健康。
三是发掘了乡村生活垃圾治理体系存在的“元问题”。长期以来，对生活垃圾进行治理主要集中在城市，广大乡村是被遗忘的角落和被忽视的“处女地”。乡村生活垃圾治理被提上议事日程是随着乡村振兴战略实施的推进才开始从传统的“处理”转变到“治理”阶段，但仍然存在着一系列问题，包括：乡村生活垃圾治理的法律法规不健全，管理体系不完备，既缺标准又无规划规范，基础设施薄弱，特别是整个乡村社会对生活垃圾治理的社会认知缺失，没有形成生活垃圾必须治理的社会氛围。其中存在的最关键也是最本质的问题，即“元问题”是：乡村生活垃圾治理作为一种公共产品，政府本该是主角，但长期以来政府缺位，导致“群龙无首”，无法解决“合作”与“竞争”的困局、无法协调“开放”与“关闭”的冲突、无法有效处理好“政府权能”与“弹性”的关系、无法有效协调“责任”与“效率”的关系，乡村生活垃圾治理出现严重的“公地悲剧”和“池塘效应”。
四是提出了乡村生活垃圾治理引入“元治理”的必要性。在市场、层级、网络等各种治理都面临着复杂背景出现“失灵”的情况下，乡村生活垃圾治理引入“元治理”势在必行，以“元治理”协调好市场、层级、网络三种治理模式，让“缺位”的政府“归位”或“复位”，通过“治理的治理”，确保市场、层级和网络三种治理之间保持有限的相干性，实现有机结合和同频共振，并能在明智混合治理中得到可能的最佳效果。当然，本文认为，引入“元治理”，并不是让政府作为唯一主体单打独斗，而是请政府居于市场、社会和个体等多元主体中的“C位”，担当起“元治理”的主角、承担起治理的关键职责。本文认为，政府不是“唯一主体”，而是“主主体”或“第一主体”，“市场、社会、个体”在多元化社会中依然是“主体”，不过成为“副主体”或“次主体”。本文用了很大的篇幅，从八个“只有”来论证乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的“主主体”天然是“政府”，“政府”天然是乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的“主主体”，政府作为乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的主角能够带来巨大的经济效益、环境效益和社会效益。
五是以“政府信任”为基础、以“投入—产出”为手段，通过问卷调查的方法进行数据收集，对“元治理”实施中政府的决策行为进行实证分析。本文采取调查问卷方式，从东、中、西部地区选择了有代表性的18个行政村共540份问卷，建立“元治理”政府决策模型，并通过模型分析，对“元治理”决策模型的6点结果进行讨论并提出了针对性政策建议。
六是进一步对乡村生活垃圾“元治理”中的“次主体”居民的合作意愿困境进行实证分析。在对乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的“主主体”政府的决策行为进行实证分析的基础上，进一步通过乡村生活垃圾“元治理”中的“次主体”居民进行实证分析，以居民的支付意愿与支付行为的悖离来表征居民参与乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的合作意愿，证实“元治理”在乡村生活垃圾治理的有效性。因为居民作为“元治理”中的“次主体”之一，其合作意愿、支付水平就直接关系到“元治理”水平的高低。模型分析显示，居民参与乡村生活垃圾“元治理”存在着合作意愿和合作行为相悖离的现象。本文在对影响居民合作意愿和行为相悖离的影响因素进行分析后，提出了化解这种困境的对策。
七是提出了乡村振兴战略实施背景下乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的工具运用。乡村生活垃圾治理作为国家大战略、大系统中的一个子系统，政府必须采用相应的工具，以使“元治理”有效。这些工具本文从三个方面来进行安排：运用正式制度，包括预算、人事和法律准则等，从经济、人事和法律三个“元治理”的关键元素上实现乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的目标。运用战略管理和绩效管理两大管理工具，从乡村生活垃圾的“始端”和“末端”，即“顶层设计”和“目标监管”两个方面进行控制，再辅之以纠错机制作为补充，保障乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的效率与公平。运用软法、信任和价值观等柔性的非正式制度，用社会资本作为乡村生活垃圾“元治理”的润滑剂。这三种工具综合运用，刚柔相济，则乡村生活垃圾的“元治理”一定能够大幅降低交易成本，取得良好的环境、经济、社会效益。

The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that the most arduous and arduous task of building a socialist modern country in an all-round way still lies in the countryside. Therefore, we must comprehensively promote rural revitalization, coordinate the layout of rural infrastructure and public services, build a livable and beautiful countryside, adhere to the integrated protection and systematic governance of mountains, rivers, forests, fields, lakes, grass and sand, further promote the prevention and control of environmental pollution, and adhere to the precise, scientific and legal treatment of pollution. The treatment of rural domestic waste is a hard battle to improve the rural living environment, build a beautiful ecological and livable countryside, and make a good rural revitalization strategy. With the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy and the advancement of Chinese path to modernization, rural domestic waste management has become one of the important tasks of governments at all levels. Local governments have introduced relevant policies and measures for rural domestic waste management according to local conditions. The infrastructure for rural domestic waste management has been improved, and the management work has achieved certain results.
