社会转型期社会形态发生深刻改变，政府逐步转变职能把属于社会的事务交给社会，社区民间组织、自治组织大量出现，居民参与意识逐步增强。另一方面单位制社会治理方式逐步解体，政府主导的治理方式难以解决新问题和新情况。城市社区治理主体的多元化发展与社区治理的单一模式成为城市社区治理的一个矛盾。为此研究社会转型期城市社区治理主体多元化发展问题力图有所突破有助于理顺社区治理主体的横向和纵向关系，具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。反思过去有助于全面把握现实问题。回顾城市社区治理主体的“两时期，三阶段”的历史演变过程，即转型期之前政府主导的单一治理主体与转型期间的发轫阶段、发展阶段直至十六大以后新发展阶段的多元化发展历程，认识到中国城市社区治理主体多元化发展面临治理困境，即：政府组织不再是唯一治理主体，深受计划经济体制影响而难以在职能转变准确定位；社区民间组织缺乏政府相关政策支持而独立性薄弱；社区自治组织治理手段落后而表现出低水平自治能力；居民个人难以获得制度化参与渠道而参与意识严重挫伤。借鉴美英两国在社区治理主体培育方面的治理实践有助于解决上述面临的治理困境。美英两国实践各具特色。美国基于社区中心着力培育治理领域的社会力量，英国城市社区治理重在政府推动下发展市场化治理方式。它们的治理实践提供了下一步改善治理的方向，即：要采用各种方式扩大社区治理主体参与程度以增加公开程度，要准确定位政府角色不涉及具体社区事务，要结合中国社会转型这一社会背景，不能脱离中国社区治理的特殊性。由此从社会转型这一背景入手分析，多元化发展趋势具有其客观性、理论根据和现实基础。为了适应社会转型期社区治理的新形势、新任务要求，培育适应社会转型要求的多元化治理主体是必要的。在多中心治理核心理念指引下，关键要提升政府治理能力，发挥社区民间组织强大的社会保障力量，完善社区自治组织的制度基础，重点做好提供居民个人制度化参与渠道。在此基础上构建社会转型期城市社区多元治理主体平等的合作伙伴关系，这种伙伴关系以平等与合作为主要特征，包括专业化的治理主体、平等协商的对话机制、有序而规范的权责关系三要素。

The social form has been changing deeply during the social transition, which the government functions have been reforming gradually and authorizing society more powers. However, units system is difficult to work well and government is not able to resolve new problems and circumstances. It is a conflict between the diversity of urban community governance and the single pattern of community governance. Therefore, it is necessary to study the diversity of the urban community governance actors so as to make clear the relation pattern. It not only expands theoretic scope, but also has great realistic meanings.It needs to rethink the past. It is helpful to grasp the realistic problems. Through reviewing historical process and characters of urban community governance actors’ evolvement, it is realized the actors are in a governance dilemma. The government is not single and its functions are not in place influenced by planned economy system. The civilian organizations are dependent without policy support. The autonomy organizations are with low governance abilities with lagged governance means. The citizens lack channels to participate community affairs with low participation consciousness.It is benefit to resolve the dilemma by analyzing the governance practices of U.S.A. and U.K. referred. The two are of their own characteristics. They provide the next directions. It is necessary to enlarge participation domain, hold government exact role and combine social background.The perspective of urban community governance actors has objectivity, theoretic and realistic bases. It is essential to adapt to requirement of social transition. Under the guide of multi-center governance theory, it is critical to enhance governance ability of government, play a great role of civilian organizations, perfect institution foundation of autonomy organizations and provide citizens regular participation channels. The equal and collaborative fellowship among governance actors is realistic choice. It has professional actors, equal communication system and order power and responsibility relationship.