However, for a long time, domestic waste management has focused only on cities and neglected rural areas, and by the end of 2021, China still had more than 690,000 administrative villages, more than 2.5 million natural villages, more than 200 million rural households, and nearly 500 million permanent rural residents. The huge rural population generates a huge amount of domestic waste every year, and if it is not treated in time, it will directly threaten the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy and the construction of a modern country. On the one hand, the traditional governance models such as market, level, and network ignore the publicity of rural solid waste management, resulting in the "meta-problem" of "lack of government" and causing government failure; On the other hand, it ignores the enthusiasm of social organizations, residents and the market, leading to "market failures" such as "free riding" and "tragedy of the commons". Rural solid waste management has become a "forgotten corner". Therefore, in view of the "meta-problem" of rural solid waste in the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy, the "governance of governance" model of "meta-governance" is introduced to correct the "government failure" and "market failure" in the treatment of rural solid waste, and change the situation of "leaderless" in rural solid waste management. Based on the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy, this paper studies the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste, and concludes that "the government is naturally the 'main subject' of the 'meta-governance' of rural solid waste, and the 'main subject' of the 'meta-governance' of rural solid waste is naturally the government". It has important theoretical and practical significance for solving the worldwide problem of rural solid waste management.
The content of this paper is composed of eight chapters, taking Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism as the fundamental guiding ideology, taking Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as the guide, using Marxist ecological civilization theory, rural construction theory and governance theory as the theoretical basis. However, due to the absence of government for a long time, "government failure" and "market failure" have been caused. Rural domestic waste has brought a series of pollution to the rural environment. The "meta governance" called "governance of governance" has been introduced to correct "government failure" and "market failure". As the "main body" of the "meta governance" of rural domestic waste, the government mainly plays the role of guidance and supervision on the macro level, while the market, society and residents, as the "sub bodies" of the "meta governance" of rural domestic waste, mainly make efforts on the micro level. Therefore, government decision-making and residents' cooperation are the key to the success of the "meta governance" of rural domestic waste. This paper focuses on the two main levels of government decision-making and residents' cooperation, and uses relevant models to conduct empirical research. Finally, it analyzes how to use the "meta governance" tool to ensure the successful implementation of the "meta governance" of rural domestic waste. According to the basic ideas and logic of raising, analyzing and solving problems, the article clearly answers the basic questions of what, why and how to do.
First, it is proposed that the occurrence and evolution of rural solid waste has gone through three stages, namely the primitive treatment stage, the industrial treatment stage, and the recycling treatment stage. The article believes that human beings before the industrial revolution were in the primitive treatment stage most of the time, which is a primitive "natural" digestion method, and rural solid waste is not a problem and is in the natural digestion stage; In the hundreds of years after the industrial revolution, material wealth has been greatly enriched, a large number of industrial products have entered the field of consumption, domestic garbage has brought serious pollution of air, water, soil and surface environment, domestic garbage is a big problem, in the pollution stage; Since the beginning of the 21st century, people have become more and more aware of the harmfulness of domestic waste, and domestic waste has entered the stage of circular governance, that is, the government, society, market, and residents have coordinated response, resource and recycling governance, and domestic waste has become a resource and a stage of wealth.
The second is to sort out the characteristics, causes and harmfulness of rural household waste. This paper argues that the growth of rural solid waste is an inevitable result of China's social and economic prosperity and the improvement of people's living standards, and its generation has the characteristics of large amount of garbage, complex composition and increased proportion of inorganic components. The reasons are: changes in rural production and lifestyle, changes in rural population structure and increased mobility, increases in the income level of rural residents, changes in consumption structure, and changes in people's awareness of domestic waste. The large amount of rural household waste has led to serious soil, water quality, air and crop pollution, and the harm is very serious, including: encroachment on the land and pollution of the surface; dumping and landfilling, polluting water systems; rot and smell, polluting the atmosphere; Spread diseases and endanger health.
The third is to explore the "meta-problems" existing in the rural solid waste management system. For a long time, the treatment of domestic waste has been mainly concentrated in cities, and the vast countryside is a forgotten corner and a neglected "virgin land". Rural solid waste treatment has been put on the agenda with the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy has only begun to change from the traditional "treatment" to the "governance" stage, but there are still a series of problems, including: the laws and regulations on rural solid waste treatment are not perfect, the management system is incomplete, there is a lack of standards and planning norms, the infrastructure is weak, especially the entire rural society lacks social understanding of domestic waste governance, and does not form a social atmosphere in which domestic waste must be treated. The most critical and essential problem that exists in it, that is, the "meta-problem" is: as a public good, the government should be the protagonist, but for a long time, the government has been absent, resulting in "leaderlessness", unable to solve the dilemma of "cooperation" and "competition", unable to coordinate the conflict between "opening" and "closure", unable to effectively handle the relationship between "government power" and "flexibility", unable to effectively coordinate the relationship between "responsibility" and "efficiency", and there has been a serious "tragedy of the commons" and " in the treatment of rural solid waste. pond effect".
The fourth is to put forward the necessity of introducing "meta-governance" in rural solid waste treatment. In the case that various governance such as market, level, and network are facing "failure" in complex backgrounds, it is imperative to introduce "meta-governance" in rural solid waste governance, coordinate the three governance models of market, level and network with "meta-governance", let the "absent" government "return" or "reset", and ensure that the limited coherence between the three governance of the market, level and network is maintained through "governance of governance", so as to achieve organic combination and co-frequency resonance, and obtain the best possible effect in wise mixed governance. Of course, this paper argues that the introduction of "meta-governance" is not to let the government fight alone as the only subject, but to invite the government to occupy the "C position" among multiple subjects such as the market, society and individuals, and to assume the protagonist of "meta-governance" and assume the key responsibilities of governance. This paper argues that the government is not the "sole subject", but the "main subject" or "first subject", and that "the market, society, and individual" are still "subjects" in a pluralistic society, but they have become "sub-subjects" or "sub-subjects". This article spends a lot of space to argue from eight "only" that the "main subject" of the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste is naturally the "government", "government" is naturally the "main subject" of the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste, and the government, as the protagonist of the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste, can bring huge economic, environmental and social benefits.
Fifth, based on "government trust" and "input-output" as a means, data collection is carried out through questionnaire surveys, and empirical analysis of government decision-making behavior in the implementation of "meta-governance" is carried out. In this study, a total of 540 questionnaires were selected from 18 representative administrative villages in the eastern, central and western regions, and a government decision-making model of "meta-governance" was established, and the 6 results of the "meta-governance" decision-making model were discussed through model analysis, and finally 8 policy suggestions were proposed.
The sixth is to further empirically analyze the dilemma of the "sub-subject" residents' willingness to cooperate in the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste. On the basis of empirical analysis of the decision-making behavior of the "main subject" government of the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste, the "sub-subject" residents in the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste are further empirically analyzed, and the deviation between residents' willingness to pay and payment behavior is used to characterize the residents' willingness to cooperate in the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste, and the effectiveness of "meta-governance" in rural solid waste treatment is confirmed. Because residents, as one of the "sub-subjects" in "meta-governance", their willingness to cooperate and the level of payment are directly related to the level of "meta-governance".Model analysis shows that residents' participation in the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste is contrary to the phenomenon of cooperation willingness and cooperative behavior. After analyzing the influencing factors that affect residents' willingness to cooperate and their behavior is contradictory, this paper proposes countermeasures to resolve this dilemma.
The seventh is to put forward the application of tools for the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste in the context of the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy. As a subsystem of the national grand strategy and system, the government must adopt corresponding tools to make "meta-governance" effective. These tools are arranged from three aspects: the use of formal systems, including budget, personnel and legal guidelines, to achieve the goal of "meta-governance" of rural solid waste from the three key elements of economic, personnel and legal "meta-governance". Using the two major management tools of strategic management and performance management, control from the "beginning" and "end" of rural solid waste, namely "top-level design" and "target supervision", supplemented by error correction mechanism, to ensure the efficiency and fairness of the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste. Use soft laws, trust and values and other flexible informal systems, and use social capital as the lubricant for the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste. The comprehensive use of these three tools, rigidity and softness, the "meta-governance" of rural solid waste will definitely be able to greatly reduce transaction costs and achieve good environmental, economic and social benefits.